[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43540-43546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16520]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 243

[Docket No. OST-1997-2198]
RIN 2105-AC62


Withdrawal of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Domestic 
Passenger Manifest Information

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department withdraws the ANPRM published in the Federal 
Register of March 13, 1997, 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. The Department believes that the difficulties that 
originally motivated the information-collection requirements in the 
ANPRM are now being successfully dealt with by air carriers and others 
in the notification process. The Department is unaware of continuing 
notification difficulties on domestic flights.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Marvich, Office of 
International Transportation and Trade, DOT, (202) 366-9545; or, for 
legal questions, Joanne Petrie, Office of General Counsel, DOT, (202) 
366-9306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 13, 1997 (62 FR 11789), the Office 
of the Secretary (OST) published an ANPRM requesting public comment 
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.

Background

    This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) was issued on 
March 13, 1997, in order to collect information to determine what, if 
any, regulatory actions might be required by the Department to ensure 
the quick and proper notification of the families of victims of 
aviation disasters. The request for comments was prompted, in part, by 
a recommendation of the White House Commission on Security and Safety 
and, in large measure, by the need at that time to remedy past

[[Page 43541]]

difficulties in this area, the most prominent of which up to then had 
been the difficulties in the aftermath of aviation disasters to 
immediately know who was on the flight and respond to the inquiries of 
families of victims that telephone airlines to seek information on 
whether or not a family member was on the flight.
    In the ANPRM, the Department said that 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 accurately and 
compassionately to such inquiries. The Department also noted that a 
broad examination of providing better treatment of families in the 
aftermath of an aviation disaster was the subject of a task force 
required by the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 and 
that enhanced notification to families of victims is one aspect of that 
overall objective.\1\ Toward that end, the Department stated that 
another reason for requesting the information sought in the ANPRM was 
to assist the task force in making its required recommendations. At the 
same time, the Department recognized that developing better procedures 
for accessing the information that air carriers and travel agents 
already routinely collect on passengers could be a substitute for 
developing new, expensive and overlapping information-collection 
systems that would rarely be used. Accordingly, it noted the need for 
information about the measurable benefits in notification time and 
accuracy to be gained by requiring substantial increased investments by 
airlines in obtaining data on those traveling by air and on their 
emergency contacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The task force required by the Aviation Disaster Family 
Assistance Act of 1996 was established as the Task Force on 
Assistance to Families of Aviation Disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Comments

