[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5052-5063]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

14 CFR Parts 241 and 298

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0132]
RIN 2105-AE45

Updates to the Origin--Destination Survey of Airline Passengers

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to update the method of collecting
and processing aviation traffic data in the Origin-Destination Survey
of Airline Passenger Traffic (O&D Survey), as well as to expand the
number of reporting air carriers, the sample size collected, and the
scope of the data reported. These changes would align the current O&D
Survey with modern industry business and accounting practices, enable
cost savings, reduce burden through automation, and provide enhanced
utility for users of the data. In addition, DOT is proposing to change
the timing of the release of the Form 41, Schedule T-100(f) ``Foreign
Air Carrier Traffic Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market'' from
a 6-month delay to a 3-month delay to match that of Form 41, Schedule
T-100 ``Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Non-Stop Segment and
On-Flight Market.''

DATES:  Submit comments on or before March 19, 2021, 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time. The Department will consider late comments to the extent
practicable.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit all comments by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: At the beginning of your comments, include the agency
name, docket name, and docket number (DOT-OST-2018-0132) or Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2105-AE45). All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. Physical access to the
Docket is available at the Hand Delivery address noted above.
    Electronic Access and Filing: You can view this document by going
to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and
search for docket DOT-OST-2018-0132. The website is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help
and guidelines are available under the help section of the website. An
electronic copy of this document is available for download from the
Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's web page
at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ fdsys/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Raggio, Office of Aviation
Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W86-470, Washington, DC 20590-
0001,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone) or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Legal Authority

    Section 429(b)(1) of Title 49, U.S.C., requires the Department to
collect and disseminate information on the origin and destination of
airline passengers including, at a minimum, information on: (1) The
origin and destination of passengers in interstate air transportation,
and (2) the number of passengers traveling by air between any two
points in interstate air transportation. In addition, 49 U.S.C.
40101(a)(7) states that the Secretary shall respond to the needs of the
public, including the airline industry, all levels of government, and
airports, by disseminating information to foster a national air
transportation system capable of meeting the present and future needs
of U.S. commerce. In fulfillment of these responsibilities, DOT
collects data submitted under:
     14 CFR part 217: Reporting Traffic Statistics by Foreign
Air Carriers in Civilian Scheduled, Charter, and Nonscheduled Services,
whereby foreign air carriers that are authorized by DOT to provide
scheduled passenger services to or from the U.S. must file Form 41
Schedule T-100(f), accumulated in accordance with the data elements
prescribed in Sec.  217.5.
     14 CFR part 241: Uniform System of Accounts and Reports
for Large Certificated Air Carriers, under which all large certificated
air carriers must report their traffic movements by filing Form 41
Schedule T-100, Financials Information, and O&D fare information.
     14 CFR part 298: Exemptions for Air Taxi and Commuter Air
Carriers, whereby air taxi operators and commuter air carriers, which
are provided certain exemptions from some of the economic regulatory
provisions of Subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code, are
required to submit simplified Financials and T-100 traffic.
    In this rulemaking, the Department proposes to update its method of
collecting and processing O&D fare information under part 241 to: (1)
Allow full automation of the reporting of the O&D Survey by aligning it
with current airline passenger accounting practices; and (2) enhance
the accuracy and usefulness of DOT's collection of aviation traffic
data.

B. Background on the O&D Survey

    Currently, the O&D Survey, as outlined in 14 CFR part 241, Sec. 19-
7, collects airline tickets from select air carriers,\1\ ``O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers,'' each quarter. The O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
combine the information from tickets with the same itinerary and price
into a summary record reported every 3 months. Under 49 U.S.C.
329(b)(1), the Department is obligated to collect and disseminate this
information. There are many private and public stakeholders that depend
on this data to make decisions on aviation business and policy. For
example, this data is used by the industry to plan air services,
develop commercial aviation

infrastructure, measure the economic impact of passenger flows, and
create business plans for start-up airlines. The O&D Survey is also a
primary source of information used to quantify and evaluate the
effectiveness of Federal aviation policy and programs as well as to
develop and implement new policies and infrastructure initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the current rules for collection of the O&D Survey were
established in the 1960s, the O&D Survey provided the best reasonably
obtainable measure of passenger aviation activity. The mainframe
technologies of the era dictated many aspects of the O&D survey
business process and the elements selected for collection. A key driver
of the process was that data storage was expensive in that era which
resulted in a minimum of data elements being included. This meant more
robust descriptive data, such as the time of arrival and departure,
were not included in the collection. Because mainframes were
centralized computing resources, the O&D Survey process was designed to
route paper tickets to a centralized facility for processing and
loading into the systems. In the intervening years, changes in airline
business models and accounting practices enabled by technology
improvements were not reflected in DOT's collection methodology,
leading to a misalignment between the rules for reporting the
information and current accounting practices that generally requires
human intervention to reconcile differences and prevents O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers from fully automating the system of data collection.
The primary design issue that prevents current improvements is the
regulatory requirement that the operating carrier that first touches
the ticket is the carrier that has responsibility to report the ticket,
known as the ``first reporting carrier rule.'' In the 1960s, this rule
was selected because the most efficient process was physically to
detach the ticket coupons as they were flown for each flight and send
all the coupons to the centralized processing facility to be matched
and combined with the relevant revenue information. Because the carrier
that issued the ticket, which had all the necessary information on
hand, often did not first touch the ticket, the carrier with the least
amount of information was by rule responsible for reporting the ticket.
Modern and decentralized E-ticket systems eliminate the need for a
physical coupon matching process and enables more efficient reporting
rules and access to more relevant data.
    DOT has worked with representatives of the aviation industry trade
association Airlines for America (A4A) to determine the best way to
improve the methodology, collection, and utility of the O&D Survey. DOT
is proposing this rule to reform and simplify the O&D Survey,
principally by reorienting the reporting requirements so that air
carriers report primarily information for tickets that they issue.

II. The Need To Modernize Current Data Collection Requirements

    The data collected in the O&D Survey provides DOT with the
information to help foster an air transportation system capable of
meeting the present and future needs of commerce in the United States.
However, the current O&D Survey methodology was designed based on
accounting processes long abandoned by airlines, including manual
accounting systems that often had handwritten records. As a result, the
Survey's data collection methodology does not reflect today's
decentralized and integrated industry-wide practices and technologies,
and, in some cases, it is not capable of accurately documenting
consumer behavior. For example, in today's environment, it is far more
efficient for the carrier that issues the ticket to be responsible for
reporting the ticket because it is the issuing carrier that has all the
information about the ticket. Current process requires the operating
carrier that flies the first coupon of the ticket to report and this is
often not the issuing carrier. Because current reporting does not
contain information about the length of stay at each intermediate point
in a ticket, the system must impute the intended destination of round
trip tickets. With the advent of large-scale connecting services, this
has made the determination of intended destination less accurate.
Though the Survey remains a unique and foundational pillar of industry
economic analysis, its limitations create high levels of uncertainty in
certain situations, such as identifying the true origin and destination
of some passengers; the month of travel; and the portion of the total
amount paid that is the revenue retained by the air carrier, as opposed
to taxes and fees remitted to other government entities. By aligning
the O&D Survey with current industry technology and integrated business
process, this proposal would vastly simplify the reporting of
appropriate data elements and increase the utility of the Survey to its
users.

