[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11789-11797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6394]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 243
[Docket No. OST-97-2198, Notice No. 97-4]
RIN 2105-AC62
Domestic Passenger Manifest Information
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This ANPRM requests information concerning operational and
cost issues related to U.S. air carriers collecting basic information
(e.g., full name, date of birth and/or social security number,
emergency contact and telephone number) from passengers traveling on
flights within the United States. This proposal is being issued
pursuant to the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996. This
law was passed to address the difficulties associated with notification
of families in the aftermath of domestic aviation crashes. This
proposal is also being issued to fulfill a recommendation contained in
the Initial and Final Reports of the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security that urges the Department to explore the costs and
effects of a comprehensive passenger manifest requirement on the
domestic aviation system.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 12, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
should be filed with: Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Room PL-401, Docket No. OST-97-2198, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Five copies are requested, but not required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Marvich, Office of
International Transportation and Trade, DOT, (202) 366-4398; or, for
legal questions, Joanne
[[Page 11790]]
Petrie, Office of the General Counsel, DOT, (202) 366-9306.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation is
requesting comment on cost and operational issues related to compiling
more complete passenger manifests in domestic air transportation.
The Problem
Families and loved ones of the victims of aviation disasters want
to know, as quickly as possible, whether their family member was on
board the flight. There have, however, been difficulties in the
aftermath of past aviation disasters in immediately determining who was
on the airplane and in notifying family members. Air carriers usually
have on hand records that identify those passengers that actually
boarded the aircraft listed by their surnames and first initials, and
these records must be matched with associated ticket information in
order to compile a verified manifest. The search then begins for
additional information to determine the full name of the passengers on
the verified manifest, and for information that could identify family
contacts. Passenger information that could identify family contacts may
not be immediately accessible to the airline if the passenger made his
or her reservation through a travel agent (as we understand about 75
percent do). Information from inquiries received by the air carrier
from individuals that think that a family member may have been on board
the flight is accumulated and used in the search. As sufficient
information accumulates, the families of passengers are notified on a
rolling basis, and those for whom more information may be available and
accessible, such as passengers with frequent flyer accounts, usually
would be notified first. All of the procedures leading to family
notification outlined above take time. Congress has placed a renewed
emphasis on notification and other issues involving the treatment of
families of victims of aviation disasters in recent legislation and the
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security reinforced
Congress' concern in its recommendations. The purpose of this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking is to gather information to help DOT
determine what, if any, regulatory actions it should take to address
the problem of quickly notifying the families of victims of domestic
aviation disasters.
Statutory Authority
The Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-
264, October 9, 1996) was passed to address the difficulties of the
notification of families in the aftermath of domestic aviation crashes.
It directs the Secretary to form a task force to, among other things,
improve the timeliness of the notification provided by air carriers to
the families of passengers involved in an aircraft accident. Further,
one section of the Act, codified at 49 USC 41113, requires an air
carrier to develop a plan for addressing family needs in the event of a
major crash, including providing a list of passengers to the NTSB. This
ANPRM will provide information to the task force needed to make the
recommendations required in the legislation.
Finally, the Office of the Secretary (OST) has broad regulatory
authority to ensure safe and adequate service in aviation. 49 USC 41702
provides that ``[a]n air carrier shall provide safe and adequate
interstate air transportation.'' The Office of the Secretary has broad
rulemaking powers under 49 USC 40113 to ``take action the Secretary * *
* considers necessary to carry out this part, including * * *
prescribing regulations, standards, and procedures, and issuing
orders.''
The Secretary also has broad authority to prescribe reporting and
record-keeping requirements. 49 USC 41708 provides that ``the Secretary
may require an air carrier or foreign air carriers to file annual,
monthly, periodical, and special reports with the Secretary in the form
and the way prescribed by the Secretary.'' 49 USC 41709 further
provides that the Secretary shall prescribe the form of records to be
kept by an air carrier and that the Secretary may inspect those records
at any time. 49 USC 41711 provides that the Secretary ``may inquire
into the management of the business of an air carrier and obtain from
the air carrier, and a person controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the carrier, information the Secretary decides
reasonably is necessary to carry out the inquiry.'' In terms of
enforcement, the Secretary has broad authority under 49 USC 46301,
46310 and 46316 to assess appropriate civil and criminal penalties for
failure to comply with regulations.
Related DOT Requirements
14 CFR 121.693(e), which is administered by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), requires certificated operators of large aircraft
to collect passenger names for each scheduled and charter flight. The
provision does not, however, require full name of passengers or
additional information such as phone number of emergency contact. The
provision further states that the aircraft load manifest must include
passenger names ``unless such information is maintained by other
means'' by the carrier. In most cases, carriers use other means such as
the ticket lift. In addition, in recent years, air carriers have begun
to routinely check identification for every passenger. There is
currently no requirement that airlines record or copy information from
this identification into their records.