    Sixty comments were received in response to the ANPRM. Commenters 
included the Air Transport Association of America (ATA); Trans World 
Airlines; Hawaiian Airlines; Southwest Airlines; the State of Hawaii; 
the Regional Airline Association (RAA); ERA Aviation; the National Air 
Carrier Association (NACA); Sun Country Airlines (2 comments); North 
American Airlines (3 comments); Harrah's Atlantic City; the National 
Air Transportation Association (NATA); Aspen Aviation; Aviation Charter 
Services; Boise Air Service; Byerly Aviation; Charter Services; Des 
Moines Flying Service; Direct Flight; Eagle Aviation; Elliot Aviation 
(2 comments); Executive Air Fleet; Executive Flight; Flight Services 
Group; Hampton Airways; Hill Aircraft and Leasing (2 comments); JA Air 
Center; Lake Mead Air; Marc Fruchter Aviation; New World Jet 
Corporation; Phoenix Air; Raytheon Aircraft Services; Sky Trek; 
Southwest Safaris; Spirit Aviation; Waukesha Flying Services; Wisconsin 
Aviation; Jennifer Wuertz, Chief Pilot of Mac Air; Alaska Air Carriers 
Association; the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA); the Association of 
Flight Attendants (AFA); the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA); 
Worldspan, L.P.; the American Automobile Association (AAA); the 
American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims, joined by 
individual families of the TWA 800 and Valujet tragedies; Mr. Richard 
Sobel; Mr. Steven Berry; Mr. John Gilmore; Mr. Samuel Wieler; Dr. 
Michael Walsh; the Social Security Administration of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services; ARMA International; the 
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC); the American Civil 
Liberties Union; and Mr. Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the Privacy 
Journal.
    The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) filed comments on 
behalf of its members (Alaska Airlines, Aloha Airlines, America West 
Airlines, American Airlines, American Trans Air, Continental Airlines, 
Delta Air Lines, DHL Airways, Emery Worldwide Airlines, Evergreen 
International Airlines, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines, KIWI 
International Air Lines, Midwest Express, Northwest Airlines, Polar Air 
Cargo, Reeve Aleutian Airways, Southwest Airlines, Trans World 
Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, and US Airways). 
Trans World Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and Southwest Airlines also 
filed individual comments. ATA stated that its members had been working 
to improve the dissemination of passenger manifest information in the 
aftermath of aviation disasters with the goal of doing everything 
possible to speed notifications, and would re-examine their 
notification procedures. ATA stated that the information-collection 
requirements in the APRM, if adopted, would erode customer service with 
adverse effects being felt most directly in reservations, ticketing, 
and airport check-in. ATA stated that the greatest detriment would be 
substantially diminished productivity in the domestic airline system, 
especially aircraft utilization rates. ATA stated that customers would 
be forced to part with sensitive personal information. ATA stated that 
the estimated time to collect information in the ANPRM should be 
increased by 3 to 4 times based on the results of an ATA-member airline 
survey. ATA stated that the estimated time to collect information in 
the ANPRM was too low also because airlines book at least twice as many 
reservations as they board. ATA said that the most sensible way to 
fulfill the desire to better assist the families of aviation accident 
victims was to concentrate efforts on refining carrier procedures and 
ensuring that public messages following an aviation disaster emphasized 
that only those persons who have reason to believe they had a loved one 
on the aircraft should call the airline.
    Trans World Airlines stated that it would incur significant start-
up training costs and capital costs to meet the information-collection 
requirements in the APRM.\2\ TWA stated that while these costs are hard 
to define, they had been estimated to be $14.8 million. TWA stated 
further that since it accounted for 5.1 percent of domestic aviation 
market revenue passenger miles, the total expense for the aviation 
industry for start-up training costs and capital costs could be over 
$300 million. TWA noted that these figures were many times more than 
the total estimated costs in the ANPRM for U.S. air carriers.
    Hawaiian Airlines said that because the tourist trade of the State 
of Hawaii is so dependent on interline-air-travel, and residents of 
Hawaii use air transportation much as other states depend on cars, 
trucks, and buses, a passenger manifest information requirement had the 
potential to result in significant disruptions to passengers and 
therefore the commerce and economy of the State of Hawaii, as well as 
Hawaiian Airlines. Southwest Airlines stated that the harmful effects 
of the information-collection requirements contemplated in the ANPRM 
would fall most heavily on the patrons of low-cost, high-productivity 
airlines such as Southwest. Southwest stated that a relatively high 
proportion of its passengers arrive at the airport without 
reservations, purchase their tickets shortly before flight, and depend 
upon Southwest's frequent departures. Southwest stated that the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM would add passenger-
processing time at the airport that would spill over to the boarding 
process at the gate and the turnaround time of Southwest's aircraft.