A. Changes in Airline and Consumer Behavior Since 1978

    The way the airline industry markets and delivers air
transportation services to the public changed significantly following
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.\2\ The 1978 Act enabled airlines
to set their own fares, flight frequencies, and route structure. The
current rules for the collection of ticket information were
specifically designed to measure the relatively static air travel
industry of the 1960s, when fares and flight frequencies were set by
the Federal Civil Aeronautics Board and tended to be from a single
point to a single point. The current O&D Survey data collection rules
do not reflect the increasingly dynamic and complex business practices
that have emerged since deregulation, including the development of hub-
and-spoke systems, frequent flier programs, revenue management systems,
internet distribution of tickets, and other industry-transforming
innovations. For example, under the post-deregulation hub-and-spoke
model developed by legacy air carriers, it became increasingly common
to fly initially to a single, large ``hub airport'' where some
passengers would change planes to complete their journey, while others
remained on the same plane during intervening stop(s), known as a
``direct'' passenger flight. In the case of the ``direct'' passenger,
the carriers would use a single ticket that identifies the origin and
ultimate destination, but not the intermediate stop(s). Furthermore, in
combination with these changes, new airline loyalty programs altered
passenger ticket purchasing behavior; travelers in these programs were
increasingly incentivized to take longer, indirect routes, often
through an airline's large hub airport, that would allow them to
accumulate more mileage-based loyalty points, exacerbating reporting
issues, such as identification of the intended destination of travel,
with the O&D Survey. The industry innovations forged after deregulation
changed the fundamentals of airline competition, but the process used
and the data DOT collects did not modernize concomitant with these
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Public Law 95-504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reevaluation of O&D Survey Burden and Data Quality

    Considering these developments, DOT initiated a retrospective
analysis of its aviation traffic reporting rules. The Department
recognizes that there are concerns with the quality of the current O&D
Survey, and that it is expensive

and burdensome to collect, validate, and use. Collaborative discussion
with A4A representatives revealed that there is a substantial hidden
cost of compliance in reporting aviation statistics due to the
difficulty in identifying and investigating problems that are often
only revealed during post-submission quality control processing. The
carriers are also often in the position of having to interpret how to
stay in compliance with outdated rules that require them to deviate
from their current accounting practices. For these reasons, the
Department believes that the O&D Survey no longer meets the guidance
outlined in OMB Circular A-130 \3\ or the data collection standards of
the Information Quality Act.\4\ In addition, DOT identified instances
in the reporting regulations that contribute to deficiencies in data
quality. These deficiencies are often not observable until after the
data from all the carrier submissions is combined during post-
processing analysis. Moreover, ambiguity in the current regulation may
lead O&D Survey Reporting Carriers to interpret reporting instructions
differently, contributing to the degradation of the O&D Survey data
quality and increasing the air carrier's reporting burden as they must
review the suspected data and resubmit once the problem is found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Circular A-130 requires DOT to take affirmative steps to
ensure data quality objectivity and utility of Federal statistics
before disseminating them and notes that public and private
resources are allocated inefficiently when uncertainty is introduced
due to inexact or incorrect data.
    \4\ Public Law 106-554 Section 515 charges Federal agencies with
a responsibility to produce the best reasonably obtainable
scientific and economic information available to measure the impact
of their regulatory responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, DOT determined that the collection and dissemination
of the O&D Survey remains justified under the regulatory philosophy
stated in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, sec. 1(a) which is that ``the
Federal Government should . . . promulgate regulations as required . .
.'' It was also determined that, given its role and statutory duties,
DOT is best positioned to collect uniform, accurate, and complete data
on the Nation's civil aeronautics sector as well as ensure widespread
dissemination of the collected data. Diverse public and private
stakeholders, including air carriers, investors, and aircraft
manufacturers, rely on this data to inform business decisions,
infrastructure improvements, and aviation regulations or public
policies. For example, the airline industry continues to use the O&D
Survey to plan air services, develop commercial aviation
infrastructure, measure the economic impact of passenger flows, and
create business plans for start-up airlines. The data is also a primary
source of information used to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of
Federal aviation policy and programs, including by: (1) Improving
international air services by seeking market liberalization, (2)
ensuring the benefits of a deregulated, competitive domestic airline
industry, and (3) developing policies to improve air service and access
to the national air transportation system for small and rural
communities. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requires airports to use accurate aviation data for qualifying,
planning, allocating, and monitoring of Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funds and to justify the need for Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs). The outdated and cumbersome O&D Survey methodologies impose
excessive burdens on O&D Survey Reporting Carriers and diminish the
data's utility to its users due to quality, objectivity, and
completeness issues, and therefore requires modernization. In addition,
ensuring universal participation across air carriers and collection of
the best reasonably obtainable measurements of economic activity in the
aviation sector requires updating the O&D Survey methodologies.

C. Meeting Reporting and Data Quality Demands

    This proposed rule would modernize the O&D Survey to reflect
current airline passenger behavior and revenue accounting practices,
which allow air carriers to track the sale and the usage of every
ticket sold, including through partner carriers. In doing so, the
proposed rule would ensure that the O&D Survey meets the requirements
and objectives of the Information Quality Act,\5\ E.O. 12866, E.O.
13771, and OMB Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government
Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act
of 2002.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 106-554, sec. 515.
    \6\ 72 FR 33362 (June 15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Development of the Proposed Rule

A. Prior Related Rulemakings

    The Department initiated a retrospective analysis of its passenger
traffic statistics on July 15, 1998, when DOT published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM),\7\ requesting comment on a
variety of issues related to aviation economic data collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 63 FR 28128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 17, 2005, DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) \8\ as part of DOT's effort to revise the rules governing the
nature, scope, source, and means for collecting and processing aviation
traffic data as well as modernize the collection, processing, and
dissemination of this data. While there was considerable support for
these changes among stakeholders, the comments from the airlines
indicated that the burdens of reporting the data would be unacceptably
high relative to the current collection. The 2005 proposal to collect
all relevant data on the ticket was overly broad and too costly to
implement. The Department withdrew the proposal on June 1, 2011,
stating that the proposed approach did not adequately address some
issues, including measures that could both enhance the utility,
integrity, and accuracy of the data and reduce the cost of reporting.
The current proposal, by comparison, is more narrowly tailored to
address specific well-known quality problems that have been identified
by both producers and users of the data over a long period of time,
maintains the same data structure of the current reporting allowing for
reuse of as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, removes
elements that are no longer required, adds new useful elements, and
improves reporting rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 70 FR 8140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Modifications Suggested by the Industry

    This proposed rule renews DOT's effort to revise its aviation
statistical reporting process. In an October 5, 2015, letter to DOT,
A4A recommended changes to the reporting regulation that would increase
the utility and accuracy of the data while simplifying reporting.
Representatives of A4A notified DOT that their members favored updating
the rule governing the collection of the O&D Survey under prescribed
circumstances. A4A identified changes to reporting that would increase
the utility of the data and, at the same time, simplify reporting.
These proposed changes were reflective of numerous interactions related
to the data collection between government and industry over many years.
The series of ideas that stemmed from this collaboration are listed
below.
Methodology Changes
    (1) Change the responsibility of reporting tickets from the First
Reporting Carrier Rule to the Issuing Carrier; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The current regulation places the reporting responsibility
on the first O&D Survey Reporting Carrier in the sequence of travel
for a ticket. The proposed regulation will place the reporting
responsibility on the carrier that issued the ticket. It is the
carrier that issues the ticket that will have the most information
about the ticket.

