29426 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2007–0266, dated October 8, 2007, 

and the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of 

this AD, for related information. 

TABLE 1.—AIRBUS SERVICE INFORMATION

Airbus service bulletin Revision Date 

A300–55–6043 .................................................................................................................................... 01 December 3, 2007. 

A300–55–6044 .................................................................................................................................... 01 December 20, 2007. 

A310–55–2044 .................................................................................................................................... 01 December 3, 2007. 

A310–55–2045 .................................................................................................................................... 01 December 20, 2007. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use the service information 

specified in Table 2 of this AD to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point 

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, 

France. 

(3) You may review copies at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

TABLE 2.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus service bulletin Revision Date 

A300–55–6043, including Appendices 1 through 4 ........................................................................... 01 December 3, 2007. 

A300–55–6044, including Appendices 1 through 4 ........................................................................... 01 December 20, 2007. 

A310–55–2044, including Appendices 1 through 4 ........................................................................... 01 December 3, 2007. 

A310–55–2045, including Appendices 1 through 4 ........................................................................... 01 December 20, 2007. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 

2008. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–10978 Filed 5–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 234 

[Docket No. RITA 2007–28522] 

RIN 2139–AA12 

Revision of Airline Service Quality 

Performance Reports and Disclosure 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department) will collect 

additional data elements when flights 

are cancelled, diverted, or experience 

gate returns. The additional data 

elements will close data gaps and 

provide consumers a more accurate 

portrayal of arrival and tarmac delays. 

The previous NPRM was inadvertently 

published under RIN 2139–AA13. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

October 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bernard Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, 

Telephone Number (202) 366–4387, Fax 

Number (202) 366–3383, or E-mail 

bernard.stankus@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this rule, a copy 

of the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

and copies of the comments may be 

downloaded at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

docket RITA 2007–28522. 

Background 

The regulation (14 CFR part 234) 

requiring airlines that account for at 

least one percent of the domestic 

scheduled passenger revenues to submit 

monthly service quality performance 

reports was 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. 

The Department added data elements 

to the reporting system in 1995 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. A tarmac delay is one 

that takes place on the ground, such as 

on the ramp or taxiway. 

In 1999 and 2000, airline delays 

increased dramatically with the increase 

in airline operations. Consumer 

complaints concerning flight delays 

increased by 58%. Section 227 of the 

Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 

the 21st Century (AIR–21) called upon 

the Secretary of Transportation to 

disclose to the public the source of 

delayed and cancelled flights. 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 29427 

make recommendations on causal 

reporting. The committee recommended 

four delay causes—Air Carrier, Extreme 

Weather, National Aviation System, and 

Late Arriving Aircraft. In response to 

public comments to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, a fifth cause, 

Security, was added to the final rule (67 

FR 70544, November 25, 2002). 

The occurrence of lengthy tarmac 

delays in late 2006 and early 2007 once 

again focused public attention on the 

Department’s collection of Airline 

Service Quality Performance Reports 

under 14 CFR part 234. In response to 

a media inquiry, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) 

determined that the air carriers were 

inconsistent in reporting gate-departure 

times when there was a return to gate. 

Some carriers reported the initial gate 

departure time while others reported the 

‘‘second’’ gate departure time. There are 

advantages and disadvantages with both 

methods. 

If an airline reports the first gatedeparture time, the Department knows 

the interval between the time the 

aircraft was initially ready to depart and 

when the aircraft actually departed the 

airport (wheels-off time). However, the 

air carrier would be credited with an ontime departure when in reality the 

aircraft returned to the gate only to 

depart well after scheduled departure 

time. In this instance, the taxi-out time 

is also miscalculated, because the time 

the aircraft was parked at the gate 

waiting re-boarding is counted in the 

taxi-out time. 

Reporting the second gate-departure 

time does not fully represent the 

inconveniences that the passengers 

endured, by making it appear that they 

were on the aircraft for a much shorter 

duration before wheels-off (take-off) 

time. The gate departure time for 

carriers reporting the second gate 

departure time provides a more accurate 

assessment of departure delays, but does 

not account for tarmac delays occurring 

during the initial gate departure. 