[[Page 43542]]

Southwest stated that it had studied the impact of changes in 
turnaround time on aircraft utilization and found that even a 5-minute 
delay in Southwest's average aircraft turnaround time would force the 
elimination of approximately 125 daily flight segments. Southwest also 
stated that the information-collection requirements in the ANPRM, 
because they would require passengers to transmit personal and 
sensitive information over the Internet and Southwest to store this 
information, would likely jeopardize Southwest's cost-efficient 
electronic ticketing and Internet booking programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although TWA was a major airline at the time it filed its 
comments, American Airlines subsequently purchased TWA and its 
operations were merged with those of American.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Hawaii stated that it occupies one of the most 
geographically isolated land masses in the world and is uniquely 
dependent on air transportation to permit residents and tourists to fly 
from one island to another, and to link the islands comprising the 
State of Hawaii to the rest of the Nation. The State of Hawaii joined 
in the comments filed by Hawaiian Airlines. The State of Hawaii stated 
that the burdens imposed by the information-collection requirements in 
the ANPRM would translate into increased costs and fares and noted that 
Hawaii's local air carriers, Hawaiian and Aloha, both rely extensively 
on interline passengers. The State of Hawaii urged DOT to consider 
other, less intrusive and more cost-effective mechanisms that would 
permit prompt notification to family members in the unfortunate event 
of an aviation disaster and not place additional burdens on interline 
passengers.
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA), which is comprised of 75 
member airlines that provide service at 733 airports in the United 
States (500 of which depend exclusively on regional air carriers for 
access to the U.S. transportation system), stated that passengers fly 
on its member airlines to save time, and the imposition of the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM would result in 
passenger delays, as well as intrude into the personal privacy of air 
travelers. RAA said that the resources needed to maintain existing 
airport check-in times and collect additional passenger information 
could make it infeasible for its member airlines to continue to serve 
some communities either at all or as frequently as they now do. RAA 
noted that in light of the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 
1996 (ADFAA), all airlines are investigating improvements in their 
systems of verifying passenger manifests and have enhanced their 
systems for accommodating telephone calls after an aviation accident. 
RAA stated that it believed that actions taken in response to the ADFAA 
would significantly improve the process of family notification. RAA 
stated, however, that it is very difficult to produce an accurate 
manifest quickly in the aftermath of an aviation disaster and the 
absolute accuracy of the manifest must be insured before it is 
released. ERA Aviation, a small regional carrier located in Anchorage, 
Alaska, said it did not have the database resources needed to maintain 
additional passenger manifest information, and did not believe that 
passengers would want airlines to keep such information in their 
computers. As an alternative, ERA suggested that DOT supply a 
standardized form and make it available throughout the airport or gate 
area in display stands. Passengers would complete the form on a 
voluntary basis, and the only obligation of the airline would be to 
accept the information provided by passengers, if they chose to do so. 
ERA suggested that DOT employ such a system for all modes of 
transportation that DOT oversees (rail, bus, plane, or boat).
    The National Air Carrier Association (NACA), an association of 
member airlines specializing in passenger charter services, stated that 
one member airline had provided it with a list of recommended 
implementation methods. NACA estimated that, if followed, they would 
double existing one-hour domestic check-in times to two hours. NACA 
stated that it was concerned about numerous data collection efforts, 
both in effect and proposed, on the part of a variety of federal 
agencies, that could result in inefficient data collection and 
dissemination requirements. Sun Country Airlines, a charter airline, 
filed a comment and later testified before the Task Force on Assistance 
to Families of Aviation Disasters. In sum, Sun Country stated that it 
supported information-collection requirements, such as in the ANPRM, 
for those involved with air charters to deal with difficulties in 
contacting next-of-kin in the aftermath of an aviation disaster. Sun 
Country recommended removing date of birth or social security account 
number, however, because it felt that neither was useful to the 
notification process. Sun Country said that such a requirement should 
extend to charter operators and travel agents, because the additional 
information could be obtained most efficiently at the time of 
reservation, and charter operators and travel agents (and not the 
charter airline) had contact with passengers at the time of 
reservation. Sun Country said that collecting information at the 
airport would be the least efficient way to obtain it. Sun Country 
stated that it could not accurately gauge the costs of the information-
collection requirements in the ANPRM since, as a charter airline, it 
did not generally make direct passenger reservations. North American 
Airlines (NAA), a charter airline, filed a comment and later testified 
before the Task Force on Assistance to Families of Aviation Disasters. 
NAA also filed a supplemental comment in which it addressed single 
entity charters. NAA stated that care must be taken to avoid making 
mistakes in notifying families in the aftermath of an aviation disaster 
and the issues involved in notifying families are more complicated than 
they appear. NAA said that full name, phone number (including area 
code), and hometown were the only elements of passenger manifest 
information that were needed. NAA predicted that passengers would 
object to providing social security account numbers on privacy grounds, 
and said collecting birth dates could lead to age discrimination 
complaints by bumped passengers. NAA said that requiring the collection 
of the same information by both scheduled and charter airlines would be 
extremely difficult because charter airlines did not have computer 
reservation systems (CRSs) or frequent flyer programs where the 
proposed information could be stored and accessed. NAA said that the 
DOT analysis of the costs of the information-collection requirements in 
the ANPRM had ignored the greatest cost, the decrease in utilization of 
aircraft that would occur because collecting additional passenger 
manifest information would increase boarding times and this would eat 
into aircraft utilization. NAA stated that the best way (better even 
than CRS collection) to ensure the collection of vital information 
would be along the lines of a Pan Am 103 family suggestion: A 
perforated stub on the boarding card that could, as each passenger 
boards, be torn off and kept by the airline. NAA estimated that it 
would realistically take at least a minute for the passenger to fill 
out the stub, and extra airline manpower and time would be required to 
explain the process to passengers and assist them in filling out the 
information requested on the stub. In its comment, NAA said that it had 
adopted such a procedure on its regular charter flights. Later, in its 
testimony before the Task Force on Assistance to Families of Aviation 
Disasters, NAA said that based on a few months experience, the 
procedure was working. NAA said that one reason it worked was that NAA