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

    (2) Classify all Certificated air carriers and commuter air
carriers holding out scheduled passenger service as O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers by removing the exemptions from reporting given to
U.S.-based air carriers and commuter air carriers with a business model
that limits them to flying aircraft with fewer than 60 seats;
    (3) Refrain from requiring foreign air carriers to report O&D
Survey data, other than foreign air carriers granted anti-trust
immunity under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309; instead, the responsibility
to report tickets issued by a foreign air carrier (that does not submit
data under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309) should remain with the O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier that appears first in the travel sequence of the
ticket;
    (4) Change the period of reporting from quarterly to monthly;
    (5) Increase the sample size to 40% of airline tickets so that the
sample size is statistically valid for measuring travel to small and
rural communities; and
    (6) Shorten time lag for the release of T-100(f) data from the
current 6 months to 3 months, consistent with the release of T-100
Domestic data. Historically this time lag has existed because of
technological and business practice limitations.
New Data Items To Be Collected
    (1) ``Dwell Time,'' an indication of the hours that the passenger
spends at an airport between their arriving and departure flights;
    (2) ``Via Airport,'' an entry for airlines to report hidden
airports or ``via'' airports where a passenger lands, but does not
necessarily deplane;
    (3) ``Total Tax,'' a value of the total taxes and government-
imposed fees collected for each ticket, to distinguish this value from
the Total Amount of the fare collected;
    (4) ``Travel Year and Month,'' to include a field detailing the
year and month the passenger travels for each segment of travel;
    (5) ``Exchanged Ticket Indicator,'' alerting data users that a
reported fare may not comport with the reported itinerary; and
    (6) ``Reporting Record Identifier,'' facilitating easier record
identification by the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier when correcting
tickets reported with errors.
Data Items the Department Proposed No Longer Be Collected
    (1) The fare class the passenger uses on each of the flights;
    (2) The cabin class the passenger uses on each of the flights; and
    (3) The date of ticket purchase.
    In November 2015, the Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO),
the leading distributor of airline fares and airline fare information
for the industry notified DOT that it had the ability to report the
proposed restructured O&D Survey as envisioned by A4A and DOT and that
ATPCO could offer that capability as a third-party service to airlines.

C. Goals and Objectives of This Regulatory Action

    The Department established the following objectives for this
rulemaking: (1) Reduce the long-term reporting burden on the O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers; (2) make the O&D Survey more relevant and useful to
airlines, aviation policy makers, researchers, and stakeholders; (3)
obtain more accurate ticket data from a broader group of air carriers
and markets; (4) reduce the time it takes to disseminate the O&D Survey
and the T-100(f); and (5) increase the statistical correlation between
the O&D Survey and the T-100/T100(f) for data validation purposes.
Taken together, this proposed rule would alleviate unnecessary
regulatory burdens placed on the American people and businesses.

IV. Proposed Changes to the Collection of Data

    The Department proposes the following modifications to its
collection of scheduled passenger aviation data:

D. Altering the Reporting Framework

    The general process for reporting O&D data is to collect the ticket
information once there is an indication that the ticket has been flown,
combine all the ticket coupons to determine all the points flown and
the sequence of travel on the ticket, and integrate the flown
information with revenue information related to the price the consumer
paid for the ticket.
1. Selection of Tickets to Report
a. Making the Ticket the Basic Unit of Reporting
    This proposed rule would give O&D Survey Reporting Carriers the
responsibility for reporting a ticket when it is the Issuing Carrier
for that ticket, relieving air carriers of the responsibility to report
any ticket issued by another O&D Survey Reporting Carrier. Under the
proposed rule, Issuing Carriers would know when a coupon from one of
their tickets is used for transportation by any other air carrier on
the ticket, triggering a Reporting Event. Moving the responsibility to
report to the Issuing Carrier would simplify the reporting process by
establishing one identifiable air carrier that has all the information
on a ticket and is responsible for reporting the ticket. These types of
tickets will account for the majority of reported tickets. Tickets
issued by an O&D Survey Reporting Carrier would be referred to as
``Category One Tickets.''
    In addition to Category One tickets, tickets may be issued by air
carriers who would not fall under the new definition of O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers; however, those tickets may still present
information that should be recorded. The proposed rule would continue
to require each O&D Survey Reporting Carrier to report these
encountered tickets issued by Non-O&D Survey Reporting Carriers. These
tickets would be referred to as ``Category Two Tickets.'' Category Two
Tickets would require a process for recognizing a Reporting Event that
is different than that for Category One Tickets. The proposed Category
Two reporting process would be like the existing process, but the
expected volume of Category Two Tickets will be significantly less
under this proposed rule due to the expansion of the pool of O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers and the Category One reporting rule, which will have
primacy.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For evaluating Category 2 tickets, foreign air carriers
that have been granted Antitrust Immunity under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and
41309 will be responsible for reporting Eligible Tickets they issue
and U.S. air carriers will no longer have to report these.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recognizes that it could eliminate Category Two
Tickets, and therefore the associated burden of reporting these
tickets, by requiring all foreign air carriers providing scheduled
service to the United States to submit O&D Survey data. The Department,
therefore, seeks comment on whether to require all foreign air carriers
providing scheduled service to the United States submit O&D Survey
data.
b. Increasing Sample Size to 40 Percent
    This proposed rule would increase the number of passenger tickets
air carriers are required to report, which would create a statistically
valid sample for meaningful analysis of smaller markets that is not
available under the current O&D Data collection. The current sample
size of 10 percent is only sufficient for analyzing large markets and
the national air transportation

system at a broad level. Studies indicate that a 40 percent sample is
sufficient to allow proper evaluation of small aviation markets, and so
the Department is proposing to increase the number of passenger tickets
are required to report to 40 percent.\11\ The ability to measure small
markets is important to air carriers and to policy makers in order to
monitor the effectiveness of Federal dollars spent in programs such as
the Essential Air Service (EAS) and the Small Community Air Service
Development Program (SCASDP), that are designed to ensure that small
and rural communities have access to the national air transportation
system. The 40 percent sample, in combination with expanding the
universe of O&D Survey Reporting Carriers, would substantially improve
the ability to measure smaller markets accurately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Statistical analyses by Michael Wittman (Michael D.
Wittman, A Note on the Use of U.S. DB1B Passenger Ticket Data for
Estimating Airfares in Thin Airline Markets or Small Airports,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and Eric Amel (Eric Amel,
Report on the Results of Different Sampling Rates on the Reliability
of the US DOT O&D Survey, Compass Lexecon, May 18, 2015) are
available in the Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Providing an Unbiased Sample Selection
    The proposed rule would designate the final, right-most digit of
the standard ticket document number as the basis for the new, random
sample size. Analyses by DOT suggest that the final digit of a ticket
number does not pertain directly to any particular type of passenger or
journey, and every digit (0-9) has an equal probability of appearing.
This method ensures that the random sampling of 40 percent of Eligible
Tickets for the O&D Survey would be truly unbiased and random,
protecting the validity and integrity of the data.
    Any O&D Survey Reporting Carrier that does not assign ticket
numbers to passenger journeys or does not assign ticket numbers such
that the final, right-most digit is not randomly assigned would be
required to develop an alternative method of creating a valid 40
percent sample. Those O&D Survey Reporting Carriers would need to
submit their alternative sample methods to DOT for approval within 90
days of the date that the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier recognizes that
it must make use of the alternative sample selection method to comply
with the proposed reporting regulation for determining an Eligible
Ticket.
2. Removing the Requirement for Summarization
    Under the proposed rule, O&D Survey Reporting Carriers would report
individual tickets as separate records, rather than aggregating tickets
with identical characteristics into a single reporting record.
Currently, the number of tickets in each grouping is tracked and
reported as a passenger count. This process was initially instituted
because the cost of data transmission and storage exceeded the cost of
processing the records into summarized records. However, due to
significant advances in data transmission and storage technology, any
such savings are now minimal. The process of grouping and summarizing
similar tickets into one summary reporting record creates an
additional, unnecessary step for the O&D Survey Reporting Carriers, and
is inconsistent with modern revenue accounting practices. Combining the
tickets also increased the difficulty of correcting the occasional,
inevitable mistakes that arise in reporting to the O&D Survey because
the individual records that cause the problem are not identifiable in
the summary record that is provided.

