Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6715

Ambler, AK, Ambler, NDB RWY 36, Amdt

1A

Hope, AR, Hope Muni, VOR/DME or GPS

RWY 4, Amdt 6 Cancelled

Hope, AR, Hope Muni, VOR/DME RWY 4,

Amdt 6

Hope, AR, Hope Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 16,

Amdt 3 Cancelled

Hope, AR, Hope Muni, NDB RWY 16, Amdt

3

Monticello, AR, Monticello, Muni, VOR or

GPS–A, Amdt 4A Cancelled

Monticello, AR, Monticello, Muni, VOR–A,

Amdt 4A

Hays, KS, Hays Muni, VOR or GPS RWY 16,

Amdt 3 Cancelled

Hays, KS, Hays Muni, VOR RWY 16, Amdt

3

Jefferson City, MO, Jefferson City Memorial,

NDB or GPS RWY 12, Amdt 1 Cancelled

Jefferson City, MO, Jefferson City Memorial,

NDB RWY 12, Amdt 1

Forsyth, MT, Tillitt Field, NDB or GPS RWY

26, Amdt 2A Cancelled

Forsyth, MT, Tillitt Field, NDB RWY 26,

Amdt 2A

Glasgow, MT, Glasgow Intl, VOR or GPS

RWY 12, Amdt 3 Cancelled

Glasgow, MT, Glasgow Intl, VOR RWY 12,

Amdt 3

Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, VOR or GPS

RWY 12, Amdt 2B Cancelled

Alliance, NE, Alliance Muni, VOR RWY 12,

Amdt 2B

York, NE, York Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 35,

Amdt 3 Cancelled

York, NE, York Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt

3

Las Vegas, NV, McCarran Intl, VOR/DME or

GPS RWY 1R, Orig-A Cancelled

Las Vegas, NV, McCarran Intl, VOR/DME

RWY 1R, Orig-A

Chandler, OK, Chandler Muni, NDB or GPS

RWY 35, Orig Cancelled

Chandler, OK, Chandler Muni, NDB RWY 35,

Orig

Corvallis, OR, Corvallis Muni, NDB or GPS

RWY 17, Amdt 1 Cancelled

Corvallis, OR, Corvallis Muni, NDB RWY 17,

Amdt 1

Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green

State, VOR/DME or GPS RWY 16, Amdt 4

Cancelled

Providence, RI, Theodore Francis Green

State, VOR/DME RWY 16, Amdt 4

Houston, TX, Ellington Field, VOR/DME or

TACAN or GPS RWY 17R, Amdt 3

Cancelled

Houston, TX, Ellington Field, VOR/DME or

TACAN RWY 17R, Amdt 3

Houston, TX, Ellington Field, VOR/DME or

TACAN or GPS RWY 35L, Amdt 3

Cancelled

Houston, TX, Ellington Field, VOR/DME or

TACAN RWY 35L, Amdt 3

Marfa, TX, Marfa Muni, VOR or GPS RWY

30, Amdt 4 Cancelled

Marfa, TX, Marfa Muni, VOR RWY 30, Amdt

4

[FR Doc. 97–3673 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 217 and 241

[Docket No. OST–96–1049]

RIN 2105–AC34

International Data Submissions by

Large Air Carriers (Form 41 Schedules

T–100, T–100(f), and P–1.2)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule reduces the period

of confidential treatment of

international nonstop segment and onflight market data from three years to

immediately following the Department’s

determination that the data base is

complete, but no sooner than six

months after the date of the data. It also

requires collection of aircraft capacity

data from foreign air carriers and

rescinds the requirement that Group III

(large U.S.) air carriers specify passenger

enplanements, passengers transported,

and seating capacity by cabin

configuration. At the same time, the

Department defers a final decision on

changes to Schedule P–1.2—Statement

of Operations. The issues pertinent to

that schedule will be addressed in a

supplementary notice of proposed

rulemaking that will be completed soon.

In order to provide the reporting air

carriers with additional time to make

changes to their systems, we have

established a period of several months

between the effective date and

compliance dates.

DATES: Effective date. This rule shall

become effective on March 17, 1997.