A second data gap concerned the 

reporting of tarmac times for flights that 

were subsequently cancelled. For 

example these flights could spend hours 

on the tarmac waiting for storms to pass 

before being cancelled. Since airlines do 

not report any data on cancelled flights 

other than the fact the flight was 

cancelled, the amount of time 

passengers spent on the tarmac waiting 

for take-off is not recorded. 

A third data gap concerned the 

reporting of tarmac times at diversion 

airports for diverted flights i.e., a flight 

that landed somewhere other than the 

scheduled destination. Under the 

current reporting system, airlines do not 

report any data once a flight is declared 

diverted. Therefore, the amount of time 

spent on the tarmac at the diversion 

airport or at the original destination 

airport if the flight was resumed is not 

recorded. 

Comments 

The Department issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to fill tarmacdelay data gaps on November 20, 2007 

(72 FR 65230). A joint comment was 

received from the Air Transport 

Association of America (ATA) and the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA), 

representing 18 air carriers currently 

reporting performance data. Other 

comments were received from Delta Air 

Lines, the National Business Travel 

Association (NBTA), the American 

Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), the 

Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill 

of Rights, and from five private citizens/ 

airline consumers. 

Of the five citizen comments, two 

stated that airlines should report all 

delays and publish their delay data on 

their Web sites, and one stated that the 

Department should fine air carriers $1 

million for their first lapse in reporting. 

The issue concerning the displaying of 

on-time data on carrier Web sites is 

being addressed in a separate 

rulemaking titled Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233, 

Docket OST 2007–0022). The 

Department is limited by law on the 

assessment of fines to air carriers. 

Failure to file accurate and timely 

reports required by part 234 violates 49 

U.S.C. sec. 41708, which subjects the 

carrier to civil penalties of up to $25,000 

for each violation and $25,000 for each 

day any violation continues under 49 

U.S.C. sec. 46301. Two other comments 

addressed issues in other aviation 

related rulemakings—Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233, 

Docket OST 2007–0022) and Oversales 

and Denied Boarding Compensation 

(final rule, 73 FR 21026). Those 

comments were forwarded to the 

personnel coordinating those 

rulemakings. The last comment dealt 

with a specific lost/stolen baggage issue. 

That letter was forwarded to the Office 

of the Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

for appropriate action. 

The Coalition for an Airline 

Passengers Bill of Rights said all carriers 

operating aircraft with over 30 seats 

should be required to report delay data; 

and that international flights should be 

reportable. This issue is being addressed 

in the rulemaking titled Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections. 

Tracking Individual Passenger Delay 

NBTA was the only party to comment 

on whether the Department should track 

individual passenger delays. It stated: 

‘‘It would be an inappropriate burden to 

require air carriers to create statistics for 

every contingency a flight might face. * * * 

There are too many passenger-specific 

scenarios that airlines should not be 

spending time tracking. For instance, a 

delayed passenger switching carriers on a 

connecting trip would require interfaces 

across corporate databases that do not exist. 

NBTA agrees * * * that capturing individual 

passenger delays on missing connections, 

cancellations or diversion, would be difficult 

and for little benefit. Also, * * * travelers 

would be wary about the federal government 

collecting information on their personal 

flight data. While NBTA recognizes the need 

to give personally identifying information for 

the purposes of national security; giving that 

same information for the purposes of tracking 

delays is unreasonable.’’

The Department is not requiring air 

carriers to track and submit individual 

passenger data. 

Gate Returns 

A gate return occurs when the aircraft 

departs the boarding gate with 

passengers aboard and returns to a gate 

at that airport to deplane the passengers 

before the flight progresses to wheels-off 

at the departure airport. As stated 

previously, some carriers are reporting 

the first time the aircraft leaves the 

departure gate as the official gate 

departure time. Other carriers are 

reporting the last time the aircraft leaves 

the departure gate as the official gate 

departure time. Both methods of 

reporting produce misleading 

information for flights with multiple 

gate departures. The earlier gate 

departure makes it appear that the flight 

experienced an on-time departure and 

overstates taxi-out time. The reporting 

of the later departure time properly 

records a late departure but masks the 

total time the aircraft and passengers 

were sitting on the taxiway. 