E. Modification to O&D Survey Reporting Carriers

    The proposed rule would simplify the identification of the air
carriers responsible for reporting a ticket, correcting the current
onerous and burdensome process. It would also all but eliminate the
need for an air carrier that may not have information on a ticket in
its internal systems to obtain the information from other sources
outside its normal business process.
1. U.S. Air Carriers \12\ as O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would require that all U.S. air carriers that
hold either a certificate of public convenience and necessity for
scheduled passenger air transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 or
that hold a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization pursuant to 14 CFR part
298 and that hold out a schedule and issue tickets for scheduled
passenger air transportation be considered O&D Survey Reporting
Carriers for the O&D Survey. This proposed rule would require all O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier to submit O&D Survey data to capture travel in
markets served by all types of air carriers. However, by making the
reporting regulation compatible with industry accounting structures,
DOT expects this reporting would add minimal additional burden to
affected air carriers. Carriers would only report tickets that satisfy
the reporting criteria. In most cases, air carriers operating as
contract lift providers (i.e., code-share branded regional partners)
would not have to report tickets. If necessary, DOT would work with
outside third-party vendors, such as ATPCO, to make data collection and
reporting services available to all O&D Survey Reporting Carriers. The
Department seeks comment on whether any further accommodation is
necessary for these smaller air carriers.
2. Foreign Air Carriers That Are Not O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
    Under the proposed rule, foreign air carriers would not report
passenger O&D data under 14 CFR part 241, Sec. 19-8, which is
consistent with current reporting requirements. However, foreign air
carriers would still need to report data as required by a grant of
antitrust immunity under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309, which represent a
separate set of reporting regulations. O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
will determine if a foreign air carrier that reports under 49 U.S.C.
41308 and 41309 issued a ticket, and if so, the O&D Survey Reporting
Carrier will not be responsible for reporting the ticket.
3. O&D Survey Reporting Carriers List
    The proposed rule would require that DOT post the O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers List one month in advance of its monthly effective
date to ensure that O&D Survey Reporting Carriers are aware of all
updates and give the O&D Survey Reporting Carriers time to update their
internal processes to comply with reporting requirements.\13\ For
example, an update to the list posted January 31st would be effective
for reporting beginning in March. The O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
List would be updated as soon as administratively possible when an O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier becomes qualified or is disqualified as an O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Domestic air carriers may change their business model from
one of only providing contract lift, not holding out scheduled air
service and not issuing tickets, to selling their own services. When
this occurs, the carrier will need to be added to the O&D Survey
Reporting List. The same may happen in reverse requiring a carrier
to be removed from the list. This same process applies to foreign
air carriers immunized under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309. They may
also be added or removed from the list depending on their immunity
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Increasing the Frequency of Reporting

    The proposed rule would require O&D Survey Reporting Carriers to
report data monthly instead of the current quarterly reporting period.
Information would have to be reported to the Department no later than
45 days after the last day of a reporting month. This would make the
data available to stakeholders on an

expedited basis compared to the existing quarterly reporting and
enables users to validate it against other data disseminated monthly,
such as the T-100.

G. Expanding Data Elements Collected

    Through discussions with A4A, the Department determined the
expanded data elements selected below are already collected and
maintained by industry and therefore are minimally burdensome to
collect. The Department may expand or change the regulatory language to
include further definition of the requirements for submission, subject
to the comments received for the final rulemaking.
1. Reporting Scheduled Year and Month of Travel
    The proposed rule would require the O&D Survey Reporting Carriers
to report the scheduled year and month of departure of each flight
coupon. Providing this level of granularity would increase the utility
of the O&D Survey by enabling users to, for example, better compare
economic activity in the aviation sector against other measures of
economic activity in the economy that are reported monthly, or with
other aviation traffic data collected by DOT. Including month of travel
also would make it easier to validate the submissions against other
data sources, such as the T100 and T-100(f). Data in the O&D Survey
currently cannot properly support a direct comparison to 3 months of T-
100/T-100(f) data because the current survey reporting includes data
with travel dates outside of the three months of the quarterly O&D
reporting window that cannot be identified in the collected data;
therefore, the data cannot be accurately segmented on specific time
periods for comparison with the T-100 or T-100(f).
2. Reporting All Airports in the Itinerary Including Via Airports
    The proposed rule would require reporting of Eligible Tickets to
include all airports wherein the passenger is scheduled to travel, even
when the passenger does not deplane. Whereas most tickets document
travel that consists of flight coupons with one aircraft take-off and
one aircraft landing, sometimes the passenger is on a flight that lands
at an airport but the passenger remains on board. This airport is not
expressly identified in the ticket, and is generally referred to as a
``via'' airport. The current rules of the O&D Survey do not allow for
the reporting of ``via'' airports. Collecting this information would
enable data users to understand better how passengers travel through
various airline networks, and would provide the necessary information
for relating T100/T100(f) segment data directly to O&D Survey
information.
    Identifying the ``via'' airports, currently hidden in an itinerary,
requires knowledge of the flight number, because each flight number has
its own unique routing, as well as the date of the scheduled travel,
because schedules change within monthly boundaries and some flight
number schedules change by day-of-week (e.g., differing weekday and
weekend flight itineraries). The Department is not proposing to require
the reporting of flight number and flight date. Instead, DOT proposes
that the O&D Survey Reporting Carriers report the ``via'' airport in a
``Via Airport'' field because the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier knows
the flight number and flight date while the Department does not.
3. Reporting Dwell Time
    The proposed rule would assist DOT in creating a more accurate
record of the passenger's intended destination (i.e., true O&D) by
requiring O&D Survey Reporting Carriers to report the number of hours
elapsed between the passenger's arrival at an airport on a flight and
the passenger's departure from the next airport in the tickets travel
sequence. The standard measure of continuity of a journey in the
industry is time between flights at an airport, or ``dwell time.''
Reporting ``dwell time'' would enable users to make an accurate
determination of when a passenger has reached a destination versus when
the passenger is simply waiting for a connecting flight to the intended
destination. For example, when a passenger stays only an hour or two at
an airport, the airline assumes that this airport is not an intended
destination but, instead, the passenger was only at that airport to
travel onward to an intended destination.
    As the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier knows the flight dates and
flight times on an individual ticket, the Department proposes that the
O&D Survey Reporting Carriers report in one hour increments the number
of hours elapsed between a passenger's arrival and the passenger's
departure from an Airport, rounding up to the nearest whole hour. This
measure of time would be reported as a new element, ``Dwell Time.''
4. Reporting an Exchanged Ticket Indicator
    The proposed rule adds a new element, the ``Exchanged Ticket
Indicator,'' to notify O&D Survey data users that a ticket may warrant
further examination. The proposed rule would continue to require that
tickets issued in exchange for unused coupons of a previously issued
ticket be reported. For Exchanged Tickets, the user of the data would
be alerted that the value reported as the Total Amount may include a
form of payment from unused coupons of a previously issued ticket.
5. Reporting a Frequent Flyer Program Ticket
    The Department seeks comment on whether O&D Survey Reporting
Carriers should report whether a ticket was purchased in part or in
whole by redemption through a Frequent Flyer Program (FFP). The user of
the data would be alerted that the value reported as the Total Amount
may include a form of payment by redemption of FFP miles or points.
6. Reporting Total Amount and Tax Amount
    The rule proposes adding a data element for the ``Tax Amount'' to
understand the effect of government policy on aviation and allow data
users the ability to separate taxes paid from the total fare. The rule
also proposes to rename the currently reported element ``Total Dollar
Value'' to ``Total Amount.''
a. Total Amount
    The proposed rule would keep the reporting element ``Total Dollar
Value'' but change the name of the reporting element to the industry
standard term ``Total Amount'' and clarify the instructions for
populating the data element. For all Eligible Tickets, the O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier would report the Total Amount paid for the ticket
that was mandatory for the passenger to board the aircraft. The
Department proposes that the Total Amount would include all mandatory
carrier-imposed charges and government-imposed fees and taxes. Carrier-
imposed charges, which are variously described as fuel surcharges,
ticketing, check-in, seat, or other fees or charges that are mandatory,
that a passenger must pay to board the aircraft would be included. In
addition, the amount of non-airline imposed taxes and fees for the
ticket would be included. The Total Amount would not include charges
for optional or ancillary services such as baggage fees, premium seat
fees, or ticket change fees. For example, if a consumer can choose a
no-cost seat or seating category, but chooses to purchase a particular
seat or seating category, that fee should not be included. However, if
a passenger has a