[[Page 43543]]

required passengers on its regular chartered flight to check-in 1\1/2\-
2 hours before departure, and noted that normal scheduled flights did 
not have this big a window for the check-in process. NAA's supplemental 
comment, as mentioned above, dealt with single entity charters: A 
single entity charter is a charter where one entity (often a company, 
school, nonprofit organization, sports team, or individual) both 
arranges and pays for the charter. NAA said it would not be appropriate 
to require additional information from passengers on single entity 
charters since the passengers would likely resist giving information on 
privacy grounds and often the single chartering entity would know the 
passengers and already have information on hand for them.
    Harrah's Atlantic City, an operator of a major hotel, casino, 
resort and entertainment complex in Atlantic City, New Jersey, stated 
that it had for the past several years conducted public charter flights 
between various eastern cities in the United States and Atlantic City. 
Harrah's said that DOT, before proceeding further, should explore 
working with the air carrier industry on a voluntary, consensual basis 
toward improved next-of-kin notification. Harrah's said that to the 
extent that accountability for manifest information were to rest, 
actually or potentially, with an entity other than the direct air 
carrier, confusion could result that would defeat the purpose of the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM. Thus, Harrah's urged 
DOT to eliminate charter operators and other indirect air carriers 
(e.g., bulk fare contractors) from the potential coverage of any 
passenger manifest information requirement ultimately adopted. Harrah's 
stated that the manifest information requirements in the ANPRM were 
unnecessarily broad and that passengers should be required only to 
provide their full names, all other information should be voluntary.
    The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) filed comments 
on behalf of its members, who operate on-demand air charters with small 
aircraft pursuant to 14 CFR part 135 of the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and 14 CFR part 298 
of the Department's economic regulations. The following 25 FAR Part 135 
on-demand air charter carriers also filed a total of 27 individual 
comments: Aspen Aviation, Aviation Charter Services, Boise Air Service, 
Byerly Aviation, Charter Services, Des Moines Flying Service, Direct 
Flight, Eagle Aviation, Elliot Aviation (2 comments), Executive Air 
Fleet, Executive Flight, Flight Services Group, Hampton Airways, Hill 
Aircraft and Leasing (2 comments), JA Air Center, Lake Mead Air, Marc 
Fruchter Aviation, New World Jet Corporation, Phoenix Air, Raytheon 
Aircraft Services, Sky Trek, Southwest Safaris, Spirit Aviation, 
Waukesha Flying Services, and Wisconsin Aviation. In addition, Jennifer 
Wuertz, Chief Pilot of Mac Air, filed comments regarding FAR Part 135 
on-demand air charters, as did a state air carrier association, the 
Alaska Air Carriers Association. All those commenting regarding FAR 
Part 135 on-demand air charter carriers strongly urged DOT not to 
impose the information-collection requirements in the ANPRM on such 
carriers. Those commenters stated, among other things, that FAR Part 
135 on-demand air carriers have never experienced difficulties with 
notification of families in the aftermath of a FAR Part 135 on-demand 
air charter flight that ended in disaster, the characteristics of these 
carriers makes the likelihood of family notification difficulties 
small, and the financial burden that they would bear if they were 
subjected to the information-collection requirements in the ANPRM would 
be disproportionately greater than for larger carriers.
    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents 46,000 
