Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 11789

(n) Travel agency services; and

(o) Trust and trust-related services:

(1) Acting as administrator for prepaid

legal service plans;

(2) Acting as trustee, guardian,

conservator, estate administrator, or in

any other fiduciary capacity; and

(3) Trust services.

§ 712.6 What activities and services are

prohibited for CUSOs?

CUSOs must not engage in the

activities or services of depository

financial institutions, insurance

companies, trade associations, liquidity

facilities, and similar entities.

§ 712.7 What must you do to add activities

or services that are not preapproved?

In order for you to invest in and/or

loan to a CUSO that offers the

unpreapproved activity or service, you

must first receive NCUA Board

approval. Your request for NCUA Board

approval of a new activity or service

should include a full explanation and

complete documentation of the activity

or service and how that activity or

service is associated with routine credit

union operations. Your request should

be submitted jointly to your Regional

Office and to the Secretary of the Board.

Your request will be treated as a petition

to amend § 712.5 and NCUA will

request public comment or otherwise

act on the petition within 60 days after

receipt.

§ 712.8 What transaction and

compensation limits might apply to

individuals related to you or a CUSO?

(a) Officials and senior management

employees. Your officials, senior

management employees, and their

immediate family members must not

receive any salary, commission,

investment income, or other income or

compensation from a CUSO either

directly or indirectly, or from any

person being served through the CUSO.

This provision does not prohibit your

officials or senior management

employees from assisting in the

operation of a CUSO, provided your

officials or senior management

employees are not compensated by the

CUSO. For purposes of this paragraph

(a), ‘‘official’’ means your directors or

committee members. For purposes of

this paragraph (a), ‘‘senior management

employee’’ means your chief executive

officer (typically this individual holds

the title of President or Treasurer/

Manager), any assistant chief executive

officers (e.g. Assistant President, Vice

President, or Assistant Treasurer/

Manager) and the chief financial officer

(Comptroller). For purposes of this

paragraph (a), ‘‘immediate family

member’’ means a spouse or other

family members living in the same

household.

(b) Employees. The prohibition

contained in paragraph (a) of this

section also applies to your employees

not otherwise covered if the employees

are directly involved in dealing with the

CUSO unless your board of directors

determines that your employees’

positions do not present a conflict of

interest.

(c) Others. All transactions with

business associates or family members

of your officials, senior management

employees, and their immediate family

members, not specifically prohibited by

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section

must be conducted at arm’s length and

in your interest.

§ 712.9 When must you begin compliance

with this part?

(a) Investments. Your investments in

existence prior to [the effective date of

the final regulation], must conform with

this part not later than [the effective

date of the final regulation], unless the

Board grants its prior approval to

continue such investment for a stated

period.

(b) Loans. Your loans in existence

prior to [the effective date of the final

regulation] must conform with this part

not later than [the effective date of the

final regulation], unless:

(1) The Board grants its prior approval

to continue your loan for a stated

period; or

(2) Under the terms of its loan

agreement you cannot require

accelerated repayment without

breaching the agreement.

PART 740—ADVERTISING

5. The authority citation for Part 740

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1781, 1789 and

4311.

6. Section 740.3(c) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 740.3 Mandatory requirements with

regard to the official sign and its display.

* * * * *

(c) An insured credit union shall not

receive account funds at any teller’s

station or window where any

noninsured credit union or institution

receives deposits. Excepted from this

prohibition are credit union centers,

service centers, or branches servicing

more than one credit union where only

some of the credit unions are insured by

the NCUA. In such instances there must

be placed immediately above or beside

each official sign another sign stating

‘‘The following credit unions serviced

by this facility are not federally insured

by the NCUA llllllllll.’’

(the full legal name of each credit union

and the city and state of its principal

office will follow the word NCUA each

time it appears). The lettering will be of

such size and print to be clearly legible

to all members conducting share or

share deposit transactions.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–6374 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P

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
11790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 recordkeeping 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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). Onetime 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
11792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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-frequentflyer 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 ondemand 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 onehalf 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.

Type of cost

Seconds to solicit and collect passenger manifest information

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.
11794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Type of cost

Seconds to solicit and collect passenger manifest information

40 sec. 60 sec.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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-andspoke, 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 (‘‘etickets’’) or ticketless travel is becoming

more widespread. It is our

understanding that six major U.S.

airlines use them. Some carriers offer etickets 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 eticket 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 eticketing? 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.
11796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 nonhigh 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 callin 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 Rule .......................................................................................................................... 1.1 to 1.4

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

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND

CONCILIATION SERVICE

29 CFR Part 1404

Arbitration Policy; Roster of

Arbitrators, and Procedures for

Arbitration Services

AGENCY: Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed revision to 29

CFR Part 1404 is being published in

order to revise the policies and

procedures used by Federal Mediation

and Conciliation Service in

administering its arbitration program.

The goals of the proposed revision are

to more accurately reflect current

practice, clarify the role of the Arbitrator

Review Board, revise the standards for

arbitrator listing on the Roster, and

announce certain changes. Among the

changes made are:

First, requests for special experience

or qualifications, or other special

requirements, must be either jointly

submitted by the parties, or, if

unilaterally submitted, must certify that

the other party agrees, or there is no

conflict with the applicable contract.

This will allow a single party, for

example, to request a panel with special

expertise, so long as the required

assurances are made. Similarly, FMCS

will make a direct appointment of an

arbitrator based on the assurances of one

party.

Second, the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service, Office of

Arbitration Services (OAS) will no

longer receive or interpret contract

language in regard to furnishing

services.

Third, as an alternative to the

submission of a panel of arbitrators,

FMCS, upon request, will furnish the

names and biographical sketches of all

listed arbitrators in specified

geographical locations. In this case, the