Commenters agreed that the 

Department should correct this 

reporting inconsistency. ATA and RAA 

proposed that the last time a flight 

leaves the boarding gate be reported as 

the official gate departure time. NBTA 

states that ‘‘* * * a flight that is 

delayed and given a new departure time 

should not be considered on-time when 

it leaves at the subsequent time.’’ ATA 

and RAA also suggested that the 

Department add new data fields to 

collect the first time the flight left the 

boarding gate, the total time the aircraft 

was away from the gate at the departure 

airport, and the average time the aircraft 

was away from the gate at the departure 

airport. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
29428 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The Coalition for Airline Passenger 

Bill of Rights commented that the 

longest time period away from the 

boarding gate is more informative than 

the average time. They also 

recommended that the Department 

clarify that the carrier may only count 

a gate return if passengers are permitted 

to deplane. 

The Department will require air 

carriers to report the last time the 

aircraft leaves the boarding gate as the 

official gate-departure time. When there 

is a gate return, carriers will report new 

data fields to indicate the first time the 

aircraft left the boarding gate, the total 

time the aircraft was away from the 

boarding gate at the departure airport, 

and the longest single period of time 

that the aircraft was away from the 

boarding gate at the departure airport. 

Carriers will only report a gate return 

when passengers are permitted to 

deplane. 

The Department agrees that the 

longest time away from the boarding 

gate is more meaningful information to 

consumers than the average time and 

the final rule requires the reporting of 

the longest time. 

Cancelled Flights 

All parties concur that the 

Department should collect additional 

data when a flight is cancelled after the 

aircraft leaves the boarding gate but 

before the flight lifts off from the tarmac. 

‘‘NBTA understands that in some cases it 

may be far preferable to have an extended 

tarmac delay than returning a flight to a gate, 

thus canceling or delaying the flight 

considerably * * * However, if a plane is 

cancelled after a tarmac delay, that fact needs 

to be taken into account when evaluating 

airline and airport performance. Current law 

does not provide this information and thus 

is not helpful to sophisticated buyers capable 

of evaluating trends over time.’’

Currently, the carriers report only the 

scheduled departure and arrival times 

and no actual times for cancelled flights. 

To capture tarmac times for these 

cancelled flights, carriers now will 

complete the actual gate departure field, 

and report the new fields developed for 

total time away from gate and longest 

single period away from gate. 

Diverted Flights 

The rulemaking component which 

received the most wide-ranging 

comments was the reporting of data 

pertaining to flight diversions. Delta Air 

Lines objected to reporting data on 

diverted flights. It claimed that the 

reported data from diverted flights will 

have little or no value to DOT for the 

purpose of setting policy. Delta said the 

new requirements will cost up to 

$500,000, and result in ‘‘no tangible 

benefit to passengers.’’ Delta asserts that 

most if not all diversions occur because 

of safety factors. ‘‘As such, no amount 

of analysis by DOT of the diversion data 

requested in this NPRM will change in 

the least bit the frequency and effect of 

diversions.’’

ATA/RAA supports the Department’s 

desire to collect additional data on 

diverted flights but believes the data 

should be limited. ATA/RAA said that 

the structure of the Department’s 

proposal to collect items at diverted 

airports would compromise the integrity 

of the fixed-length record format which 

is oriented to a single scheduled flight. 

They submitted examples where 

multiple diversion and turn backs 

would be difficult to capture under the 

proposal. Diversions account for 0.16 

percent of all flights. ‘‘ATA believes that 

if the Department were concerned with 

information on such a small segment of 

operations, we should submit a proposal 

that would collect information for all 

possible scenarios.’’

The Coalition for an Airline 

Passengers Bill of Rights said the data 

gaps in the on-time reporting system 

should be closed. The coalition said that 

a new set of codes to identify the cause 

of diversions should be implemented 

with a unique code to distinctly identify 

diversions caused by insufficient fuel. 