pilots that fly for 45 airlines, supported developing an enhanced 
domestic passenger manifest information collection effort for reasons 
of airline safety and security. ALPA stated that doing so could 
increase the accuracy of aircraft weight and balance computations, 
would aid security efforts geared toward unaccompanied baggage, and 
could provide an additional layer of security because passengers with 
nefarious intentions toward airline security would be reluctant to 
divulge the information in the ANPRM and might not fly. Regarding 
technology, ALPA suggested that the use of the two-dimensional bar code 
be explored.
    The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), which represents 40,000 
flight attendants at 26 carriers, stated that collecting additional 
information from passengers on domestic flights was necessary for 
further enhancing airline response to aviation disasters. AFA noted 
that operators of large aircraft are already required to collect 
passenger names on each flight and that adding an additional question 
on an emergency contact name should be done. AFA said that while doing 
so would add costs, it was important for the family to know the status 
of the passenger so that the family would be spared heightened anxiety 
and frustration. AFA said that no matter what the financial burden, the 
families of victims need to know the status of their relatives as soon 
as possible.
    The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), which represents 
about 16,000 domestic agency locations and members in about 168 foreign 
countries, said that it was in favor of collecting additional passenger 
manifest information through a simple paper form that passengers would 
understand and be able to fill out at the airport. ASTA said that it 
would, however, take longer to provide passenger manifest information 
than the 40 seconds estimated in the ANPRM. ASTA stated that it was 
concerned that a ``performance standard'' approach to the collection of 
passenger manifest information, where every airline got to choose how 
it would meet the requirement, could result in varying requirements on 
travel agents. ASTA believed that collecting passenger manifest 
information though reservations with missing information provided at 
the airport would result in conflict, confusion, and delay at airport 
gate areas. ASTA suggested instead a simple cloning of the standard 
U.S. Customs Service form, with each passenger completing the form at 
the airport at the time of enplanement. ASTA said that since airlines 
are not required to verify the information provided to them, the forms 
could just be collected and put into a pile or envelope by the gate 
attendant (who is typically compiling other piles of ticket coupons and 
boarding passes), and then turned over to a central depository at the 
airport for use in case of an aviation disaster.
    Worldspan, L.P., a computer reservations system (CRS) at the time 
owned principally by Delta, Northwest, and TWA, stated that it stood 
ready to do its part to usefully collect passenger manifest information 
through a CRS, but saw practical and policy limits both in doing so and 
assuring that passenger manifests are as complete and accurate as 
Congress and DOT might wish. Worldspan said that there is no guarantee 
that a reservation made results in a passenger boarded, and a passenger 
boarded may do so without making a reservation. Worldspan concluded 
that the CRS could not alone be depended upon and each airline would 
have to be ultimately responsible for satisfying manifest requirements 
for the passengers it actually boards. Worldspan stated that while it 
could program its system to require the input of additional passenger 
manifest information before allowing a reservation to be completed, it 
would have no way of knowing whether the