Compliance dates: The compliance

date for foreign air carriers to report the

additional capacity data is July 1, 1997.

The compliance date of the new

reduced level of reporting for large U.S.

Group III air carriers is July 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Harman, Office of Aviation Analysis, or

John Schmidt, Office of Aviation and

International Economics, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs, Office of the

Secretary, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 at (202) 366–

1059 or 366–5420, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 15, 1996, the Department

of Transportation published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [61 FR

5963] to make the changes summarized

above. We also distributed over 500

copies of the notice to the aviation

community. This rulemaking action was

taken on the Department’s initiative in

order to make data available for

planning and efficient resource

allocation purposes, to ensure the

accuracy of the data that are used by the

Department in administering its

program responsibilities, and to

eliminate collection of data that are no

longer needed for regulatory purposes.

We received comments from five U.S.

air carriers: American Airlines

(American), Federal Express

Corporation (FedEx), Trans World

Airlines (TWA), United Air Lines

(United), and USAir; one foreign air

carrier, Alia—the Royal Jordanian

Airline (Royal Jordanian); the Airports

Council International—North America

(ACI-NA) whose member airports

handle approximately 90% of the

passenger traffic in the United States;

and the Air Line Pilots Association

(ALPA), the bargaining representative of

more than 44,000 pilots of 38 airlines.

Most commenters supported the

rulemaking.

Discussion of Comments

(1) Confidentiality of International T–

100 Data

American, TWA, United, USAir, ACINA, and ALPA strongly supported

reducing the period of confidentiality

from three years to immediately

following the Department’s

determination that the data base is

complete, but no sooner than six

months after the date of the data. In fact,

American said that the data should be

published as soon as the Department

determines that the data base is

complete and that there is little reason

to impose an arbitrary requirement

withholding release for a minimum of

six months. United urged that the rule

provide by its terms that the release date

will be six months after submission and

that any release beyond that date be the

exception and not the rule. While that

carrier appreciated that all data, both

U.S. and foreign carrier, should be

released at the same time and that

database preparation delays may occur,

it would prefer to have a fixed date for

release rather than an open-ended one.

With respect to American’s suggestion,

the Department did not initially propose

to release international T–100 data in

less than six months in deference to

perceived carrier concerns that the data

might be used for day-to-day

competitive purposes and also because

it expected that receipt, edit, and

publication of the data from a large

number of foreign carriers would take

about six months. As regards United’s

view that we specify only a six month

release date, while we fully expect to be

in a position to make the data public
6716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

within that time frame, there may be

circumstances where a slightly longer

period of time may be required. We

have, therefore, decided to retain our

proposed language stating that we will

release the data following a

determination by the Department that

the database is complete, but no sooner

than six months after the date of the

data.

Royal Jordanian argued that the

Department should seriously reexamine

its proposal to amend the

confidentiality afforded detailed

nonstop segment and on-flight market

data reported by foreign carriers under

the T–100 program, and upon review,

should maintain the current three-year

confidentiality period for such data.

Royal Jordanian proposed that, in the

event the Department does not re-think

this proposal in its entirety, it should at

least maintain the three-year

confidentiality period for traffic data in

single-carrier markets. Royal Jordanian

relied on the Department’s analysis in

the 1988 rulemaking for support of its

statement. In commenting that there are

no compelling reasons to modify the

current protections of confidentiality on

T–100 data, Royal Jordanian argued that

‘‘I–92 reports contain accurate data

about the origin and destination traffic

in specific international city-pair

markets, which provides perfectly

useful information for purposes of route

planning and market analysis.’’