Regulatory History
Aviation Disasters Outside the United States
The problems of passenger identification and family notification
after an aviation tragedy that occurred outside the United States first
gained widespread attention after the tragic bombing of Pan American
Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. The
President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism made
recommendations concerning passenger manifests in international air
travel, part of which Congress enacted as section 203 of Public Law
101-604 (49 USC 44909). This section provides that:
the Secretary of Transportation shall require all United States air
carriers to provide a passenger manifest for any flight to
appropriate representatives of the United States Department of State
(1) not later than 1 hour after any such carrier is notified of an
aviation disaster outside the United States which involves such
flight; or (2) if it is not technologically feasible or reasonable
to fulfill the requirement of this subsection within 1 hour, then as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 hours after such
notification.
The statute requires that the passenger manifest information
include the full name of each passenger; the passport number of each
passenger, if a passport is required for travel; and, the name and
telephone number of an emergency contact for each passenger. The
statute further notes that the Secretary of Transportation shall
consider the necessity and feasibility of requiring United States
carriers to collect passenger manifest information as a condition for
passenger boarding of any flight subject to the passenger manifest
requirements. Finally, the statute provides that the Secretary of
Transportation shall consider a requirement for foreign air carriers
comparable to that imposed on U.S. air carriers.
DOT published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on
January 31, 1991 (56 FR 3810) that requested comments on how best to
[[Page 11791]]
implement the statutory requirements. During the course of President
Bush's ``Regulatory Moratorium and Review'' in 1992, DOT requested
comments on its regulatory program and received several additional
comments on the passenger manifest information requirement. Many of the
comments received in response to the ANPRM and the Regulatory
Moratorium and Review indicated that implementing a passenger manifest
requirement would be very costly. In light of these and other comments,
and the fact that aviation disasters occur so infrequently, DOT
continued to examine whether there was a low-cost way to implement a
passenger manifest requirement.
When American Airlines Flight 965, which was flying from Miami to
Cali, Colombia, crashed near Cali on December 20, 1995, there were
significant delays in providing the State Department with a complete
passenger manifest. On March 29, 1996, DOT held a public meeting on
implementing the statutorily-mandated passenger manifest requirement.
The notice announcing the public meeting (61 FR 10706, March 15, 1996)
listed ten questions concerning information availability and current
notification practices, privacy considerations, similar information
requirements, information collection techniques, and costs of
collecting passenger manifest information, and formed the focus of the
meeting. The meeting was attended by approximately 80 people, and
discussion lasted nearly 5 hours and covered a wide variety of topics.
At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus that one or more
working groups headed by the Air Transport Association would be formed
to further explore some of the issues raised.
On September 9, 1996, Vice President Al Gore submitted an initial
report to President Clinton from the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security. Among the twenty recommendations contained in the
report was a recommendation to improve passenger manifests.
Recommendation 15 states:
The Commission believes that Section 203 of the 1990 Aviation
Security Improvement Act, which requires airlines to keep a
comprehensive passenger manifest for international flights, should
be implemented as quickly as possible. While Section 203 does not
apply to domestic flights, the Commission urges the Department of
Transportation to explore immediately the costs and effects of a
similar requirement on the domestic aviation system.
The Final Report of the Congress, issued February 12, 1997,
contained the same recommendation.
On September 10, 1996, DOT published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (61 FR 47692) that proposed to require that each air carrier
and foreign air carrier collect basic information from specified
passengers traveling on flight segments to or from the United States.
U.S. carriers would collect the information from all passengers and
foreign air carriers would only be required to collect the information
for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States.
The information would include the passenger's full name and passport
number and issuing country code, if a passport were required for
travel. Carriers would be required to deny boarding to passengers who
do not provide this information. In addition, airlines would be
required to solicit the name and telephone number of a person or entity
to be contacted in case of an aviation disaster. Airlines would be
required to make a record of passengers who decline to provide an
emergency contact. Passengers who decline to provide emergency contact
information would not, however, be denied boarding. In the event of an
aviation disaster, the information would be provided to DOT and the
Department of State to be used for notification. DOT proposed to allow
each airline to develop its own procedures for soliciting, collecting,
maintaining and transmitting the information. The notice requested
comment on whether passenger date of birth should be collected, either
as additional information or as a substitute for required information
(e.g. passport number/passport number and issuing country code), and on
whether U.S. airlines should be required to collect country of
citizenship from passengers on flights where a passport is not required
for travel. Were the proposed rule in effect in 1994, about 72 million
passenger (one-way) trips on flights to and from the United States
would have been covered, and, based on this number of annual passenger
trips, DOT estimated in the notice that collecting passenger manifest
information, excluding date of birth information, would cost about $28
million to $45 million per year for air carriers, travel agents, and
passengers (passengers'' cost is for passengers'' time foregone). One-
time costs to reprogram air carrier computer reservations systems
(CRSs) and departure control systems (DCSs) were estimated to be about
$30.5 million. The cost per passenger one-way trip was estimated to
range between about $0.39 and $0.63, and the cost of an enhanced
notification of a family under the proposed rule, on a per victim
basis, was estimated to range between about $238,000 and $364,000. The
comment period for the NPRM closed on November 12, 1996.
Domestic Aviation Disasters
The welfare of families in the aftermath of domestic aviation
disasters, such as those that occurred in Charlotte, NC, Aliquippa, PA,
and Roselawn, IN, in 1994, and in Miami, FL, in 1996, has been a
concern of DOT. Representatives of DOT have visited domestic crash
sites, met with family members of victims, and worked with air carriers
and with other interested U.S. Government agencies on the issues that
arise in the aftermath of an aviation disaster.