[[Page 43544]]

information entered by the user was truly responsive or was just being 
input to override such system conventions. Worldspan said that if 
another means of confirming identity in addition to full name were 
required, date of birth would be preferable to social security account 
number, which, once known, generally facilitates access to other 
sources of private information about individuals. Worldspan said that 
no CRS can make its passengers records totally secure from unauthorized 
use. Worldspan said that it would be better to require two emergency 
contact telephone numbers without an emergency contact name instead of 
one emergency contact name and number. Worldspan said that in cases 
where an emergency contact did not have a telephone number, an 
emergency contact address should be accepted.
    The American Automobile Association (AAA) stated that it has nearly 
40 million members, many of whom are frequent travelers, and operates 
almost one thousand travel agencies, which serve both the general 
public and AAA members. AAA stated that an informal survey of some of 
its travel agency managers showed that time spent making bookings could 
increase by at least 20 percent if information-collection requirements 
along the lines of the ANPRM were implemented. AAA stated that these 
travel agency managers also thought that collecting social security 
account numbers would raise serious privacy concerns, and collecting 
date of birth and emergency contact information would be problematic. 
AAA stated, furthermore, that it was concerned with the accuracy of 
information provided by passengers who may be reluctant to provide it 
due to privacy concerns. AAA said that since the accuracy of the 
information would not be checked, false information could be acted on 
in the aftermath of an aviation disaster and liability issues could 
arise. AAA said that collecting information at the airport could lead 
to long check-in lines. AAA said it agreed with the phrase in the 
ANPRM, ``* * * 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.'' 
AAA urged DOT to explore all other available alternatives to help 
families of airline crash victims before requiring passenger manifest 
information for domestic flights.
    The American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims (Families 
Association) was joined in its comment by individual families of the 
TWA 800 and Valujet tragedies. The Families Association stated that 
accurate passenger information needs to be maintained for air crashes, 
because, while they occur infrequently, they are of a particularly 
violent nature and all aboard are often killed and human remains are 
often not able to be accounted for. The Families Association said that 
having prior knowledge of the identity of passengers is important and 
cost effective because it (1) allows for timely notification of next of 
kin, (2) provides for promptly obtaining evidence (DNA, medical 
records, etc.) needed to identify victims, (3) speeds the return of 
remains, (4) speeds the return of belongings, (5) saves the air 
carrier(s) money because it (they) know immediately the identity of 
prospective victims instead of being pressured (at substantial cost) to 
discover who the victims were in the aftermath of a disaster, and (6) 
the information would benefit the air carrier's information databases. 
The Families Association said that passenger manifests have been a 
historical tradition and necessity in the field of transportation by 
air (with the exception of walk-on flights) and thus that passenger 
information is already collected on all transportation by air (most by 
advance reservation) and even on over-the-counter transactions flight 
documents are issued in passengers' names. The Families Association 
said, furthermore, that Internet bookings, credit card or personal 
check payments provide already the passenger's name, often the address, 
either the home/office/contact telephone numbers, and other information 
deemed necessary to issue a non-cash ticket. The Families Association 
said that air carriers thus have most of the time, and in advance, the 
detailed data actually needed to confirm the actual boarding of a 
prospective pre-booked passenger. The Families Association stated that 
the DOT should promptly extend the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) between the Department of State and U.S. air carriers on manifest 
information and manifest sharing on international flights to cover U.S. 
domestic flights. The Families Association also stated that all 
international air carriers that the U.S. Government allows to operate 
within U.S. air space (i.e., under ``Open Skies'' agreements, and 
various other alliances or code-sharing agreements) should be included 
under such a domestic passenger manifest MOU.
    Several individuals filed comments. Mr. Richard Sobel stated that 
from his perspective as a political scientist and policy analyst, the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM, while perhaps well 
intentioned, is a badly flawed idea subject to abuses, including 
invasion of privacy, is not cost-effective, and should not be 
implemented. Mr. Sobel stated that, at most, airlines should be 
authorized to collect name, contact phone numbers, and identify 
hometowns, and that this information should be automatically purged 
immediately after the flight (to avoid invasion of privacy). Mr. Sobel 
stated that for privacy and fraud reasons, there was no justification 
whatsoever for asking for dates of birth or social security account 
numbers. Mr. Sobel outlined the restrictions in the Privacy Act of 1974 
(Pub. L. 93-579), which identifies the fundamental right to personal 
privacy under the Constitution, that are potentially involved in the 
information-requirement in the ANPRM. Mr. Steven Berry stated that the 
costs of the information-collection requirements in the ANPRM were not 
fiscally defensible, the time estimates for collecting information in 
the ANPRM were not realistic, and the information-collection 
requirements in the ANPRM needed to be examined in light of the 1974 
Federal Privacy Act. Mr. John Gilmore strongly objected to the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM and said that they 
were geared toward tracking the movements of citizens. Mr. Samuel 
Weiler stated that the information-collection requirements in the ANPRM 
raised serious constitutional and fraud concerns, and the goals could 
be better accomplished by travelers giving their families prior notice 
of travel plans. Dr. Michael Walsh viewed requiring social security 
account number or date of birth for boarding an airplane to be an 
invasion of basic privacy, and noted that because the DOT information-
collection requirements would not predate January 1, 1975, they would 
be unlawful for DOT to deny boarding based on a refusal to disclose a 
social security account number under Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Privacy 
Act of 1974.
    The Social Security Administration (SSA) of the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services said that it did not support the collection 
of social security account numbers because in its experience, accurate 
verification of identity usually requires more than just a name and 
social security account number. SSA said that in its experience, one 
must collect for positive identification name, social security account 
number, and date and place of birth, as well as parents' names,