In response, we note that the I–92

data are not origin-destination data at

all, but rather a count of the number of

passengers onboard any flight segment

arriving in or departing from the United

States. As Royal Jordanian, itself,

remarked, T–100 data is more

comprehensive. More specifically, T–

100 data include onboard data for nonstop segments operated into and out of

the United States by both foreign and

U.S. carriers as well as similar data for

U.S. carrier flight segments operated

beyond the foreign gateway. Moreover,

they also include on-flight market data

(similar to origin-destination data in

that they tally the passengers traveling

between any two points on that flight)

for those flights operating into and out

of the U.S. In addition, T–100 data

include capacity and operational data

for these flights such as seats,

departures, aircraft type, and block

hours. T–100 reports include U.S.-

Canadian traffic whereas 1–92 reports

do not. Finally, T–100 incorporates both

freight and passenger information

whereas I–92 gives only the passenger

cabin count. Because T–100 data are

taken from airline records, there are

other system data available to validate

any questionable numbers. This

provides a basis for expecting a high

level of reliability. These advantages

combined with the fact that Royal

Jordanian has not documented any

irrevocable harm would lead us to make

the T–100 data available, as proposed,

to planners, analysts, and other users.

FedEx (an all-cargo carrier) stated that

the three-year rule should not be

changed because the data collected are

so specific and sensitive that they

should not be revealed prematurely. It

further argued that the data are only of

use to the government, and the need for

them is declining as the U.S. becomes

more successful in obtaining open-skies

agreements. With respect to FedEx’s

suggestion that the data collected are

unnecessarily specific, the Department

notes that international routes are still

awarded on a city-to-city basis and are

frequently limited-entry and that

airports are planned and constructed at

specific cities. With respect to FedEx’s

assertion that the data are sensitive, the

discussion in the notice of proposed

rulemaking recognized that the

availability of data could be expected to

change the nature of the marketplace

and, in fact, make it more efficient and

competitive. FedEx has not, however,

documented its assertion that the more

timely availability of data to all would

create an unfair competitive advantage.

In addition, FedEx did not rebut the

carriers’ or communities’ needs for

current market data to support

negotiating positions and requests for

route awards. ACI–NA and United

described the airports’ and carriers’

needs for these data.

FedEx also stated that the three-year

rule should not be changed because the

data are so flawed and subject to so

many differing interpretations that an

earlier release may actually damage the

interests that the Department is trying to

promote. FedEx asserted that, while the

T–100 system gathers detailed

information on U.S. carriers’ activities

in foreign markets, much of the foreign

carrier activity that is in direct

competition with the U.S. carriers is not

reported. It said that the T–100 system

should not undercut the U.S. position at

negotiations because of the lop-sided

reporting structure, but should be used

primarily for internal U.S. analysis,

recognizing its shortcomings. All these

comments apparently refer to the fact

that U.S. carriers report all international

market and segment records, while

foreign carriers only report those market

and segment records that have a U.S.

point. In order that U.S. air carriers not

be placed at a competitive disadvantage

because of data disclosure

incompatibility, the Department, in its

notice of proposed rulemaking,

proposed to continue to restrict

availability of nonstop segment and onflight market data for segments

involving no U.S. points for three years.

For example, individual U.S. carrier

data between two foreign airports would

be held confidential for three years. (On

this same subject, American Airlines

argued for expanded reporting by

foreign carriers, including disclosure of

‘behind’ and ‘beyond’ totals for

reportable ‘on-flight’ traffic.) With

respect to FedEx’s concerns about

flawed data, the timely use and scrutiny

of these data by industry practitioners,

once they are removed from the veil of

confidentiality, can be expected to have

a positive effect on the quality of data

filed.

(2) Reporting of Capacity Data by

Foreign Air Carriers

ACI–NA, TWA, United, and USAir

explicitly supported the collection of

minimal capacity data from foreign

carriers and no commenter objected to

the collection of these data.

Significantly, Royal Jordanian, the only

foreign carrier to comment, did not

oppose the collection. As discussed

under (4) Other Subjects, American

suggested that we require expanded

reporting by foreign carriers including

disclosure of ‘‘behind’’ and ‘‘beyond’’

totals for reportable on-flight traffic.

(Foreign carriers currently do file

‘‘beyond’’ U.S. data if the market

includes a U.S. point. For example,

Japan Airlines reports Los Angeles-Sao

Paulo operations.) In supporting our

proposal, TWA stated that it is not

unreasonable to require two additional

data items from foreign carriers and

that, even with the new items, the

burden placed on foreign carriers will

be no worse than the burden placed on

U.S. carriers by foreign governments.