ASTA, the world’s largest association 

of professional travel agencies, said it is 

‘‘particularly important to include the 

data on diverted flights, which, while a 

small percentage of total flights, impact 

a large number of passengers. This data 

may be hard to collect, as the Air 

Transport Association (ATA) claims, but 

every effort should be made to get it so 

the manner in which these events occur, 

and their impact on the public, can be 

better understood.’’

The Department agrees with the 

comments that, while the incidents of 

flights diversions are infrequent (16 out 

of every 10,000 flights), the impact on 

travel resulting from these relatively 

rare occurrences is noteworthy and is 

not adequately reflected in the 

Department’s on-time reports. BTS’

existing data understate the problem of 

extended tarmac delays because of lack 

of data created by gaps in the reporting 

system. After receiving numerous 

requests for information on tarmac 

delays, BTS decided to display a web 

page on tarmac delays of 3 hours or 

longer (http://www.bts.gov/programs/

airline_information/taxi_out_times/

html/over_3_hours_airport_2007_

12.html). The lack of data from 

cancelled and diverted flights has the 

potential to disguise a serious problem 

and block its resolution. Alternatively, 

the data could show that the problem is 

not as severe as some parties suggest. 

New carrier reports, identifying long 

tarmac delays on cancelled and diverted 

flights, would provide additional 

information on the extent of the 

problem. The Department also agrees 

with ATA that the reporting structure 

proposed in the NPRM would make it 

difficult, if not impossible, to report all 

possible flight scenarios, especially in 

the case of gate returns at diverted 

airports. 

As proposed in the NPRM, the 

Department will add five data elements 

to capture diversions. However, instead 

of adding the gate-arrival and gatedeparture times at the diverted airport, 

the carrier will instead report total time 

away from gate at the diverted airport 

and the longest time away from gate at 

the diverted airport. This change will 

avoid reporting uncertainty when there 

are gate returns at diverted airports or 

when a diverted flight remains on the 

tarmac without proceeding to an airport 

gate. The five data elements will be 

repeated for each additional airport to 

which a flight is diverted. 

For on-time reporting purposes, a 

diversion is a non-stop flight that lands 

at a destination other than the original 

scheduled destination. Returns to the 

origin airport without arriving at a 

destination other than the origin airport 

are considered diverted flights. 

The new data elements to be reported 

to BTS are: 

Airport code of diverted airport. 

Wheels-on time at diverted airport. 

Total time away from gate at diverted 

airport. 

Longest time away from gate at 

diverted airport. 

Wheels-off time at diverted airport. 

If a flight terminates at a diverted 

airport, the carrier would not report 

Wheels-off time at the diverted airport. 

If a flight ultimately arrived at the 

scheduled destination airport, the 

carrier would complete the fields for 

Actual Gate Arrival Time (at scheduled 

destination) and Wheels-on Time 

(Actual). 

This reporting structure captures the 

data elements most desired by the 

Department and those consumer groups 

that submitted comments. The new 

reporting elements will provide 

information on: 

(1) Where diverted flights landed, 

(2) The total time the flights were on 

the ground away from the gates at the 

diverted airport, 

(3) The single longest period of time 

that the passengers were in the plane, 

on the ground, and away from the gate, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 29429 

(4) The total time spent at the diverted 

airport (wheels-off time minus wheelson time), 

(5) Time spent by passengers in the 

airport terminal, or in the aircraft at the 

gate, but with access to the terminal 

(wheels-off time minus wheels-on time 

minus total time away from gate at 

diverted airport), 

(6) Whether the flight reached its final 

destination, 

(7) The total minutes of delay for a 

diverted flight that reached its final 

destination. 

Also, the Department will be able to 

differentiate between diverted flights 

that reach their final destination from 

those that terminate at alternative 

airports. 

At this time, the Department will not 

require air carriers to report a code 

showing the cause for diverted flights. 