[[Page 43545]]

including mother's maiden name. SSA went on to say that it would, 
however, discourage collecting these additional data elements because 
doing so would expose the social security account number to undesirable 
vulnerabilities related to criminal activity. The SSA pointed out, 
furthermore, that under section 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 
552a, it is illegal for a Federal Agency to deny any individual any 
right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because that individual 
refuses to reveal his/her social security account number. SSA went on 
to state that this applies unless the disclosure is required by Federal 
law or the disclosure of the social security account number is made to 
an agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating 
before January 1, 1975, or if the disclosure was required by statute or 
regulation adopted prior to that date.
    ARMA International, an educational association of more than 10,000 
professional records and information managers, strongly objected to the 
inclusion of social security account numbers in domestic passenger 
manifest information. ARMA International stated that it believe such an 
information collection would be a direct violation of the Privacy Act, 
and unnecessary for prompt passenger identification in case of a 
disaster. ARMA International did not object to the optional collection 
of other information, such as date of birth and emergency contact.
    Comments from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), 
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Mr. Robert Ellis Smith, 
publisher of the Privacy Journal, stated that many concerns regarding 
privacy and fraud would result from the information-collection 
requirements in the ANPRM. In its comment, EPIC said that the 
collection and use of the information in the ANPRM, including highly 
sensitive information such as social security account number, would 
represent a grave threat to personal privacy and potentially lead to 
widespread fraud. In its comment, the ACLU stated that: passengers have 
a privacy interest in, and the right to control use of, personal 
information about them that is gathered by air carriers, including 
information about the places to which they have traveled or are 
traveling; passengers have a privacy interest in, and the right to 
control the use of, other personal information about them that the 
ANPRM suggests the airlines should gather, such as their social 
security account number, date of birth, and name and phone number of 
their ``contact'' (or next of kin); the air transport system should not 
be turned into a citizen tracking system in which the movement of 
passengers can be tracked for various government or other purposes; and 
air traffic transit points should not be turned into government check 
points where government agents conduct searches of persons and property 
for generalized law enforcement or surveillance purposes. In his 
comment, Mr. Smith, of the Privacy Journal, questioned the basic 
information-collection approach in the ANPRM and stated that devoting 
the necessary time, money, and sacrifice of privacy for minimal yield 
is bad public policy. Instead, Mr. Smith stated what the next-of-kin of 
crash victims need is compassionate and responsive assistance at the 
time of the disaster. Mr. Smith said that DOT should devise an 
effective baggage-match program without the need for gathering any 
identifying information about a passenger.