Similarly, United emphasized the fact

that our proposal removes a

discriminatory aspect of the previous

rule that imposed a greater burden on

U.S. carriers than on their foreign

competitors. Total capacity, both U.S.

and foreign, is important to analyze

adequacy of service in a given market.

We will, therefore, adopt the proposal

that foreign carriers report both

available seats and available payload

weight.

(3) Reduction of Data Reporting by Class

of Service by U.S. Carriers

Only United and USAir explicitly

supported the reduction of data

reporting by class of service by U.S.

carriers. As mentioned above, American

argued for expanded reporting by

foreign carriers, saying that little cost is

incurred by complying with the existing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6717

requirement to report passenger traffic

and revenue by class of service while

the reprogramming of data processing

systems would impose an immediate

burden. TWA did not believe that the

Department’s proposal would reduce

reporting burden and did believe that it

would deprive both the Department and

the carriers of important information.

The carrier suggested either requiring

foreign carriers to report class of service

information, restricting availability of

the data only to those U.S. carriers that

report it, or, in the extreme, collecting

it and releasing it after six months

despite foreign carriers’ failure to

provide similar information.

We are adopting our proposal to

reduce the amount of data currently

reported by the large Group III U.S.

carriers by no longer requiring these

carriers to report data by cabin

configuration. In the NPRM, the

Department stated that the proposal to

reduce the number of data items would

reduce the reporting burden on U.S. air

carriers while providing for data

comparability among all reporting

carriers. Although American considered

it unfortunate that we proposed to

eliminate this level of detail and TWA

stated that these data were very

important, we find that the resulting

comparability in reported data among

all competing U.S. and foreign carriers

with regard to this specific database

outweighs the concerns raised by

American and TWA. Moreover, since

we find that the earlier release of data

will be procompetitive, it is important,

at the same time, to ensure that no

carriers are adversely affected by a

continuing requirement to report more

detailed data than their competitors.

With regard to the Department’s

statement in the NPRM that the

proposal to reduce the number of data

items would reduce the reporting

burden on U.S. air carriers, we have

revised our position and we now

acknowledge that American and TWA

correctly pointed out that the proposal

may produce an initial reporting

burden. These carriers’ comments have

led us to assume that the reduction of

the number of data elements may

require some changes to computer

programs that extract, process, and

format the data for submission to the

Department. We recognize that the

impact of these changes will vary among

airlines. However, no commenters

(including American and TWA)

submitted data that would help us to

assess this burden. Our initial

presumption is that changes to programs

that involve relatively simple functions,

such as data extraction and formatting,

would not impose a significant burden.

However, even if the required changes

were significant, they would be onetime changes that would affect only the

initial implementation. Over the long

term, the reduced reporting

requirements should lessen the total

burden.

(4) Other Subjects

The commenters raised a number of

other issues not directly relating to

proposals made in the NPRM. These

issues go beyond the scope of the

current rulemaking, although there may

be merit to some of them. With these

issues in mind, we will continue to

assess the quality of T–100 data

received and ways to improve them.

However, no action is being taken on

the following subjects in this

rulemaking.

FedEx asserted that the international

air cargo data collected through the T–

100 system is so severely flawed and

unfair to U.S. carriers that the system

should be abandoned. It suggested that

the Department should seriously

consider extending the exemption for

cargo that presently covers domestic

operations to the international sector.

FedEx was specifically concerned about

the reporting and publication of U.S.

carrier Fifth Freedom data when similar

data from foreign carriers is not

collected or published. (American

reflected this same concern when it

requested expanded reporting by foreign

carriers, including disclosure of

‘‘behind’’ and ‘‘beyond’’ totals for

reportable ‘‘on-flight’’ data.) FedEx

pointed out a similar data

incompatibility that arises among

vendors of international freight services

when one company carries the freight

on its own flights for the entire trip

while another company (for example)