The treatment of the families of victims in the aftermath of the
ValuJet Flight 592 aviation disaster on May 11, 1996, in which 105
passengers perished, prompted a Congressional hearing on June 13, 1996,
before the House Aviation Subcommittee on the ``Treatment of Families
of Victims After ValuJet 592''. The hearing dealt with procedures and
coordination in the aftermath of the ValuJet aviation disaster in Miami
specifically, and domestic aviation disasters generally, including the
notification of the families of victims. During the hearing, members of
Congress made several points regarding notification of victims''
families of aviation disasters. One said that in the aftermath of a
crash three things needed to be known: (1) was a family member on the
flight?; (2) was he or she alive?; and (3) could family members get to
the site? This Member said that perhaps manifests needed to be within
the purview of the U.S. Government and that it seemed that airlines
ought to know who is on a flight of any substantial length. Another
Member said that many of the same types of problems mentioned in the
hearing were explored in detail in the aftermath of the 1988 Pan Am 103
aviation disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland; that a study commission was
put together; and that the results of the study commission were
contained in the ``Report of the President's Commission on Aviation
Security and Terrorism'' and were put into law in the Aviation Security
Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-604). This Member said that Public
Law 101-604 should be examined to see how it could be adapted to
domestic crashes. Later, this Member said that it was understood that
there would be costs of having good manifest information on hand, but
that the financial burdens must be faced up to by the airlines. A third
Member
[[Page 11792]]
wanted airlines to work on getting a manifest quickly. One of the
family members who testified said that it was distressing to not know
who was on the plane, in terms of the suffering of the family members
of victims, but also in terms of thinking of the security risks to U.S.
borders from not knowing. This family member went on to say that
airlines know with certainty the identities of about 75 percent of
passengers on international flights, and about 60 percent on domestic
flights. This witness said that, as a frequent flyer, the airlines
maintain much personal information on the witness, and that if the
airlines had incentives to do so, they would be able to access frequent
flyer information in the aftermath of crashes.
On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, which was flying from New York to
Paris, went down off Long Island, New York. There were 230 passenger
fatalities. Local government officials publicly commented on
difficulties in determining exactly who was on board the flight and in
compiling a complete, verified manifest. (Although this was an
international flight, the crash occurred in U.S. territorial waters
and, therefore, the Department of State had no specific role in family
notification and facilitation for U.S. citizens.)
The TWA Flight 800 accident focused attention on the security
aspects of air transportation and dramatized the problems related to
prompt notification. After the crash, there were a series of
Congressional hearings on the need for increased security on the U.S.
domestic and international air systems. On July 25, 1996, President
Clinton promised that ``we will require pre-flight inspections for any
plane flying to or from the United States--every plane, every cabin,
every time.'' The next day the FAA issued the directives to make this
happen, and today the FAA and the airlines are doing it.
The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security was
formed by E.O. 13015 of August 22, 1996, to advise the President on
matters involving aviation safety and security, both domestically and
internationally. It was directed to recommend to the President a
strategy designed to improve aviation safety and security, both
domestically and internationally. During the course of deliberations by
the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and in
other fora mentioned above, families of past victims of aviation
disasters were able to discuss the problems associated with the post-
aviation-disaster notification of and continuing communication with the
families of victims of aviation disasters.
As mentioned above, Vice President Al Gore transmitted the Initial
Report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security to
President Clinton on September 9, 1996. Recommendation 15 of the
Initial Report states, in part:
* * * the Commission urges the Department of Transportation to
explore immediately the costs and effects of a similar [passenger
manifest] requirement on the domestic aviation system.
The President accepted the recommendations contained in this
initial report, and on September 9 issued a Memorandum on the
Assistance to Families Affected by Aviation and Other Transportation
Disasters to the Secretaries of State, Defense, Health and Human
Services, and Transportation, the Attorney General, and the Chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The Memorandum invests
NTSB with the clear responsibility, authority, and capacity to assist
families of passengers involved in domestic disasters not determined to
be criminal. Pursuant to the recommendation above, the purpose of this
ANPRM is to request comment on cost and operational issues related to
collecting more complete passenger manifest information in domestic air
transportation.
The Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996, passed
following Congressional hearings on the treatment of families of
victims of aviation disasters, requires the Department to submit a
report to Congress on the subject. The information the DOT seeks in
this ANPRM will allow DOT to analyze the data and submit the required
report.
Overview: Passenger Manifests and the Domestic Air Transportation
System
The United States leads the world in innovations within its
domestic air transportation system. It was the first country to
introduce widespread deregulation within its domestic air
transportation system, and the overall efficiency of the U.S. system is
held up as an example to other countries. The efficiency of the U.S.
domestic air transportation system results in low fares, which enable
more passengers to travel by air, the safest mode of travel. To achieve
these results, the U.S. domestic air transportation system has evolved
into one that generally requires precise coordination and timing of
operations. In this evolved system, air carriers employ often hub-and-
spoke networks in which connecting traffic is fed at hub airports
either to the originating carrier (on-line service) or to affiliated
carriers (intraline service), engage in point-to-point service
operations (including shuttle services) that employ fast turnarounds,
and (much less frequently) offer services that connect with one or more
different airlines (interline service).