Discussion of the Continuing Need for the Additional Information-
Collection Requirements in the ANPRM and Departmental Decision to 
Withdraw the ANPRM

    Many changes have taken place since the events that led to the 
Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act (ADFAA) and, ultimately, to the 
request for comments in this ANPRM on improving airlines' system of 
notification of families of victims in the event of an airline 
disaster. U.S. carriers, in particular, have taken steps to ensure that 
passenger manifest information is available to the government shortly 
after the occurrence of a crash. This has been prompted, at least in 
part, by the requirements in the ADFAA that carriers assure that they 
will, among other things, (1) provide to the Director, Office of 
Transportation Disaster Assistance, of the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB), and to the Red Cross (which has been designated by 
NTSB to assist after crashes), immediately upon request, a list of the 
names of the passengers aboard the aircraft, and (2) have in place a 
process for notifying the families of the passengers as soon as the 
carrier has verified that the passenger was aboard the aircraft. Each 
certificated carrier has filed such a plan with the Department and the 
NTSB, which reviewed the plans and, as described below, has worked with 
carriers to ensure the effectiveness of each carrier's plan.
    Importantly, the incentive for carriers to provide prompt and 
accurate notification is not just a regulatory one. Carriers have 
learned valuable lessons about being proactive concerning disaster 
planning and assistance, and the need to follow through if a disaster 
occurs. In this regard, since the passage of the Family Assistance Act, 
many carriers have created positions within their companies for full 
time emergency planners/coordinators. These professionals have 
developed ongoing relationships with the NTSB's Office of 
Transportation Disaster Assistance, which, through industry meetings in 
which information is exchanged, as well as training sessions, has 
helped to spread to all carriers the lessons learned by others. This 
effort to improve the notification system has been aided by the fact 
that positive identification is now required of all passengers who 
board a flight, coupled with improved technology, such as the use of 
automated devices for the collection of boarding passes, which enhances 
rapid manifest reconciliation, where necessary.
    As a result of all of these factors, in more recent cases involving 
aviation disasters, airlines have provided passenger manifest 
information to the NTSB within hours of a disaster and have been able 
to notify family members within a short time following a disaster. In 
our view, therefore, domestic carriers have developed a system that is 
working, and we do not believe that intervening at this time to require 
carriers to focus on a different, government-imposed system will be 
productive and enhance the successful information-gathering and 
dissemination programs carriers have worked so long and hard to put in 
place.
    We will accordingly terminate this rulemaking. In doing so, 
however, we wish to point out that our own Office of Aviation 
Enforcement and Proceedings, which is responsible for ensuring that 
airlines comply with the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, works 
closely with the NTSB on family assistance matters. The Department will 
through that office continue to monitor carrier conduct in providing 
timely and accurate passenger manifests in connection with domestic air 
transportation and we will not hesitate to act immediately should there 
appear to be a need for an industry-wide solution to any problem that 
occurs.

Department Decision

    For the reasons explained above, the Department concludes that the 
information-collection requirements in the ANPRM are no longer 
necessary. Therefore, this rulemaking proceeding is terminated and the 
ANPRM is withdrawn.


[[Page 43546]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2004.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 04-16520 Filed 7-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P