[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52155-52156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26252]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 243
[Docket No. OST-95-950]
RIN 2105-AB78
Passenger Manifest Information
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) filed a petition
for reconsideration of DOT's final rule concerning passenger manifests
on airline flights to or from the United States. NACA asked that travel
agents and tour operators be required to collect the full name of each
U.S. citizen passenger and solicit the name and telephone number of a
contact. Currently, this is required only of airlines. DOT is denying
the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Petrie, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20905; 202 366-9315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 18, 1998, the Department of Transportation published a
final rule (63 FR 8258) requiring certificated air carriers and large
foreign air carriers authorized to operate large aircraft to collect
the full name of each U.S. citizen traveling on flight segments to or
from the United States, and to solicit a contact name and telephone
number. In the event of an aviation disaster, airlines would be
required to provide the information to the Department of State and, in
certain instances, to the National Transportation Safety Board. Each
carrier would develop its own collection system. The rule was adopted
pursuant to the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. The rule is
intended to provide the United States government with prompt and
adequate information in the event of an aviation disaster on covered
flights.
Petition for Reconsideration
On June 18, 1998, the National Air Carrier Association (NACA), on
behalf of American Trans Air, Miami Air International, Omni Air
International, Tower Air, and World Airways, filed a Petition for
Reconsideration. The petition requested that the Department modify the
provisions regarding information collection requirements (Sec. 243.7)
in the final rule to require that tour operators and travel agents, in
addition to air carriers, be required to collect the full name of each
U.S. citizen and solicit the name and telephone number of a contact for
each U.S. citizen passenger boarded on covered flight segments.
NACA argued that the rule would be more successful if all sellers
of air transportation are required to participate in the collection of
contact information. NACA contended that the psychological environment
is more conducive to soliciting the required information at the time
the ticket is sold and the reservation made than at boarding, which is
often chaotic and confusing. It stated that utilizing the first point
of contact to solicit and collect the required information would reduce
check-in time at boarding. In addition, NACA stated that passengers are
more likely to provide their full name and contact information at the
first point of contact rather than at the airport.
NACA asserted that because tour operators normally prepare
manifests that include the full name of the traveler, the traveler's
ticket number, and other pertinent information, it would be very easy
for a tour operator to obtain the contact name and telephone number at
the time of sale and include it on the manifest.
Additionally, NACA noted that the Task Force on Assistance to
Families of Aviation Disasters recommended that travel agents and tour
operators, as well as airlines, be required to obtain the contact
information.
Comments on the Petition.
The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) supported NACA's
petition. It stated that NACA's proposal would lead to a more efficient
system of information collection because the information would be
collected in advance of check-in. ATA estimated that over 80 percent of
passengers flying on international flights use travel agents to
purchase their transportation. ATA said that collecting passenger
information at check-in was not desirable because it would delay the
processing of passengers, lead to slower and longer check-in lines, and
place additional burdens on currently constrained facilities. In
conclusion, ATA argued that modifying the rule will enhance the public
interest in general and passenger convenience in particular.
The American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims and the
Families of TWA Flight 800 Association jointly filed comments in
support of NACA's proposal. In addition, they asked that the tour
operators and travel agents be required to share this information with
the air carriers on which their passenger clients are actually
transported because tour operators and travel agents may be difficult
to reach in case of an aviation disaster. These organizations stated
that a substantial number of bookings are made via travel agents and
tour operators. In the case of charters, the air carrier has no
relationship with any of the passengers prior to boarding. The groups
argued that the change would be more cost-effective for all parties
concerned, and thus, would better fulfill the intent of the rule and
provide more accurate information and facilitate post-disaster crisis
management operations.
The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) opposed the petition
on substantive and procedural grounds. It noted that DOT considered
this issue at length and would have to begin another rulemaking before
making the change. It argued that the petition was untimely because it
was filed four months after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. ASTA stated that efficiency would not be enhanced by
having travel agents and tour operators collect the information, but
rather would result in wasted time because some of those from whom
information was collected would ultimately travel on a different
flight, or not at all. In other cases, the information will be out-of-
date and will need to be updated. ASTA argued that the only way to
obtain accurate passenger information is to collect it at the gate.