carries the freight on its own flight(s) on

the domestic part of the trip, but serves

only as a freight forwarder, shipping its

cargo on another carrier’s flight(s), on

the foreign part of the trip. FedEx also

complained that the T–100 system only

shows on-flight movements, so that any

change in flight numbers results in

either a double-counting problem (for

U.S. carriers that transfer freight) or a

gap in data (for freight moved off of a

foreign carrier’s flight originating in the

U.S. onto a flight the does not touch the

U.S.). The carrier noted that the onflight market data only show where

traffic is enplaned and deplaned, rather

than its true origin. American urged the

Department to require the same level of

reporting from the foreign airlines as we

require from U.S. carriers. Specifically,

American suggested that we require

expanded reporting by foreign carriers

to disclose information on the ‘‘behind’’

and ‘‘beyond’’ totals for reportable onflight traffic. Alternatively, American

suggested that we create an enhanced

origin and destination survey in which

both U.S. and foreign carriers would be

required to submit comparable data.

On another issue, ACI–NA urged the

Department to require that commuter

carriers operating aircraft with 19 or

more seats file international data. They

pointed out that no data are currently

available on commuter services in

transborder Canadian and Mexican

markets and in U.S.-Caribbean markets,

which are growing in importance. The

Department recognizes the importance

of these markets and the lack of

available data. However, since the scope

of this rulemaking applies only to large

air carriers, the Department cannot

apply these requirements to the

commuter airline industry in this

proceeding. Nevertheless, we will

continue to monitor the need for and

value of the data and will propose the

necessary changes to reporting

requirements that are needed to meet

our analytical goals.

ACI–NA also urged the Department to

add a requirement that airlines provide

data on the citizen/alien breakout of

their passengers. In support, they

pointed out that the nationality data is

key to calculating some of the direct and

indirect benefits from foreign tourists

and business travelers. They noted the

precarious financial situation involving

programs at the Department of

Commerce, where the I–92 data showing

passenger nationality are now produced,

might have an impact on the currently

available data. The timing of this

rulemaking and the lack of resolution

with regard to the future of the I–92

data, makes it impractical to consider

the nationality issue as part of this

rulemaking. Depending upon further

developments with I–92 data, we may

need to reconsider the matter.

TWA noted that the Department has

not finalized its proposal of October 23,

1995, that U.S. carriers that are code

sharing with foreign carriers be required

to report both for the ticketing and

operating carriers for code share traffic

in their Origin and Destination reports.

TWA urged the Department to act

expeditiously to implement the new

reporting requirements. This is beyond

the scope of this rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is not considered a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

and therefore it was not reviewed by the
6718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Office of Management and Budget. The

Department has placed a regulatory

evaluation that examines the estimated

costs and effects of the rule in the

docket.

The rule is not considered significant

under the regulatory policies and

procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11034), because it

does not change Departmental policy

concerning aviation information

collection.

The economic impact of this

regulation is insignificant. The change

in confidentiality restriction has no

impact at all on the reporting burden of

the carriers. For large Group III U.S. air

carriers, the changes in requirements for

reporting passenger and capacity data

will result in an initial burden for

programming changes, but these

changes are minor and involve one-time

costs. Over the long term, these changes

will reduce the reporting burden for

these air carriers by approximately 96

hours annually.

On the other hand, the foreign air

carriers will incur an initial and annual

increase in reporting burden. However,

the Department does not believe that the

increased reporting burden will be

significant or onerous because this

regulation adds only two capacity data

items, which are readily available from

the carriers’’ computerized data files or

other easily accessible reference

documents. In order to quantify broadly

the increased burden, the Department

assumed that each of the 176 foreign air

carriers would submit two new data

items each month and that the process

of collecting and transmitting the data

would take no more than one hour each

month. The resulting hourly burden

would not exceed 12 hours on an

annual basis for any foreign air carrier,

and the resulting total hourly burden on

an annual basis for all the foreign air

carriers as a group would be 2,112

hours. For all air carriers, this would be

a net burden of 2,016 hours annually or

$20,966 based on an estimated industry

salary rate of about $10.40 an hour. (See

60 FR 61478, November 30, 1995.)

The benefits to the public, the

industry, and the Department of

accurate capacity data reported on a

reliable and consistent basis, although

unquantifiable, outweigh the limited

increase in reporting burden and the

small increase in cost.