choice of seats or seating categories, but there is a cost associated
with all the options and the consumer must pay a fee regardless of
which option is chosen, the fee is mandatory and that fee should be
included in the total cost of the ticket. Regarding mandatory ticket
purchase fees, if the passenger must pay a fee the amount of which
depends on the outlet from which the ticket is purchased (e.g., one fee
for online purchases, a slightly higher (or lower) fee for telephone
purchases, and a slightly lower (or higher) fee for purchases at the
ticket counter), payment of one of those fees is mandatory, and the fee
paid by the passenger should be reported. However, if there is an
outlet for which there is no ticket fee (e.g., online purchases) and
the only additional purchase fees are for tickets purchased via the
airline's disfavored outlets, such as telephone or in-person sales,
then the fee is not mandatory and would not need to be included in the
``Total Amount'' reported to the Department.
    The Department seeks comment on whether an ``optional'' ticket
purchase fee collected from most tickets sold by a carrier should be
included in the Total Amount of the ticket. For example, if there is a
disfavored outlet, such as in-person sales, for which there is no
ticket fee, but a ticket fee is collected from tickets sold from the
outlet a majority of passengers use (e.g., online purchases), should
this fee be included in the Total Amount of the ticket? If yes, what
should the threshold be--greater than 50 percent of tickets sold?
    When reporting Category Two Tickets, the O&D Survey Reporting
Carrier may not have access to the accounting system of the Issuing
Carrier. However, because ticket information is routinely shared
between air carriers and foreign air carriers when transporting shared
passengers, it can be expected that the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier
would report as accurately as possible the Total Amount based on the
information shared by the Issuing Carrier.
b. Tax Amount
    The proposed rule would create a new reporting element, ``Tax
Amount.'' Along with informing tax policy, this change would allow
users of the data to determine the actual passenger revenue retained by
an airline. For Category One Tickets, the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier
would report the aggregate of fees and taxes imposed by external
entities (e.g., airport operating authorities and government
jurisdictions) and paid by the passenger as the Tax Amount, and would
exclude all carrier-imposed fees.
    When reporting Category Two Tickets, the O&D Survey Reporting
Carrier may not have access to the accounting system of the Issuing
Carrier. However, since ticket information is routinely shared between
air carriers and foreign air carriers in the normal course of business
when transporting interline passengers, it can be expected that the O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier would report as accurately as possible the Tax
Amount based on the information shared by the Issuing Carrier.
    An alternative approach would be to require that the O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier report all taxes and non-carrier fees separately,
instead of the current proposal to aggregate the taxes and fees into
one lump sum. The Department seeks comment regarding the utility to
users and additional burden to O&D Survey Reporting Carriers of
reporting individual tax and fee amounts instead of reporting the
aggregate amount of taxes and fees.
c. Currency and Fractions of a Dollar
    The rule proposes all amounts would be reported in United States
Dollars (USD), rounded to two decimal places. The rule does not propose
to impose a uniform methodology for the conversion of foreign currency
to USD. O&D Survey Reporting Carriers would, however, be expected to
use a currency conversion methodology that is generally accepted within
the industry.
7. Record Identification Number
    The rule proposes the creation of a unique Record Identification
Number (Record ID) generated by the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier for
each Eligible Ticket submitted to the O&D Survey. This would allow the
Department to communicate precisely to the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier
any records that may have missing or incomplete data elements, or are
otherwise flagged for review. The Department seeks comment on how to
standardize the format of the Record ID by incorporating helpful
elements, such as the month and year of travel, plate code of the O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier, ticket number, or origin/destination, while
at the same time preserving the number as a unique record identifier.
8. Removal of Fare Basis Code
    The Department seeks comment on whether to cease reporting the Fare
Basis Code as currently collected, the usefulness of such a data
element, and how this data element could be revised to minimize the
burden on O&D Survey Reporting Carriers. Currently, O&D Survey
Reporting Carriers must map their fare types to a standard set of
government-defined definitions that do not always match well with their
business model-specific products, resulting in inconsistent fare basis
codes being assigned across carriers. Ceasing to report Fare Basis
Codes would also decrease the burden on the O&D Survey Reporting
Carriers. Alternatively, the O&D Survey could collect fare class or a
replacement data element instead, such as cabin class of ticket
purchased. The Department believes that such a data element would prove
useful to a variety of industry stakeholders, and would also allow
users of the data to segment average fares.

V. Proposed Changes to Dissemination of Data

A. Changes to Dissemination of O&D Survey Data

    By collecting data on a monthly basis, instead of quarterly, this
proposed rule would allow DOT the ability to disseminate the O&D Survey
statistics more frequently. The Department, however, must balance the
value of providing timely information to stakeholders with the need to
protect the business confidentiality of the air carriers. Currently,
O&D Survey data is typically released 90 days from the end of the
reporting quarter. The Department proposes withholding the O&D Survey
monthly data for a minimum of 60 days from the end of the Reporting
Year and Month. DOT seeks comment on the appropriate amount of time to
withhold data from dissemination that would still protect the
competitive interests of the air carriers.
    Another data dissemination issue is the restrictions placed on the
release of domestic carrier-submitted itineraries with foreign origin
and destination points in the O&D Survey to non-U.S. citizens.
Currently, because data covering the operations of foreign air carriers
that is similar to the information collected in the O&D Survey is not
available, international itinerary data in the Passenger Origin-
Destination Survey is not generally disclosed because of the potential
damaging competitive impact on U.S. carriers and the adverse effect
upon the public interest that would result from unilateral disclosure
of data related to foreign markets (14 CFR part 241, Sec. 19-7(d)). The
disclosure policy identifies exceptions for government interests and
for air carriers contributing data to the O&D Survey. The international
travel data is available to persons upon a showing that the

release of the data will serve specifically identified needs of U.S.
users which are consistent with U.S. interests (14 CFR part 241, Sec.
19-7(d)).
    The Department is not contemplating a change to its policy
regarding the release of international travel data; however, DOT
proposes adding the descriptor ``citizens and non-citizens'' to the
other persons offered an opportunity to receive the data based on
specifically identified needs and consistency with U.S. interests. The
Department seeks comment on the advisability of this clarification of
language, and whether to grant non-citizens access to the O&D Survey
data under these circumstances. Finally, DOT seeks comment on whether
to replace the phrase ``specifically identified need'' with a defined
list of permissible, specifically identified needs that would be
codified in the regulation, and, if so, what that defined list should
include.
    All itineraries that contain a foreign point and involve a U.S. O&D
Survey Reporting Carrier in the itinerary, regardless of whether a
domestic or foreign air carrier reports it, would continue to be made
available under the disclosure policy discussed above.