ASTA concluded that the regulation properly assigned the responsibility
to collect the information to the business that is actually providing
the service.
[[Page 52156]]
American Express Travel Related Services (American Express) also
opposed the petition. It stated that, as a result of travelers'
frequent changes in travel plans, the air carrier is in the best
position to know what persons are actually on the flight. American
Express also said that because airlines have cut their commissions to
travel agents, if the Department of Transportation requires travel
agents to collect the necessary information, then the result will be an
increase in the service fees that travel agents charge their customers.
It noted that travel agents are merely sales agents of the airline
principals, and that the legal requirement should remain on the
principal.
Apple Vacations (Apple), a major national tour operator, also
opposed the petition. Apple stated that its experience with passenger
reservations indicated that in order to get accurate and up-to-date
contact information, it must be collected at check-in. Apple also
observed that passengers currently are asked to complete contact
information on the reverse of the boarding card. Apple passengers are
asked to check in 2 hours before the flight, which in Apple's opinion
provides ample time to fill in the three lines of information on the
back of the boarding card. Apple noted that almost 100 percent of its
passengers book through a travel agent and more than 80 percent of
these bookings are taken by the travel agent over the phone, with
inherent mistakes in transmission of the information. It stated that a
travel agent would not want to imply that air travel is unsafe and is,
therefore, likely to advise the tour operator that it asked for the
information, but that the customer declined to provide it.
Apple further observed that each seat in its inventory might turn
over four or five times before the reservation is confirmed with a
deposit and a participant contract. Collection of the information any
time before confirmation would, therefore, be a waste of time for all
concerned. In addition, Apple noted that most of its trips are booked
several months prior to departure so that some of the contact
information would be outdated. As an operational matter, Apple noted
that it does not see documents and is, therefore, unable to confirm
either the correct name or nationality of its clients. In conclusion,
it argued that the petition would make the collection of data unduly
complicated, and would decrease both the amount of data collected and
its reliability. Apple believes that collection of the data by the
airline or its agent at check-in will be accurate and timely, and will
not impose any additional or undue burden in either time or manpower.
Reasons for Denial
After careful review of the petition and all comments, the
Department of Transportation has decided to deny NACA's request.
Pursuant to the final rule, the covered airline operating a covered
flight is ultimately responsible for compliance with this rule and for
communicating the information to the Department of State or NTSB. Only
the covered airline operating a covered flight is aware of the
passengers that ultimately board a covered flight. The Department,
moreover, finds no evidence in the record to support NACA's claim that
either the psychological environment is more conducive to soliciting
the required information at the time the ticket is sold, or that
passengers are more likely to provide such information at the first
point of contact. Similarly, the Department finds no evidence in the
record to support ASTA's claim that the only way to obtain accurate
passenger information is to collect it at the gate.
The Department of Transportation believes each airline is in the
best position to work out the most efficient manner for soliciting and
collecting the information, and we want to give each of them the
discretion to do so. For some airlines, this could be to solicit and
collect the information at the time of first contact. For others, this
might be at the time of booking. In its best business judgment, an
airline may or may not choose, as part of its agency contractual
relationship, to have travel agents and tour operators collect
information, and to work out an appropriate arrangement to ensure that
the information is solicited and collected. In the end, it is up to the
airline to ensure compliance with the final rule. In their joint
comment, the American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims and
the Families of TWA Flight 800 Association contended that the change
requested by NACA would be more cost-effective for all parties
concerned. If that is the case, there is a commercial motivation for
the parties to come to agreement on such a procedure without the need
for further rulemaking.
OST's rulemaking procedures are set forth in 49 CFR Part 5. The
procedures do not include any explicit process for petitions for
reconsideration. We are, therefore, treating this petition for
reconsideration as a petition for rulemaking and do not consider it to
be filed out of time. I am hereby denying the petition under authority
delegated to me by the Secretary of Transportation in 49 CFR 1.57.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 1998.
Nancy E. McFadden,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-26252 Filed 9-28-98; 12:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