Since the issue was not raised in the 

NPRM, the air carriers and other parties 

did not have sufficient opportunity to 

comment. As ATA and Delta 

commented, diversions are unplanned, 

fairly rare occurrences which take place 

for a variety of reasons, including safety. 

The Department initiated collection of 

causal information in 2003 as a tool to 

spot problem areas within the aviation 

system and to identify the party best 

able to initiate corrective action to 

prevent or mitigate future incidences. 

For example, air carrier delays would be 

addressed by the airlines. National 

Aviation System delays would be 

addressed by the FAA and airports. 

Security delays would be the 

responsibility of the Transportation 

Security Administration. Additional 

codes on diverted flights would not 

provide the Department or the air 

carriers with relevant information that 

would prevent or lessen the incidences 

of future diversions. 

ATA asked a number of questions, 

including a request for clarification that 

the definition of on-time performance is 

not changing due to the new 

requirements. For clarity, we are 

addressing each of ATA’s questions in 

the order asked. 

The definition of an on-time flight is 

unchanged. An on-time flight is still a 

flight that arrives at the destination gate 

less than 15 minutes after the published 

gate arrival time. In computing a 

carrier’s on-time percentage, BTS 

divides total scheduled flights into the 

number of flights that arrived less than 

15 minutes after their published arrival 

times. 

ATA Q 1. Will diversion data be 

reported in a single or multiple records? 

A 1. The Department prefers to keep 

the single-record format; however, that 

opinion would change if it is shown that 

a multi-record format is more efficient 

or produces better data. The Department 

invites carriers to participate in a 

working group to determine the 

technical details for submitting and 

processing this rulemaking’s required 

data. The Department will also ask for 

volunteers for a pilot test of the new 

reporting requirements. Finally, the 

Department will issue a technical 

directive. ATA accurately states that a 

collaborative effort will provide DOT 

‘‘the greatest likelihood that the new 

data elements will accurately account 

for information on all flight scenarios. 

Furthermore, this approach will ensure 

that all carriers will implement the same 

methodology to report accurately, 

reliably, consistently, and comparably.’’

ASTA requested to be a party to any 

industry work group to determine the 

data that would be collected. The 

decision on the data to be collected was 

based on the comments filed in Docket 

RITA 2007–28522. Meetings with air 

carriers are needed to review the 

technical aspects of the reporting 

requirements and to assure that the 

regulated community understands the 

new requirements. 

ATA Q 2. For flights that divert to an 

airport and do not reach a gate, how 

should the gate-arrival and gatedeparture data fields be reported? 

A 2. From the comments received, the 

Department determined that the data 

need would be met by collecting total 

time on tarmac and longest time away 

from the gate instead of the gate-arrival 

and gate-departure fields for diverted 

flights. 

ATA Q 3. When a flight diverts, how 

should the flight data be represented? 

A 3. Carriers will report the following: 

Airport code of the diverted airport. 

Wheels-on time at diverted airport. 

Total time spent away from gate at 

diverted airport. 

Longest single period of time spent 

away from gate at diverted airport. 

Wheels-off time at diverted airport. 

If the flight terminates at the diverted 

airport, the carriers would report a ‘‘0’’

(zero) in the wheels-off time field. If the 

flight departs the diverted airport on its 

way to the scheduled destination 

airport, the carrier would repeat these 

same 5 data fields. 

ATA Q 4. When a flight over-flies an 

intermediate stop and diverts, how 

should the flight be represented? 

A 4. Any time a non-stop flight 

segment is operated from its scheduled 

origin airport and lands at a place other 

than the scheduled destination airport, 

carriers will report the 5 data elements 

listed in Answer 3. 

ATA Q 5. When a flight originates at an 

unscheduled airport prior to the 

scheduled airport, how should the data 

be represented? 

A 5. Flights that truly originate at 

nonscheduled airports are not reported. 