B. Changes to Dissemination of T-100/T-100(f)

    The Department is considering shortening the time that it withholds
public release of the T-100(f). Such a change would not only expedite
public access to O&D Survey data, but it would also make the T-100(f)
release more consistent with T-100 domestic data by having each
released on the same schedule. This would simplify the process of using
DOT's aviation data products by making it easier to harmonize domestic
and international planning tasks. Considering the increased utility of
the data in the O&D Survey, DOT is requesting comment on shortening the
time that T-100(f) is withheld from the current 6 months to 3 months.

VI. Complete List of Elements To Report

    Below is the proposed list of all elements that would be reported
in the O&D Survey. Elements marked with an asterisk (*) indicate new or
significantly changed elements. Elements for each submitted report
would be submitted only once with each report; elements for each
submitted ticket would be submitted once for each ticket; and elements
submitted for each airport in the ticket sequence of travel would be
submitted once for each airport in the sequence of travel.

A. Elements for Each Submitted Report

     O&D Survey Reporting Carrier Identifier: The two-character
International Air Transport Association (IATA) identifier of the air
carrier that reports the ticket.
     Reporting Year: Year in which a coupon in a ticket is used
for air transportation for the first time.
     Reporting Month:* Month in which a coupon in a ticket is
used for air transportation for the first time.

B. Elements for Each Submitted Ticket

     Record Identification Number:* A unique number assigned by
the O&D Survey Reporting Carrier to each Eligible Ticket submitted to
the O&D Survey, allowing DOT to precisely communicate to the O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier any records that may have missing or incomplete data
elements, or are otherwise flagged for review.
     Issuing Carrier:* The two character IATA/DOT identifier of
the air carrier or foreign air carrier that issued the ticket.
     Total Amount: The gross total of funds collected on a
ticket by the Issuing Carrier for the transportation of a passenger,
inclusive of taxes and fees imposed by non-carrier entities or air
carriers, and exclusive of ancillary fees not required to board the
plane charged by the air carrier.
     Tax Amount:* The portion of the Total Amount that is
imposed by and remitted to a non-air carrier entity, such as a
government. This value may also include airport-imposed taxes or fees
assessed by privately operated airports.
     Exchanged Ticket Indicator:* A record indicator when at
least one form of payment for the ticket is one or more Coupons of a
previously issued ticket.

C. Elements for Each Airport in the Ticket Sequence of Travel

     Airport: The IATA/DOT airport code of the station in the
ticket's sequence of travel that represents the point of embarkation
for the flight segment indicated by Operating Carrier, Marketing
Carrier, Scheduled Flight Year, Scheduled Flight Month. The elements
Dwell Time, and Via Airport would apply to this Airport.
     Operating Carrier: The IATA/DOT designator code for the
air carrier or foreign air carrier whose aircraft are used to operate
from the subject airport.
     Marketing Carrier: The IATA/DOT designator code for the
air carrier or foreign air carrier which marketed the seat on the
aircraft that is scheduled to depart that appears on the flight segment
for the subject airport. In the case of a Franchise (contract lift) or
Marketing Codeshare, the Operating Carrier would be different than the
Marketing Carrier.
     Scheduled Flight Year:* Departure year in which the flight
is scheduled to depart the subject Airport.
     Scheduled Flight Month:* Departure Month in which the
flight is scheduled to depart the subject Airport.
     Dwell Time:* A value that describes the time reported in
one hour increments between the time a passenger arrived at the subject
airport and departed from the subject airport. When an itinerary shows
that the passenger arrives at an airport that is different from the
departure airport (i.e., there is a surface segment in the itinerary),
the Dwell Time would still report the elapsed time between arrival and
departure by air.
     Via Airport(s):* Any points of scheduled stopover or
connection at airports as part of a ``direct'' or ``through'' flight.

VII. Implementation and Compliance Date

    The Department proposes that the compliance date for these
improvements to the O&D Survey would be no earlier than one year from
the publication of the final rule. The Department envisions the
submission of 12 months of data under Sec. 19-8 for testing and
validation as sufficient to resolve any problems that may arise in the
submission and processing of data. DOT seeks comment on what a
reasonable compliance date would be based on the scope of the proposal
in this NPRM.
    Carriers would continue to report under Sec. 19-7 until such a time
that it is determined by DOT that testing and validation of data
submitted under Sec. 19-8 is complete and suitable to replace data
collected under Sec. 19-7 as the statistics of record. The Department
seeks comment on this reporting requirement.

VIII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (49 CFR Part 5)

    This rulemaking is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866,\14\ as supplemented by E.O.
13563,\15\ which define a significant regulatory action as one that is
likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way,
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. The impact on the economy would be less
than $100 million; it would create no conflicts with actions taken by
other agencies; it would not alter budgetary impacts of entitlements,
grants, fees, or loans; nor would it raise any unusual legal or policy
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 58 FR 51735; September 30, 1993.
    \15\ 76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed regulatory action would modify an existing regulation
and is expected to result in cost savings to producers and users of the
data as well as to the Federal government. The proposed action is also
expected to result in benefits to users of the data, including the O&D
Survey Reporting Carriers themselves.
1. Cost Savings
    The net costs of the proposed rule were determined by comparing the
costs of the existing system to the projected costs with the proposed
modification. The Department's analysis identified three primary
categories of potential cost reductions:
     Cost reductions to data producers: The reduction in the
costs of producing information for government reporting, due to
technological simplification of data processing and submission.
     Cost reductions to the government: The reduction in costs
to edit, manipulate, and validate the O&D data for release.
     Cost reductions to the public/users of the data: The
reduction in time that users must spend applying specialized analytical
skills to manipulate and adjust the data to account for current
deficiencies in the Origin and Destination Survey.
    Cost reductions to data producers include costs for accounting and
auditing clerks, computer systems analysts, and computer programming
analysts that are part of the ongoing production of data by the air
carriers. Labor rates were taken based on Bureau of Labor Statistic's
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and hours were estimated
based on industry input for current operations. Average cost per
airline based on the labor rates and estimated hours was then
calculated, and this was multiplied by the expected number of carriers
that will report over a 10-year timeframe. The ``as is'' costs were
then compared to the ``to be'' costs that would be achieved under the
proposed rule. The ``to be'' costs include the transition costs from
the current system to the new system as well as an ongoing cost
estimate for the processing of the data by a third-party fee-for-
service provider. ATPCO, the leading distributor of airline fares and
airline fare information, notified DOT that it can create software to
assemble the O&D Survey report for any air carrier that exchanges
ticket information using their services. ATPCO is a non-profit industry
consortium that provides tariff services and other ticket-related
services to air carriers and foreign air carriers ``at-cost.'' ATPCO's
shared software would relieve air carriers from the cost of maintaining
separate systems, each of which carries attendant secondary expenses
for training and technical maintenance. This option would not only
simplify the information technology operations, but also amortize the
cost of creating and maintaining the software. Therefore, upfront costs
resulting from this proposed action are expected to include the
expenses related to developing, installing, and maintaining an
automated reporting system. These upfront costs have been accounted for
as ongoing payments to a third-party provider.
    Cost reductions to the government include systems investment costs
and ongoing production costs. Labor rates were taken based on Bureau of
Labor Statistic's Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and hours
were based on estimates provided by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), the agency responsible for the current processing.
The ``as is'' comparison assumed the use of existing infrastructure
while the ``to be'' assumed a 2-year development and implementation
window as well as ongoing production costs.
    Cost reductions to the public/users estimated for the ``as is''
total hours users of the data spend on computer systems analysts to
further prepare the data and the number of hours an analyst may take to
perform final data quality procedures that must be done to ensure clean
data for final analysis outputs. The comparison ``to be'' calculation
includes an estimated investment cost for creating processes for the
new data prior to its release to public/users.
    All costs were estimated over 10 years and discounted at a 7
percent rate.

