[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