Executive Order 12612

This rule has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 (‘‘Federalism’’) and DOT has

determined the proposed rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The amendments would affect only

large U.S. certificated air carriers and

foreign air carriers with large

certificated carriers defined as air

carriers holding a certificate issued

under 49 U.S.C. 41102, as amended, and

that operate aircraft designed to have a

maximum passenger capacity of more

than 60 seats or a maximum payload

capacity of more than 18,000 pounds or

that conduct international operations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The reporting and recordkeeping

requirement associated with this rule is

being sent to the Office of Management

and Budget for approval in accordance

with The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (PL 104–113) under OMB NO:

2139–0040, formerly OMB NO: 2138–

0040; Administration: Office of the

Secretary; Title: T–100 International

Data; Need for Information: Passenger

and Capacity Information for Aviation

Planning and Regulation; Proposed Use

of Information: Electronic

Dissemination to Transportation

Planners and Analysts; Frequency:

Monthly; Burden Estimate: 2,016 annual

hours; Average Burden Hours per

Respondent: 12 annual hours; Estimated

Number of Respondents: 8 Air Carriers

and 176 Foreign Air Carriers; For

Further Information Contact: IRM

Strategies Division, M–32, Office of the

Secretary of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001, (202) 366–4735. Persons

are not required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. This final rule contains

information collection requirements that

have been approved under OMB No.

2138–0040 and that expire on October

31, 1997.

Regulation Identifier Number

A regulation identifier number (RIN)

is assigned to each regulatory action

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal

Regulations. The Regulatory Information

Service Center publishes the Unified

Agenda in April and October of each

year. The RIN number 2105-AC34

contained in the heading of this

document can be used to cross reference

this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 217 and

241

Air carriers, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the Department of

Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter

II as follows:

PART 217—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for part 217

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401,

413, 417.

2. In § 217.5, paragraphs (b)(12) and

(b)(13) are added to read as follows:

§ 217.5 Data collected (data elements).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(12) Available capacity-payload (Code

270). The available capacity is collected

in kilograms. This figure shall reflect the

available load (see load, available in 14

CFR part 241 Section 03) or total

available capacity for passengers, mail

and freight applicable to the aircraft

with which each flight stage is

performed.

(13) Available seats (Code 310). The

number of seats available for sale. This

figure reflects the actual number of seats

available, excluding those blocked for

safety or operational reasons. Report the

total available seats in item 310.

PART 241—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for part 241

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401,

411, 417.

2. In Sec. 19–5 paragraphs (c) (7), (8),

and (18) are revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

Section 19 * * *

Sec. 19–5 Air Transport Traffic and

Capacity Elements

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(7) 110 Revenue passengers enplaned.

The total number of revenue passengers

enplaned at the origin point of a flight,

boarding the flight for the first time; an

unduplicated count of passengers in a

market. Under the T–100 system of

reporting, these enplaned passengers are

the sum of the passengers in the

individual on-flight markets. Report

only the total revenue passengers

enplaned in item 110. For all air carriers

and all entities, item 110 revenue

passengers enplaned is reported on

Form 41 Schedule T–100 in column C–

1, as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6719

Col. All carrier groups and entities

C–1 ..... 110 Revenue passengers enplaned.

(8) 130 Revenue passengers

transported. The total number of

revenue passengers transported over

single flight stage, including those

already on board the aircraft from a

previous flight stage. Report only the

total revenue passengers transported in

item 130. For all air carriers and all

entities, item 130 revenue passengers

transported is reported on Form 41

Schedule T–100 in Column B–7, as

follows:

Col. All carrier groups and entities

B–7 ...... 130 Revenue passengers transported.

* * * * *

(18) 310 Available seats. The number

of seats available for sale. This figure

reflects the actual number of seats

available, excluding those blocked for

safety or operational reasons. Report the

total available seats in item 310. For all

air carriers and all entities, item 310

available seats, total is reported on Form

41 Schedule T–100 in column B–4, as

follows.

Col. All carrier groups and entities

B–4 ...... 310 Available seats, total.

