[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65230-65233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5759]



[[Page 65230]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 234

[Docket No. OST 2007-28522]
RIN 2139-AA13


Revision of Airline Service Quality Performance Reports and 
Disclosure Requirements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is proposing to 
collect additional data elements when flights are cancelled, diverted, 
or experience gate returns. The additional proposed data elements would 
fill in data gaps giving the Department, the industry, and the public a 
more accurate portrayal of on-ground delays after flights depart the 
gate but prior to the time they take off and after flights land but 
before they reach the gate.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 
OST 2007-28522 by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    <bullet> Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Identify docket number, OST 2007-28522, at the 
beginning of your comments, and send two copies. To receive 
confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed 
stamped postcard. Internet users may access all comments received by 
DOT at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments are posted 
electronically without charge or edits, including any personal 
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 
Information, RTS-42, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, 
Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8e899e828d9e88c29f988d8287999fac888398c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d3f382f333c2f39732e293c3336282e1d393229733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT invites air carriers and other 
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
written comments or views. The most helpful comments reference a 
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any 
recommended change, and include supporting data.

Background

    The Department's rule requiring airlines that account for at least 
one percent of the domestic scheduled passenger revenues to submit 
service quality performance reports, 14 CFR part 234, was first issued 
on September 9, 1987 (52 FR 34071). At that time, close to 40 percent 
of all flights were either late or cancelled. On-time performance 
reporting created a market-based incentive for carriers to improve 
their service and scheduling practices. The immediate result of this 
action was an improvement in carriers' on-time performance. For the 
remainder of 1987, the industry had an on-time arrival rate of over 74 
percent.
    In 1995, the Department added additional data elements to the 
reporting system to enable the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to 
identify choke points within the air traffic control system (60 FR 
66722, December 26, 1995). Aircraft tail number, wheels-off time and 
wheels-on time gave the FAA information concerning aircraft routings 
through the air traffic control system and detailed data on tarmac and 
airborne delays. In addition, the department required air carriers to 
report delays related to mechanical problems.
    In 1999 and 2000, airline delays increased dramatically with the 
increase in airline operations. Consumer complaints concerning flight 
delays increased by 18% from 1999 to 2000. Section 227 of the Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Air-21; See Pub. L. 
106-181, 114 Stat. 61) called upon the Secretary of Transportation to 
disclose to the public the causes of delayed and cancelled flights. On 
July 25, 2000, the Department's Office of Inspector General (IG) issued 
a report Air Carrier Flight Delays and Cancellations (Report Number CR 
2000-112). In its report, the IG recommended that DOT provide 
consumers, on a monthly basis, information about the major causes of 
flight delays and cancellations. During this period, the Air Transport 
Association of America also petitioned the Department to report the 
causes of delays and cancellations. In August 2000, an Air Carrier On-
time Reporting Advisory Committee was established to make 
recommendations on causal reporting. The committee recommended four 
delay causes--Air Carrier, Extreme Weather, National Aviation System, 
and Late Arriving Aircraft. After notice and comment on the matter, in 
November 2002, the Department adopted a final rule that required 
carriers to report the causes of delays in these four categories, along 
with a fifth category, Security. (67 FR 70535, November 25, 2002.)
    The occurrence in late 2006 and early 2007 of significantly long 
on-ground delays, particularly those involving flights that departed 
the gate but were delayed taking off and those that had landed but were 
delayed in reaching a gate, commonly referred to as ``tarmac delays,'' 
once again focused public attention on the Department's collection of 
Airline Service Quality Performance Reports under part 234. In 
reviewing the currently available data, we find that the Department can 
determine the extent of tarmac delays for most flights. However, these 
data cannot be used to capture tarmac delays in all instances since the 
reporting requirements were never intended for such a purpose. In this 
regard, when first adopted, the intent of part 234's reporting 
requirements was to obtain and provide to the public data involving on-
time departures and arrivals, while later revisions to the rule were 
concerned with taxi times and the causes of flight delays. Currently, 
the Department cannot calculate tarmac delays for canceled or diverted 
flights.
    For example, on February 14, 2007, during snowstorms in the 
Northeast, many flights departed the boarding gates only to spend many 
hours on the tarmac being de-iced and waiting for the weather to clear. 
When the weather failed to clear sufficiently, flights were cancelled. 
Under current reporting rules, if a flight is canceled, only that fact 
is required to be reported. Air carriers are not required to report the 
time of departure from a gate for canceled flights. Thus, under current

