Domestic Passenger Manifest Information

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