                                             Summary of Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Costs under     Costs under
                           Stakeholder                              the current    the proposed    Cost savings
                                                                    regulation      regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated Entities (Data Producers).............................      $8,355,747      $7,458,801        $896,946
Government......................................................      18,127,583      10,912,800       7,214,783
Public (Data Users).............................................       2,452,586         196,613       2,255,973
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings (10 years @7% Discount Rate).............  ..............  ..............      10,367,702
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Annualized Cost Savings.....................................  ..............  ..............       1,476,128
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis finds that the proposed modification would result in
annualized cost savings of approximately $1.5 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.
2. Implementation and Transition Costs
    To comply with the proposed revised O&D Survey, a certain
investment is likely necessary by data producers. The proposed
modification would simplify the design of the O&D Survey sufficiently,
allowing for third-party providers to create fee-for-service software
that would produce the Survey reporting records for all air carriers.
3. Benefits to Users of the Data
    Users of the data include both air carriers and industry-related
entities, such as airports, manufacturers, researchers, and investors,
who often cite the O&D Survey as one of the most critical datasets used
to formulate short- and long-term business plans and forecast industry
trends. Improving the quality of the O&D Survey data would also yield
several other unquantified benefits to users of the data, including:
     Reporting the Dwell Time between flights would help reduce
the

difficulties and potential errors associated with determining when a
passenger has reached a destination (``Trip Break'') and when the
passenger is simply waiting for a connecting flight to the intended
destination.
     Reporting all the cities in the itinerary would better
align O&D Survey data with the T-100, removing much of the uncertainty
in market validation analysis. This would allow the T-100 to facilitate
validation of O&D Survey data submissions.
     Reporting a larger sample size to capture small and rural
markets with the statistically significant equivalence of larger
markets would reduce the need to make much less accurate manual
statistical adjustments as well as increase the accuracy of data
available for the analysis of small markets.
     Differentiating the amount of tax collected from the
amount of total fare collected would remove uncertainty in determining
the actual passenger revenue retained by the airlines.
     Reporting the month and year of travel would enable
determinations of market trends that are not discernable inside the
quarterly data reports and would allow direct cross-validation to other
datasets such as the T-100.
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          10-Year costs
   Major provisions of this             Benefit          (discounted at
       regulatory action                                       7%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change sample size to 40%.....  Would enable more       The estimated
                                 effective oversight     total reduction
                                 of Congressional        in cost over 10
                                 programs designed to    years
                                 help small              discounted at
                                 communities and         7% for all the
                                 provide more accurate   major
                                 market information      provisions
                                 for a wide variety of   would provide a
                                 research and industry   reduction of
                                 uses.                   $10,367,702
                                                         from the cost
                                                         of continuing
                                                         the current
                                                         methodology.*
Report each ticket as a single  Would simplify
 record.                         reporting and
                                 improves quality
                                 assurance.
Designate all certificated air  Would simplify the
 carriers and commuter air       reporting procedures
 carriers holding out            to enable full
 scheduled passenger service     automation of
 as O&D Survey Reporting         reporting, which
 Carriers and require them to    enhances efficiency
 report the tickets that they    and accuracy; and
 sell.                           eliminate loopholes
                                 in collection secure
                                 integrity of the
                                 sample of tickets.
Move to monthly reporting.....  Would create more
                                 useful and timely
                                 economic information;
                                 and align the
                                 reporting process
                                 with the
                                 corresponding
                                 industry accounting
                                 process.
Report the month/year of        Would create more
 travel.                         useful, timely
                                 economic information;
                                 and align reporting
                                 process with the
                                 corresponding
                                 industry accounting
                                 process.
Report all airports in the      Would provide clarity
 itinerary.                      and completeness in
                                 passenger movements.
Report Dwell Time as the        Would allow accurate
 number of hours between each    determination of the
 arrival and next departure in   passenger's intended
 the itinerary.                  destination based on
                                 industry standard
                                 practice.
Report an Exchanged Ticket      Would alert data users
 Indicator.                      that the fare on a
                                 specific ticket may
                                 require further
                                 investigation.
Elimination of Fare Basis Code  Would remove sensitive
 reporting.                      business information
                                 that is burdensome to
                                 report.
Report taxes paid on the        Would inform tax
 ticket.                         policy and allow data
                                 users to separate
                                 taxes paid from the
                                 total fare.
Report a Record Identification  Would enable
 Number.                         communication between
                                 a O&D Survey
                                 Reporting Carrier and
                                 DOT regarding data
                                 quality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The industry requests to align the regulation with current accounting
  practices, which means that the system is to be restructured, so all
  new provisions can be included in a one-time programming cost.

    This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action.\16\ As is described above in the discussion of the benefit-cost
analysis that was conducted for the proposed rule, this action is
expected to result in annualized cost savings (to producers and users
of the data and the Federal Government) of approximately $1.5 million
per year, while also yielding additional unquantified benefits to users
of the data through improved data quality and utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 82 FR 9339; Feb. 3, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 \17\ requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. The proposed changes we are considering making
to the aviation data collections would not result in expenditures by
State, local, or tribal governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act \18\ requires an agency to assess
the impacts of proposed and final rules on small entities unless the
agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Department has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities
and anticipates that the action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities which will begin reporting the data collected under
this proposed rule routinely collect this data as a normal course of
business, as a necessity to common industry accounting practices. The
Department hereby certifies that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    E.O. 13132 \19\ requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. The Department has analyzed this action in accordance
with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. This rule
does not include any provision that substantially directly affect the
States, the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. It imposes no direct compliance costs on
State and local governments nor does it preempt State law. States are
already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline
Deregulation Act.\20\ Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999.
    \20\ 49 U.S.C. 41713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)