The U.S. domestic aviation passenger market was served in 1995 by
nine major air carriers, 21 national air carriers, 12 large regional
air carriers, and 132 medium regional air carriers. Of the 132 medium
regional air carriers, 18 used large aircraft seating over 60
passengers and 114 used small aircraft seating less than 60 passengers.
(The latter can, alternatively, be classified as commuters). The air
carriers listed above enplaned about 541 million passengers in 1995. In
addition to enplanement data, data on passenger origins to destinations
on the larger carriers listed above are also available. Such data
subsume the fact that a single passenger trip may involve more than one
flight segment, and, for 1995, show that about 358.5 million domestic
passenger trips took place on the U.S. domestic aviation system. The
number of aircraft departures for the carriers identified above in 1995
was about 10.8 million.
To complete the picture of the U.S. domestic aviation system, we
estimate that, in addition to the 174 carriers identified above, there
were about 3100 charter air taxis operating in the U.S. domestic market
in 1995. Data on the operations of these charter air taxis are not
systematically kept, however, and are not provided here or included in
any of the figures given above.
Economic Considerations
This rulemaking is significant under E.O. 12866 and the Department
of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures because of
public and Congressional interest associated with the potential
rulemaking action. It is anticipated that an eventual rule will impose
costs of more than $100 million per year on air carriers, travel
agents, and passengers, and thus will be a major rulemaking. The ANPRM
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.
12866.
For purposes of this ANPRM, DOT has developed initial estimates of
the costs of a domestic passenger manifest information requirement.
These estimates were derived by modifying for the present (domestic)
case the underlying economic model that was used to estimate the costs
of a proposed passenger manifest information requirement on flights to
and from the
[[Page 11793]]
United States (as mentioned above, the NPRM was published on September
10, 1996 [61 FR 47692]). A copy of the Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation, which goes into detail regarding the methodology used
there, is available in DOT Docket OST 95-950.
In the estimates below, no fixed costs are included. None are
included primarily in order to avoid possible double counting of fixed
costs regarding compliance with international and domestic passenger
manifest information requirements. That is, it may be that the
modifications to air carrier computer reservation systems (CRSs) and
departure control systems (DCSs) that would be required to comply with
any DOT final rule regarding international passenger manifest
information will also allow many air carriers to comply with a domestic
passenger manifest information with few or no additional modifications
and costs.
Two sets of estimates will be given for the domestic case. In the
first, it is assumed that passenger manifest information is collected
from each passenger (either once or twice per round trip) each time
that the passenger travels. In the second, this same assumption applies
to non-frequent-flyer passengers. For frequent flyers, however, it is
assumed that air carriers maintain full passenger manifest information
in their files, and that when a frequent flyer travels, the air carrier
needs only to confirm the passenger manifest information once per round
trip. It is assumed that one-half of all domestic trips are taken by
frequent flyers.
In both sets of estimates, it is assumed that passenger manifest
information consists of four pieces of information (passenger full
name, date of birth or social security number, contact name and contact
telephone number). It is assumed that it would take air carriers or
travel agents ten seconds to solicit and collect each of the four
pieces of information at the time of either reservation or check-in,
two seconds to just solicit each piece of information at the time of
reservation, and five seconds to verify each piece of information for
frequent flyers at the time of reservation. The number of passenger
trips based on origin to destination data, 358.5 million, is used in
the estimates. In so doing, the implicit assumption is being made that
domestic passenger manifest information can be costlessly shared among
any carriers that are involved in a single passenger trip.
DOT estimates that for the case (Case 1), where it is assumed that
domestic passenger manifest information is collected from each
passenger (either once or twice per round trip) each time that the
passenger travels, that the total annual recurring costs of a domestic
passenger manifest requirement would be between $108.7 and 217.5
million. These costs would break down as follows: air carriers $18.9 to
37.9 million per year, travel agents $13.1 to 26.2 million per year,
and passengers (the value of time forgone while providing information)
$76.7 to 153.3 million per year. The first year cost (without any fixed
cost included) for Case 1 would be $103.8 to 207.6 million. The present
value over ten years of the costs for Case 1 would be $701.5 million to
1.4 billion.
DOT estimates that for the case (Case 2), where it is assumed that
one-half of all domestic passenger trips are taken by frequent flyers
and air carriers maintain full passenger manifest information in their
files for frequent flyers and only need to confirm the passenger
manifest information once per round trip, that the total annual
recurring costs of a domestic passenger manifest requirement would be
between $79.1 and $158.2 million. These costs would break down as
follows: air carriers $11.3 to 22.6 million per year, travel agents
$12.0 to 24.1 million per year, and passengers (the value of time
forgone while providing information) $55.8 to 111.5 million per year.
The first year cost (without any fixed cost included) for Case 2 would
be $75.5 to 151.0 million. The present value over ten years of the
costs for Case 1 would be $510.1 million to 1.0 billion.
