Passenger Manifest Information

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