    The proposed changes to the O&D Survey would not have tribal
implications, impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
tribal governments, or preempt tribal law. Therefore, this NPRM is
exempt from the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175, ``Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' \21\ If tribal
implications are identified during the comment period, the Department
will undertake appropriate consultations with the affected Indian
tribal officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) \22\ requires that the
Department consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public and obtain approval from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action contains the following proposed amendments to the
existing information collection requirements previously approved under
OMB Control Number 2105-AE45. As required by the PRA, DOT has submitted
these proposed information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
    Summary: Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic
(O&D Survey), which collects information on the origin and destination
of passengers including, at a minimum, information on: (1) The origin
and destination of passengers in interstate air transportation, and (2)
the number of passengers traveling by air between any two points in
interstate air transportation. Modifications to the existing
requirements would include making the air carrier that issues the
ticket primarily the carrier responsible for submitting the ticket,
reporting each ticket as a single record, expanding the O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier threshold, changing the period of reporting to
monthly, increasing the sample size to 40 percent, reducing the lag
time for release of T-100(f), adding dwell time, adding a Via Airport
data element, adding a Total Tax element, adding Travel Year and Travel
Month as recorded elements, adding an Exchange Ticket Indicator, adding
a Reporting Record Identifier, and removing the requirement to record
the Fare Basis Code.
    Use: The Department is obligated by statute to collect and
disseminate this information. There are many private and public
stakeholders that depend on this data to make decisions on aviation
business and policy. For example, this data is used by the industry to
plan air services, develop commercial aviation infrastructure, measure
the economic impact of passenger flows, and create business plans for
start-up airlines. The O&D Survey is also a primary source of
information used to quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of Federal
aviation policy and programs as well as develop and implement new
policies and infrastructure initiatives.
    Respondents (including number of): All certificated air carriers
and commuter air carriers holding out scheduled passenger service. The
Department currently estimates approximately 27 air carriers will
qualify to submit data to the O&D Survey as envisioned by this
rulemaking.
    Frequency: Monthly.
    Annual Burden Estimate: The Department is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement by March 19, 2021, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, and
should direct them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this preamble. Comments should also be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for OST, New Executive
Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and has preliminarily determined
that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C,
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1,
1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's
NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant
impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the method of collecting
and processing aviation traffic data as well as expanding the number of
reporting air carriers, the sample size collected, and the scope of the
data reported in the O&D Survey. The Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.

H. Regulation Identifier Number

    2105-AE45.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 241

    Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform
system of accounts.

14 CFR Part 298

    Air taxis, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Transportation.

Proposed Rule

    Accordingly, the Department proposes to amend 14 CFR parts 241 and
298 as follows:

PART 241--UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS FOR LARGE
CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329, 41101, 41708, and 41709.

Sec. 19-7  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec. 19-7.
0
3. Add Sec. 19-8 to read as follows:

Sec. 19-8  Passenger Origin--Destination Survey applicability.

    (a) All U.S. certificated and commuter air carriers conducting
scheduled passenger services (except helicopter carriers) shall
participate in a Passenger Origin-Destination (O&D) Survey covering
domestic and international air carrier operations, as prescribed by the
Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of
Airline Information (OAI).
    (b) A statistically valid sample of flight coupons shall be
selected for reporting purposes. The sample shall consist of a
selection of all Tickets involving a Reporting Carrier that meet the
reporting criteria as defined in the Instructions, or further defined
in Directives, except those participating O&D carriers with nonstandard
ticketing procedures, or other special operating characteristics, may
propose alternative procedures. Such departures from standard O&D
Survey practices shall not be authorized unless approved in writing by
the Director, Office of Airline Information under the procedures in
Sec. 1-2. The data to be recorded and reported, as stipulated in the
Instructions and Directives, shall include at a minimum the following
data elements: Reporting Carrier, Reporting Month, Reporting Year,
Record Identification Number, Issuing Carrier, Total Amount, Tax
Amount, Exchanged Ticket Indicator, Airport, Operating Carrier,
Marketing Carrier, Scheduled Flight Year, Scheduled Flight Month, Dwell
Time and Via Airport(s).
    (c) Any Ticket that is submitted that involves a O&D Survey
Reporting Carrier providing service in whole or in part under this part
or 49 U.S.C. 41308 or 41309 and any data covering the operations of
foreign air carriers that are similar to the information collected in
the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey are generally not available to
the Department, the U.S. carriers, or U.S. interests. Therefore,
because of the damaging competitive impact on U.S. carriers and the
adverse effect upon the public interest that would result from
unilateral disclosure of the U.S. survey data, the Department will not
disclose the international data in the Passenger Origin-Destination
Survey except:
    (1) To an air carrier directly participating in and contributing
input data to the Survey or to a legal or consulting firm designated by
an air carrier to use on its behalf O&D data in connection with a
specific assignment by such carrier;
    (2) To parties to any proceeding before the Department to the
extent that such data are relevant and material to the issues in the
proceeding upon a determination to this effect by the Administrative
Law Judge or by the Department's decision-maker. Any data to which
access is granted pursuant to this section may be introduced into
evidence subject to the normal rules of admissibility of evidence.
    (3) To agencies and other components of the U.S. Government.
    (4) To other persons upon a showing that the release of the data
will serve specifically identified needs of U.S. users which are
consistent with U.S. interests.
    (5) To foreign governments and foreign users as provided in formal
reciprocal arrangements between the foreign and U.S. Governments for
the exchange of comparable O&D data.
    (6) Or as otherwise determined by the Department as consistent with
its regulatory functions and responsibilities.
    (d) Each O&D Survey Reporting Carrier shall maintain its prescribed
reportable records in a manner and at such locations as will permit
ready accessibility for examination by representatives of DOT. The
record retention requirements are prescribed in part 249 of this
chapter.

PART 298--EXEMPTIONS FOR AIR TAXI AND COMMUTER AIR CARRIER
OPERATIONS

0
4. The authority citation for part 298 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401, 411, and 417.

0
5. In Sec.  298.60, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  298.60  General reporting instructions.

    (a) Each commuter air carrier and each small certificated air
carrier shall file the applicable schedules of Form 298-C, ``Report of
Financial and Operating Statistics for Small Aircraft Operators'',
Schedule T-100, ``U.S. Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop
Segment and On-Flight Market'', and the ``Passenger Origin--Destination
Survey'' prescribed in part 241, Sec. 19-8, of this subchapter.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2020-29229 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 8, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20459

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC d/b/a USA 3000 AIRLINES (USA 3000)
filed 2/22/05 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal point Chicago, Illinois, and the terminal point
San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; and (2) the terminal point Detroit, Michigan,
and the terminal point San Jose del Cabo, Mexico.  USA 3000 proposes to
operate these routes on a year-round basis, beginning on or about May 6,
2005.

United Air Lines, Inc. (United) has filed an answer opposing USA
3000’s application, to the extent that USA 3000 seeks authority to
serve the Chicago-San Jose del Cabo market.

Applicant rep:   Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst:  Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted Detroit-San Jose del Cabo exemption authority (subject to
conditions, see below)

XX  Deferred on the Chicago-San Jose del Cabo request (see remarks
below)

The above action was effective when taken: April 8, 2005, through April
8, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on May 6, 2005, USA 3000’s proposed start-up date
for the above-mentioned service.

Remarks:  We will address USA 3000’s request for authority to serve
the Chicago-San Jose del Cabo market separately.  Under the U.S.-Mexico
aviation agreement, two U.S. airlines may be designated to provide
direct carrier service in the Chicago-San Jose del Cabo market.
Currently, American Airlines, Inc. is designated to provide such
services.  Thus, only one designation is available on this route.  Two
applications have been filed for the available Chicago-San Jose del Cabo
authority (the captioned application of USA 3000, and the application of
United, in Docket OST-2005-20630).  Thus, we are deferring action on USA
3000’s request for authority to serve the Chicago-San Jose del Cabo
market.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.aspU.S. Carrier
Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 United has also filed a competing application for the Chicago-San Jose
del Cabo market (Docket OST-2005-20630).