According to aviation accident statistics available on-line from
the National Transportation Safety Board, over the past 10 years there
have been 1,156 passenger fatalities on the types of carriers included
in the costs above--all domestic air carriers except for on-demand air
taxis. Dividing the present value of the costs of a domestic passenger
manifest requirement by the number of these fatalities gives the cost,
on a per-victim basis, of the enhanced notifications of families that
could be expected from implementing a domestic passenger manifest
information requirement. For the passenger manifest information
requirement in Case 1 above, this figure is $606,800 to $1.2 million.
For the passenger manifest information requirement in Case 2 above,
this figure is $441,300 to $882,700.
Another perspective on the costs of a domestic passenger manifest
information requirement can be provided by dividing the recurring costs
of the requirement by the number of annual passenger trips taken, as if
passengers would end up paying all the costs of such a requirement. The
cost per one-way passenger trip for Case 1 above is $0.30 to 0.61 and
for Case 2 it is $0.22 to $0.44. These numbers would double if the
calculation were being performed for round trips.
Finally, changes in the amount of time that it is assumed to take
to collect passenger manifest information have large implications for
the figures given above. The following are sensitivity analyses of Case
1 and Case 2 based on varying the time to solicit and collect each
piece of passenger manifest information from 10 to 15 seconds. The time
to just solicit each piece of information varies as one-fifth of the
amount of time to both solicit and collect it, and the time to confirm
frequent flyer information varies as one-half of the time to both
solicit and collect it. Headings in the table are the total time to
solicit and collect all four pieces of passenger manifest information.
The low and high estimates are for situations where passenger manifest
information is collected one and two times per round trip,
respectively. In Case 2, it is always assumed that frequent flyer
information is confirmed only, and that this is done once per round
trip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seconds to solicit and collect passenger manifest information
Type of cost ----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 sec. 60 sec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1
Annual Recurring (low)................... $108.7 mil............................. $163.1 mil.
Annual Recurring (high).................. 217.5 mil.............................. 326.2 mil.
US Air Carriers (low)................ 18.9 mil............................... 28.4 mil.
US Air Carriers (high)............... 37.9 mil............................... 56.8 mil.
Travel Agents (low).................. 13.1 mil............................... 19.7 mil.
[[Page 11794]]
Travel Agents (high)................. 26.2 mil............................... 39.4 mil.
Passeng. time (low).................. 76.7 mil............................... 115.0 mil.
Passeng. time (high)................. 153.3 mil.............................. 230.0 mil.
Per enhanced notification (low).......... 606,900................................ 910,300.
Per enhanced notification (high)......... 1,213,700.............................. 1,820,600.
Per one-way trip (low)................... 0.30................................... 0.46.
Per one-way trip (high).................. 0.61................................... 0.91.
Case 2
Annual Recurring (low)................... 79.1 mil............................... 118.6 mil.
Annual Recurring (high).................. 158.2 mil.............................. 237.2 mil.
US Air Carriers (low)................ 11.3 mil............................... 16.9 mil.
US Air Carriers (high)............... 22.6 mil............................... 33.9 mil.
Travel Agents (low).................. 12.0 il................................ 18.0 mil.
Travel Agents (high)................. 24.0 mil............................... 36.1 mil.
Passeng. time (low).................. 55.8 mil............................... 83.6 mil.
Passeng. time (high)................. 111.5 mil.............................. 167.3 mil.
Per enhanced notification (low).......... 441,300................................ 662,000.
Per enhanced notification (high)......... 882,700................................ 1,324,000.
Per one-way trip (low)................... 0.22................................... 0.33.
Per one-way trip (high).................. 0.44................................... 0.66.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions
In this ANPRM, DOT is interested in gathering up-to-date
information on how it could implement a domestic passenger manifest
information requirement so that U.S. air carriers can achieve the most
effective transmission of information after a domestic aviation
disaster at a cost that the general public and the aviation community
will find reasonable. We would appreciate additional information in the
form of answers to the following questions upon which to base our
proposal. For clarity, we request commenters to note the question
number in their response.
1. Basic Approach
This ANPRM envisions that both certificated and non-certificated
(e.g., air taxis) U.S. passenger direct air carriers and indirect air
carriers would compile passenger manifest information for all
passengers on all domestic flight segments in the United States. The
rule would apply to ``air transportation'' as defined in 49 USC 40102,
and not to general aviation. Passengers would be defined broadly to
include confirmed, ticketed passengers as well as standbys, walk-ups,
lap infants, those rerouted from another flight or air carrier, and
non-revenue passengers. At this time, we expect that the domestic
passenger manifest information would consist of passenger: (1) full
name; (2) date of birth (DOB) or social security number (SSN); (3)
contact name; (4) contact telephone number. Further, we envision the
information would be transmitted to the Department of Transportation
and the National Transportation Safety Board as soon as possible, but
no later than three hours, after the aviation disaster. Please comment
on the various elements of this approach. What is the difference in
providing the information to DOT and the NTSB in one hour versus three
hours?