[[Page 65231]]

reporting rules, air carriers do not provide information that enables 
the Department to determine whether a flight, that is ultimately 
canceled, experienced a tarmac delay and the extent of that delay. 
Similar data gaps exist for flights that are diverted to alternate 
airports, as was demonstrated by massive flight diversions that 
occurred in the Southwestern United States in late 2006 as a result of 
bad weather. Under the current reporting regulations, on-time reporting 
ceases when a flight is diverted from its scheduled routing. The 
carrier reports the scheduled departure and arrival times and the 
actual gate departure and wheels-off times. However, no information is 
reported on the arrival at the airport to which a flight is diverted or 
the departure from that alternate airport, and no information is 
reported on whether or not that flight ultimately arrived at its 
scheduled destination airport and, if it did, its time of arrival at 
that airport.
    Moreover, in our review of the available data, we discovered that 
carriers were not uniformly reporting gate-departure times (i.e. when a 
flight that had departed a gate returned to the gate and subsequently 
departed the gate again for take-off). Some carriers reported the 
initial gate-departure time while others reported the ``second'' gate-
departure time. There are advantages and disadvantages with both 
reporting methods.
    By receiving data on only the first gate-departure time, the 
Department knows the time interval from when the aircraft initially 
departed the gate and when the aircraft ultimately departed the airport 
(wheels-off time). However, there are times when a carrier is credited 
with an on-time departure, when in reality the aircraft returned to the 
gate only to depart well after its originally-scheduled departure time. 
In such instances, the taxi-out time (and tarmac delay time) for the 
aircraft is also miscalculated, because the time the aircraft was 
parked at the gate awaiting its second gate departure, a time when 
passengers are often deplaned, would be counted in the taxi-out/tarmac 
delay time.
    On the other hand, while reporting data on only the second gate-
departure time might be seen as a more accurate assessment of delay in 
departure, this information would fail to capture the duration of any 
tarmac delay that occurred after the first gate departure, thereby 
disguising the true inconvenience to passengers on that flight.

Public Meeting

    On June 20, 2007, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)/
Research and Innovative Technology Administration hosted a public 
meeting to discuss data gaps and inconsistencies in the reporting of 
on-time data. A summary of the public meeting is available in Docket 
No. OST 2007-28522. The airlines present at the meeting and the Air 
Transport Association (ATA), which represents 11 airlines that submit 
on-time data, fully supported the objectives of filling data gaps and 
improving the utility of on-time data. American Airlines recommended 
that any change to the reporting regulations ensure that: (1) The 
information is reported consistently by all carriers; (2) the potential 
for misinterpretation of the data is limited; and (3) the reporting 
burden on the air carriers is limited. ATA proposed that carriers 
report the last gate-departure time in the normal data field for gate-
departure time and create a new field where the carriers would report 
the initial gate-departure time when there is a return-to-gate 
situation. ATA also proposed that BTS create another field for total 
time on tarmac for multiple gate departures.
    Various consumer groups expressed the opinion that the current 
system was providing misleading information by understating tarmac 
delays. The Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) stated that the 
delay statistics are so incomplete or inaccurate as to be misleading or 
deceptive to the public. ACAP objects to the way carriers report 
cancellations and diversions: specifically, it objects to the fact that 
no delay minutes are assigned to cancelled and diverted flights. Also, 
ACAP is of the view that, rather than requiring airlines to track the 
delay minutes of aircraft, the public would better be served by knowing 
the delay suffered by each passenger. For instance, a flight could 
arrive 50 minutes late causing some passengers to miss connecting 
flights. The overall delay experienced by these passengers likely would 
be much greater than the 50 minutes of aircraft delay reported to BTS.
    On June 20, 2007, Congresswomen Jean Schmidt sent a letter to 
Secretary Mary Peters commending the Department's action to review on-
time reporting, and recommending that the Department collect complete 
information on gate returns, and cancelled and diverted flights.
    As a follow up to the public meeting, BTS asked the reporting air 
carriers to provide answers to the following questions:

    1. For Gate Returns, do you collect or have access to:
    The number of times a plane returns to the gate?
    The time the plane leaves and returns to the gate for each gate 
departure/return?
    The number of minutes a plane stays on the tarmac for all gate 
returns until the final departure or cancellation?
    In the case where a plane takes off and returns to the gate, the 
number of minutes the plane stays in the air (i.e., is there a 
wheels-on and wheels-off time)?
    The cause for the gate return(s)?
    2. For Cancelled Flights:
    No additional questions.
    3. For Diverted Flights, do you collect or have access to:
    If the plane lands at an alternative airport, the airport's 
three letter code?
    The number of minutes the plane stays on the tarmac at the 
alternative airport?
    The wheels-on time at the alternative airport?
    The cause of the diversion?
    If the passengers are not deplaned, the wheels-off time when the 
flight resumes?
    If the passengers are deplaned, the time the plane arrives at 
the gate?
    Whether the flight continues on to the original destination 
airport?
    If yes, what is the plane's departure date, gate departure time, 
and wheels-off time?
    For all continuation flights, what are the wheels-on and gate 
arrival time at the original destination airport?

    The answers of those carriers that responded to the questions lead 
us tentatively to conclude that the requested data can be collected 
with a couple of exceptions. Some carriers apparently do not currently 
retain information on how long an aircraft sits on the tarmac before 
the flight is ultimately cancelled. Other carriers apparently do not 
currently record the cause of gate returns or flight diversions. 
Nevertheless, the general opinion expressed by those carriers 
responding is that with some reprogramming to the individual carriers' 
internal systems, all the data could be collected and retrieved. ATA 
responded by proposing the addition of five data elements:
    (1) Gate Departure Time--first time out at origin airport.
    (2) Total ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes.
    (3) Average ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes.
    (4) Total ground time away from gate at divert and destination 
airport(s)--actual minutes.
    (5) Average ground time away from gate at divert and destination 
airport(s)--actual minutes.
    ATA requested that any changes to the reporting requirements be 
made at

[[Page 65232]]

the same time and that the implementation of the changes become 
effective no sooner than 6 months after the Department issues a new 
Accounting and Reporting Directive on the new reporting system. ATA 
also offered to participate in an industry working group comprised of 
DOT and interested carrier officials, much like the group that 
successfully collaborated on the reporting of the causes of delay.

Need for Improved Reporting and Disclosure

    The Department believes that the Airline Service Quality 
Performance reporting system needs to be revised in order to provide 
consumers with a complete picture of tarmac delays. The current system 
also does not provide information on whether diverted flights 
ultimately reach their intended destination. The Department proposes to 
make the following revisions to its reports required pursuant to Part 
234:

Current Data Fields

    1. For gate/air returns and cancellations--carriers would report 
the last gate departure as the Gate Departure Time (Actual).
    2. For diverted flights that ultimately reach their destination, 
carrier would report:
    <bullet> Gate Arrival Time (Actual) at destination airport.
    <bullet> Difference in Minutes Between Official Airline Guide (OAG) 
and Scheduled Arrival Time.
    <bullet> Actual Gate to Gate Time in Minutes.
    <bullet> Arrival Delay Difference in Minutes Between Actual Arrival 
Time and Computer Reservation System (CRS) Scheduled Arrival Time.
    <bullet> Wheels-On Time (actual) at destination airport.
    <bullet> The Minutes Late for the proper Delay Code(s).

New Data Elements

Cancellations and Gate/Air Returns

    1. For gate/air returns, first gate-departure time at origin 
airport.
    2. Total ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes.
    3. Average ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes.

New Data Elements

Diverted Flights

    1. Three letter code of airport for diverted airport(s).
    2. Wheels-on Time at diverted airport.
    3. Gate Arrival Time at diverted airport.
    4. Gate Departure Time at diverted airport.
    5. Wheels-off Time at diverted airport.

Technical Directive

    BTS plans to issue a technical reporting directive in combination 
with a final rule. In the development of the directive, BTS would like 
to work with the air carriers to form a pilot group for submitting the 
new data elements. With proper testing, we hope to ensure that we would 
be collecting the required data in the most efficient manner possible 
for both BTS and the air carriers.