* * * * *

3. In Section 19–6 paragraph (b)

introductory text is revised to read as

follows:

Section 19–6 Public Disclosure of

Traffic Data

* * * * *

(b) Detailed international on-flight

market and nonstop segment data in

Schedule T–100 and Schedule T–100(f)

reports shall be publicly available

immediately following the Department’s

determination that the database is

complete, but no earlier than six months

after the date of the data. Data for onflight markets and nonstop segments

involving no U.S. points shall not be

made publicly available for three years.

Industry and carrier summary data may

be made public before the end of six

months or the end of three years, as

applicable, provided there are three or

more carriers in the summary data

disclosed. The Department may, at any

time, publish international summary

statistics without carrier detail. Further,

the Department may release nonstop

segment and on-flight market detail data

by carrier before the end of the

confidentiality periods as follows:

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC on February 6,

1997.

Charles A. Hunnicutt,

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–3576 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

14 CFR Part 383

49 CFR Part 31

[OST Docket No. OST–97–2116]

RIN 2105–AC63

Program Fraud Civil Remedies; Civil

Penalties

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Federal

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act

of 1990, as amended by the Debt

Collection Improvement Act of 1996,

this final rule incorporates the penalty

inflation adjustments for civil money

penalties imposed by the Office of the

Secretary of Transportation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark A. Holmstrup, Senior Trial

Attorney, Office of Aviation

Enforcement and Proceedings (C–70),

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590, (202) 366–9349.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Debt Collection Improvement Act

of 1996

In an effort to maintain the remedial

impact of civil money penalties (CMPs)

and promote compliance with the law,

the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation

Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–

410) was amended by the Debt

Collection Improvement Act of 1996

(Pub.L. 104–134, section 31001) to

require Federal agencies to regularly

adjust certain CMPs for inflation. As

amended, the law requires each agency

to make an initial inflationary

adjustment for all applicable CMPs, and

to make further adjustments at least

once every four years thereafter for these

penalty amounts.

The Debt Collection Improvement Act

of 1996 further stipulates that (i) any

resulting increases in a CMP due to the

calculated inflation adjustments should

apply only to the violations that occur

after October 23, 1996—180 days after

the date of enactment of the statute—

and (ii) the initial adjustment of a CMP

under the Act may not exceed 10

percent of that CMP. Penalties that fall

under the Internal Revenue Code of

1986, the Tariff Act of 1930, the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970, and the Social Security Act are

specifically exempt from the

requirements of the Act.

Method of Calculation

Under the Federal Civil Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as

amended, the inflation adjustment for

each applicable CMP is determined by

increasing the maximum CMP amount

per violation by the cost-of-living

adjustment. The ‘‘cost-of-living’’

adjustment is defined as the percentage

of each CMP by which the Consumer

Price Index (CPI) for the month of June

of the calendar year preceding the

adjustment exceeds the CPI for the

month of June of the calendar year in

which the amount of the CMP (if any)

was last set or adjusted in accordance

with the law. Any calculated increase

under this adjustment is subject to a

specific rounding formula set forth in

the 1990 statute.

II. OST Civil Money Penalties Affected

by This Adjustment

There are two penalty authorities

under our jurisdiction, as described

below, for which adjustments are

required and are now being made.

Title 49 of the United States Code

(Transportation)

Section 46301(a)(1) of Title 49

(formerly section 1471(a) of the Federal

Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. App. § 901(a))

sets forth a CMP of not more than

$1,000 for persons who violate certain

provisions of Title 49, Subtitle VII

(Aviation Programs). The penalty was

enacted in 1962 and has not been

increased with respect to matters within

the jurisdiction of the Office of the

Secretary.

Based on the penalty amount inflation

factor calculation, derived from dividing

the June 1995 CPI by the CPI from June

1962, after rounding and applying the

10 percent maximum ceiling, we are

adjusting the maximum penalty amount

for the CMP under Section 46301(a)(1)

to $1,100 per violation.

The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act

of 1986

In 1986, sections 6103 and 6104 of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1986 (Pub. L. 99–501) set forth the

Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of

1986 (PFCRA). Specifically, this

authority established a CMP and an