2. Information Requirements and the Capacity of Computer Reservations
Systems
Our understanding is that air carriers often only collect passenger
last name and first initial for the manifest. By element, or overall
for all elements, how long would it take to collect the additional
passenger information that is outlined here? What are the practical
implications of collecting the information outlined above, in
particular DOB and SSN? Are any of the information elements substitutes
for each other? Should passengers that refuse to provide domestic
passenger manifest information be denied boarding? Were a domestic
passenger manifest information requirement to be imposed, where would
the information in practice be collected, at the time of reservation or
at the time of check-in? Do Computer Reservation Systems (CRSs) have
the capacity to hold the information that would be required by a
domestic manifest information requirement? In considering the capacity
of CRSs, is it more productive to think in terms of domestic passenger
enplanements (e.g., 541 million in 1995) or domestic passenger trips
based on origins to destinations (e.g., 385.5 million in 1995)?
3. Frequent Flyer Information and a Domestic Passenger Manifest
Information Requirement
We understand that more extensive passenger information is kept on
hand for frequent flyers, and that frequent flyers account for over
one-half of all passengers traveling on the domestic operations of some
U.S. air carriers. Are any of the information elements outlined above,
as a matter of course, kept on hand for frequent flyers today? If so,
which ones? Could the information above be added to existing frequent
flyer information? Could frequent flyer information be accessed quickly
in the aftermath of a domestic aviation disaster and, assuming
passenger information similar to that outlined above were kept as part
of frequent flyer information, be used to satisfy the requirements of a
domestic passenger manifest information requirement?
4. Privacy Considerations and Fraud Issues
What privacy issues are raised by a domestic passenger manifest
information requirement as outlined above? Will manifest information be
subject to subpoena by private litigants and law enforcement agencies?
What fraud issues, if any, are raised by implementing the above
domestic passenger manifest information requirement? What are the
implications for personal privacy that would result if air carriers
were required to collect any of the following information from
passengers: full name, date of birth, social security number, emergency
contact and phone number? What types
[[Page 11795]]
of safeguards, if any, should be placed upon the passenger manifest
information that is collected by air carriers?
5. Coverage of Domestic Passenger Manifest Information Requirement and
the Differing Implications, if Any, for Different Types of Air Carriers
That Would be Covered
We envision that all U.S. passenger air carriers and charter
operators would be covered by a domestic passenger manifest information
requirement: scheduled and charter air carriers, as well as air taxis
and commuters. Are there categorically differing implications of
imposing a domestic passenger manifest information requirement on these
different types of carriers that are not taken into account elsewhere
within these questions? If so, what are they?
6. Sharing of Domestic Passenger Manifest Information Within and Among
Air Carriers
As outlined above, we envision that all air carriers would be
covered by a domestic passenger manifest information requirement. That
is, scheduled and charter air carriers would be covered, as would air
taxis and commuters. Moreover, passenger manifest information would be
expected to be on hand for passengers journeys from beginning to end.
Thus, passenger manifest information for the various legs of a journey
could need to be shared internally within one air carrier (e.g. among,
perhaps, various air carrier information systems including carrier
internal reservations systems and Departure Control Systems [DCSs] and
external Computer Reservation Systems [CRSs]), or among more than one
carrier for code-share flights and interlined flights. Please specify
in detail for each case how such information sharing would be
accomplished, and outline any practical difficulties involved in such
intra or intercarrier sharing of passenger manifest information?
Indicate how such sharing would take place through domestic air
carriers' Computer Reservation Systems (CRSs)? Could it be accomplished
within existing CRS configurations or would the systems need to be
changed and what would the changes consist of (be precise and concise
in describing the changes and please present them in layman's
language)? If changes would need to be made, please provide an estimate
of the work that would be required to modify the CRSs and the cost to
do so (break out specifics of any cost figures given).
7. Implications for Different Types of Air Carrier Operations (Point-
to-Point) and the Current Frequency of Flights
The obvious implication of adding a domestic passenger manifest
information requirement is that it would take time to collect passenger
information, and that if the information were not collected before a
passenger arrived at the airport, there could be implications for
existing flight schedules. What effect would implementing a domestic
passenger manifest information requirement along the lines outlined
above have upon check-in deadlines and minimum connecting times?
Domestic air carrier operations can be conceptualized as being either
point-to-point or hub-and-spoke, with shuttle operations constituting a
high-frequency sub-case of point-to-point operations. How would
imposing a passenger manifest information requirement as outlined above
affect air shuttle operations where passengers walk up to the flight
without prior contact with the air carrier? Some air carriers have
structured their operations around very high frequencies of flights
that employ very fast airport turnarounds (some in the neighborhood of
20 minutes). How would imposing a passenger manifest information
requirement as outlined above affect such air carriers with very high
frequencies of flights or those with very fast turnarounds? How would
imposing a passenger manifest information requirement as outlined above
affect hub-and-spoke air carriers operations and current times for
connecting banks of flights? What would be the primary considerations
for charter air carriers? How would the information be collected on a
charter where the airline operates the flight but the charter operator
sells the seats? Which party should be required to produce the manifest
in the event of an aviation disaster?
8. Interactions Between Domestic Positive Baggage Matches and a
Domestic Passenger Manifest Information Requirement
If a positive baggage match system is implemented for U.S. domestic
flights, and a domestic passenger manifest information requirement is
also implemented, what, if any, interactions could be expected?
Similarly, if security profiles are developed on some passengers, what,
if any, interactions could be expected? Would implementation of a
positive baggage match system, on its own, result in passengers being
asked to report earlier to the airport for domestic flights than has
been the case in the past? If a positive baggage match system were
implemented and a domestic passenger manifest requirement were also
implemented, would passengers be asked to report to the airport any
earlier than if a positive baggage match system alone were implemented?