Tracking Individual Passenger Delay

    We agree with ACAP that the airline quality service reports 
currently required to be filed do not capture the delays experienced by 
individual passengers when a missed connection, cancellation or 
diversion occurs. With the very high passenger loads on aircraft, it is 
becoming increasingly more difficult for passengers to rebook a flight. 
The current reporting system required under Part 234 was designed, 
however, to track aircraft and airline operations. When delays occur 
there are two types of delayed passengers: non-disrupted and disrupted. 
The non-disrupted passenger completes the flight itinerary without 
suffering a missed connection, diversion or cancellation. The delay 
minutes of a non-disrupted passenger are relatively easy to calculate.
    The disrupted passenger either misses a connecting flight, or 
experiences a cancelled or diverted flight. The Department does not 
have the data available to accurately assign flight delay minutes to 
disrupted passengers as information is lacking on how the passenger 
completed the journey or even if the passenger completed their journey. 
Time-sensitive passengers may abandon their trip plans and return home 
while others may remain at the airport awaiting the next available 
flight. Tracking the movement of individual passengers and assigning 
delay minutes to individuals is difficult, if not impossible, and could 
be seen by some as an invasion of privacy. We believe the cost of 
tracking individual passenger movements would outweigh the benefit of 
assigning a delay time to a disrupted passenger.

Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

Economic Summary

Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 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; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed action is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' [or non-significant if OMB agrees] under Executive 
Order No. 12866. The proposal has high Executive, Congressional and 
public interest.
    This Executive Order also requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. To the extent possible, this 
proposed rule meets these criteria.

Cost/Benefits

    Congress has proposed that BTS expand the reporting system to 
capture all operational data on gate returns, cancelled and diverted 
flights (see H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007). Carriers 
have commented that the cost for programming to provide additional data 
on gate returns, cancelled and diverted flights could range from 
$10,000 to $60,000 per carrier. Using the high estimate, compliance to 
this rule could cost the industry $1.2 million. It is difficult to 
assign a dollar value to the intangible benefits derived from the rule. 
Consumers will have more accurate data for making their transportation 
selections. The FAA will have complete data on all long tarmac delays.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This Act requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. The carriers that are required to 
report ASQP data

[[Page 65233]]

are all large air carriers with annual operating revenues exceeding 
$600 million. Thus, this proposal, if adopted, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Trade Agreements Act

    This Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to foreign commerce of the United States. ASQP 
data are for domestic operations only and have no impact on the foreign 
commerce of U.S. carriers.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This Act requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the 
costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal government. This proposed rule imposes no expenditures 
on State, local or tribal governments.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The Department has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles 
and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that 
this proposed action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the national Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism 
implications.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department has submitted a copy of the new information 
requirements in this proposed rule to the Office of Management and 
Budget for review. Based on carrier comments, we are estimating a first 
year increase in reporting burden of 900 hours per carrier or an 
industry increase of 18,000 hours. After the carriers have revised 
their systems, reporting burden should be reduced slightly in the 
future. We request that carriers provide estimates of what they 
perceive as increased costs and burdens from this proposed action.

Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda each 
April and October. The RIN Number 2139-AA13 contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234

    Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Transportation proposes to 
amend 14 CFR Chapter II as follows:

PART 234--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 Secs. 41708 and 41709.

    2. Section 234.4 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(22) through 
(a)(29) and revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  234.4  Reporting of on-time performance.

    (a) * * *
    (22) For gate/air returns, first gate-departure time at origin 
airport.
    (23) Total ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes.
    (24) Total number of gate returns.
    (25) Three letter code of airport where diverted flight landed.
    (26) Wheels-on Time at diverted airport.
    (27) Gate Arrival Time at diverted airport.
    (28) Gate Departure Time at diverted airport.
    (29) Wheels-off Time at diverted airport.
    (b) When reporting the information specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section for diverted flights, a reporting carrier shall use the 
original scheduled flight number and the origin and destination airport 
codes except for items cited in paragraph (a)(25) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2007.
M. Clay Moritz, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Director, Office of Airline Information, Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 07-5759 Filed 11-15-07; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>