9. Domestic Passengers Manifests and Electronic Tickets
The use of electronic tickets (``e-tickets'') or ticketless travel
is becoming more widespread. It is our understanding that six major
U.S. airlines use them. Some carriers offer e-tickets only through
direct sales, while others offer them through direct, travel agent, and
Internet sales. In e-ticketing, passengers that reserve a flight
through a travel agent, on the Internet, or directly with an airline by
phone give a credit card number and receive a reservation number in
lieu of a paper ticket. At the airport, the passenger tells the ticket
counter agent the reservation number, shows identification if asked,
receives a boarding pass and gets on board the flight. While
identification checks for claiming e-tickets and boarding passes vary,
often, if the e-ticket was purchased directly from an airline, the
credit card used for the purchase of the e-ticket and a photo ID are
required to claim the e-ticket boarding pass; while if the e-ticket was
purchased from a travel agent, less stringent identification procedures
apply since it is assumed that travel agents know their clients. It
would appear, on the face of it, that e-ticketing via the Internet
would allow for the facile collection of domestic passenger manifest
information since there could be fill-in spaces for full name, date or
birth and/or social security number, and contact name and telephone
number on the form that the passenger would fill out when requesting
the e-ticket. It would appear that the challenges posed by a domestic
passenger manifest requirement for e-tickets sold via direct sales and
through travel agent would be similar to the challenges posed by a
domestic passenger manifest requirement for regular tickets. How, if at
all, would imposing a domestic passenger manifest requirement affect e-
ticketing? Please describe the differential effects of imposing a
domestic passenger manifest requirement on the various modalities of e-
ticketing, direct airline, travel agent, and Internet sales.
10. Implications for High Frequency Corridors, High Frequency
Facilities, and Peak Load Capacity
Certain U.S. air corridors and facilities regularly operate near
capacity.
[[Page 11796]]
Others do not do so regularly, but do operate near capacity during peak
travel days and periods of the year. Are there any special
considerations regarding high frequency corridors and high frequency
facilities that need to be examined in contemplating a domestic
passenger manifest requirement? Please outline these considerations in
detail and, if possible, provide concrete examples of the
considerations that need to be examined and the projected effects of a
domestic passenger manifest requirement. Please include considerations
of any needed expansions of facilities. In these types of operations,
what flight delays would result if air carriers were required to take
the steps outlined in the basic approach? Would there be any other
inconvenience to passengers? Would the answers to the above be
different in non-high frequency corridors and non-high frequency
facilities?
11. Recurring Costs of a Domestic Passenger Manifest Information
Requirement
What are the elements of recurring costs of implementing a domestic
passenger manifest information requirement and who would incur these
costs? Please provide estimates of these costs. In breaking out these
costs, be as specific as possible. Please also answer the question that
follows. If passenger manifest information is collected at the time of
reservation from passengers that subsequently cancel their reservations
or do not show up for their flights, costs could be incurred to collect
passenger manifest information from such passengers, and then, again,
for any passengers that eventually take the place of these passengers
on the flight. In order that the costs of such canceled reservations
and no shows might be incorporated into estimates of the costs of a
domestic passenger manifest information requirement, please estimate
how many passengers make reservations for every 100 passengers that
eventually board a domestic flight.
12. Fixed Costs of a Domestic Passenger Manifest Information
Requirement
DOT requests comments on the amount of fixed, one-time costs
associated with imposing a domestic passenger manifest requirement. We
would anticipate that these costs would be primarily the cost of
programmers' time (salaries and benefits) for the reprogramming of air
carriers' computer reservations systems and departure control systems.
There may also be costs for developing intercarrier computer interfaces
for the sharing of domestic passenger manifest data, and work on such a
collective task, if necessary, might be undertaken by an association of
air carriers, such as the Air Transport Association of America, which
indicated in 1991 ANPRM comments in response to implementing a
passenger manifest information requirement for flights to and from the
United States that it would do so. To the extent that work done to
prepare air carriers' electronic information systems (CRSs, DCSs, and
any others) for a passenger manifest requirement on flights to and from
the United States would also serve the purposes of a domestic passenger
manifest requirement, these costs should not be double-counted and also
attributed to the fixed, one-time cost of implementing a domestic
passenger manifest requirement. We ask that commenters provide
information in as much detail as possible, as well as all supporting
explanations of the source and derivation of the data. Further, would
travel agents incur any fixed costs if a passenger manifest requirement
as outlined in the ``basic approach'' were implemented?
13. Integration of Manifest Requirements With Processes for Expedited
Positive Identification and Notification
The Department has learned from its inquiry into the implementation
of an international passenger manifest that the resources required to
do so can be substantial. There, the information necessary to compile
as many as 770,000 manifests annually would need to be collected,
whereas, for domestic passengers, as mentioned earlier, the information
necessary to compile 10.8 million manifests annually would need to be
collected.
The purpose of collecting better manifest information is to remedy
past difficulties in this area. The most glaring of these has been the
inability of air carriers to rapidly determine in the aftermath of an
aviation disaster who was on the flight and respond to the inquiries of
families of victims that call-in and seek information on whether or not
a family member was on the flight. Assuming that adequate telephone
capacity exists and family members can get through to the airline,
having an accurate list of the passengers that are on the flight--even
without collecting data on emergency contacts--could allow air carriers
to respond compassionately to such inquiries. And, as a result of such
inquires, family members would identity themselves as such to the air
carrier, and thereby add to the stock of other information regarding
passengers that the airlines have available to them from internal and
other sources.
Another stage of notification involves contacting a family member
to inform him or her of the status of a particular passenger. This
stage of notification depends on the verification of the status of
individual passengers. This stage of notification and surrounding
issues, such as the disposition of remains and personal effects, has
also been fraught with difficulties in the past.
A broad examination of such issues is the subject of the Aviation
Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996, and, as required there, the
Department has established a 23-member Advisory Committee on Assistance
to Families in Aviation Disasters. Enhanced notification is one aspect
of the overall objective of providing better treatment of families in
the aftermath of an aviation disaster, and it, and other issues, will
be taken up by the Advisory Committee on Assistance to Families in
Aviation Disasters.
The Department needs information about the benefit in making
substantial increased investments in obtaining data on those traveling
by air and their emergency contacts, thus providing additional data for
enhanced notification of the families of victim, if, at the same time,
the process of determining and confirming the status of the passengers
in the aftermath of an aviation disaster cannot be accelerated beyond
some minimum amount of time. The Department must also assure itself
that any additional resources put into enhanced notification, or
particular aspects of enhanced notification, could not be better
directed to other elements of the treatment of families in the
aftermath of an aviation disaster. It may be that developing better
procedures for accessing the information that air carriers and travel
agents routinely collect on passengers could be a substitute for
developing new, overlapping information-collection systems that would
rarely be used.
Comments are solicited on any and all of the issues raised above.
In particular we urge commenters to assess the likely effect on
notification of the improvements contained in the Aviation Disaster
Family Assistance Act of 1996, and to develop and describe how the
notification process could be further improved, if this is felt to be
necessary, and to identify the best way to make any such improvements.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507), the Department has conducted a preliminary analysis of the
potential
[[Page 11797]]
information collection burdens associated with a domestic manifest
requirement. The Department's analysis suggests that if passenger
manifiest requirements substantially the same as those proposed for
international flights, to be imposed on U.S. domestic flights, the
paperwork burdens on the public could be substantial. If air carriers
were not to find innovative ways to collect the information, the burden
would be large. A perspective on the potential burden can be gained
from the following comparison of these burdens from international and
domestic manifest requirements with total Department of Transportation
information collection burdens on the public as of December 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation collection burdens Million hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total DOT Information Collection Burden (1996). 65.7
Passenger Manifest Information (Int'l) Proposed 1.1 to 1.4
Rule.
Domestic Passenger Manifest Information:
(Assuming a counterpart rule to the Passenger
Manifest Information [Int'l] Proposed Rule
were imposed):
Case I..................................... 4.3 to 6.8
Case II.................................... 3.2 to 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: The burden estimate for a domestic manifest requirement
have been extrapolated on the basis of annual costs from those
calculated for the Passenger Manifest Information [Int'l] Proposed
Rule. They do not take into account any possible advancement in
collection systems, which could greatly reduce the paperwork
burden.)
The estimates suggest that if both international and domestic
passenger manifest paperwork burden estimates are added together, the
burden increase relative to current levels imposed by all
transportation requirements would be on the order of a low of about 7.6
percent and a high of about 11.0 percent.
(Note: An average of the two cases for a domestic passenger
manifest requirement has been used to calculate the high and low
figures for a domestic passenger manifest requirement.)
The Department is currently engaged in an effort to meet its share
of a government-wide goal, required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, of achieving government-wide a 25 percent reduction in paperwork
by the end of fiscal year 1998. From the standpoint of the Department's
efforts to design an Information Simplification Plan consistent with
the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the President's program,
it is essential that the Department do everything possible to reduce
unnecessary duplication and achieve maximum cost effectiveness in
information collection activities affecting the public. The
implementation of passenger manifest requirements in a cost-effective
way will be a top priority of the Department. It is also hoped that
public input from this ANPRM will make a substantial contribution to
this endeavor.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act was enacted by the United States
Congress to ensure that small businesses are not disproportionately
burdened by rules and regulations promulgated by the Government. If a
domestic passenger manifest data collection system were proposed, it
might affect air taxi operators, commuter carriers, charter operators,
and travel agents. Some of these entities may be ``small entities''
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We specifically
request comments on whether there are additional small entities that
might be impacted by such a proposal and whether the impact is likely
to be significant within the meaning of the Act.
Federalism Implications
This rulemaking has no direct impact on the individual states, on
the balance of power in their respective governments, or on the burden
of responsibilities assigned them by the national government. In
accordance with Executive Order 12612, preparation of a Federalism
Assessment is, therefore, not required.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 243
Air carriers, Aircraft, Air taxis, Air transportation, Charter
flights, Foreign air carriers, Foreign relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40113, 40114, 41708, 41709, 41711,
41702, 46301, 46310, 46316.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 1997.
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 97-6394 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