However, if a carrier’s flight #123—

BOS–DCA–MIA was diverted to an 

alternate airport (BWI) before landing at 

DCA, flight #123 BWI to DCA would not 

be considered an originating flight. The 

carrier would report the five data items 

for the diverted airport, and report the 

wheels-on and gate-arrival times at DCA 

for the BOS–DCA segment of flight 

#123. The DCA–MIA segment of flight 

#123 would be reported as normal. If, 

instead, flight #123 landed at BWI and 

operated directly to MIA, the BWI–MIA 

segment would not be reported. For the 

BOS–DCA segment, the carrier would 

still report the diversion data but it 

would have no time to report for 

wheels-off at BWI. Also, the DCA–MIA 

portion of flight #123 would be reported 

as a cancelled flight. 

ATA Q 6. When a flight extends beyond 

the scheduled destination airport, how 

should the data be represented? 

A 6. Using the flight #123 example, if 

the carrier announced to its passengers 

in advance that the flight would not 

land at DCA but would fly directly to 

MIA, both the BOS–DCA and the DCA–

MIA segments would be reported as 

cancelled flights. But if it was 

determined that conditions at DCA 

made it impossible to land after 

departure from BOS, and the flight 

continued to MIA, the MIA landing 

would be considered a diversion of the 

BOS–DCA segment. The DCA–MIA 

segment would be reported as a 

cancelled flight. These reporting 

instructions are consistent with the 

historical reporting of cancellations and 

diversions. 

ATA Q 7. When a flight operates to an 

alternate airport, same city, how should 

the flight be represented? 

A 7. Flights that land at alternate 

airports are reported as diverted flights 

even when the alternate airport serves 

the same city. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
29430 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

ATA Q 8. What happens when we have 

multiple operation issues? Such as a 

flight that is scheduled to operate 

Seattle-Boston, has a gate return, then 

leaves Seattle but diverts to Denver due 

to a medical emergency, then continues 

on, but again diverts due to weather in 

Boston, then at last makes it to Boston. 

Are we to have four different data 

records to account for the mishaps? 

A 8. The carrier would report the 

flight as follows: 

The last time the aircraft left the gate 

at the scheduled airport would be 

reported as the Actual Gate Departure 

Time. The time the aircraft originally 

left the gate would be reported as the 

Gate Departure Time—First Time Out. 

The carrier would complete the fields, 

Total Time Away from Gate for All Gate 

Returns, including cancelled Flights and 

Longest Time Away from Gate for All 

Gate Returns, including Cancelled 

Flights for the gate return at Seattle. The 

fields: Airport code of the diverted 

airport; Wheels-on time at diverted 

airport; Total time spent away from gate 

at diverted airport; Longest single period 

of time spent away from gate at diverted 

airport; and Wheels-off time at diverted 

airport would be completed for the 

landings at Denver and Newark. 

ATA Q 9. How is On-Time calculated 

since we left our scheduled origin 

airport and did not arrive at the 

scheduled destination? 

A 9. Flights that are scheduled and do 

not reach their scheduled destination 

are counted against the air carrier when 

computing the percentage of on-time 

arrivals; however, no minutes for late 

arrivals are computed for flights that do 

not reach their scheduled destinations. 

ATA Q 10. If you divert to another 

airport and report the times there, then 

continue to the original destination, 

what scheduled times do you use for 

On-Time performance calculations? 

A 10. On-time calculations are made 

by comparing the scheduled gate-arrival 

time at the scheduled destination with 

the actual gate-arrival time at the 

scheduled destination airport. 

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 final 

rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order No. 12866. The 

rule was reviewed by OMB. In addition, 

this rule is significant under the 

Department’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. 

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 

After a public meeting in June 2007 

some carriers commented to BTS that 

the cost for programming to provide 

additional data on gate returns and 

cancelled and diverted flights could 

range from $10,000 to $60,000 per 

carrier. Delta Air Lines commented to 

the Docket that the reprogramming costs 

to capture information on diversions 

could be up to $500,000 for Delta alone. 

Since the carriers have the additional 

data that the Department is requesting, 

the Department believes the original 

cost estimate of $10,000 to $60,000 is 

accurate. Delta’s estimate seems 

overstated because the new data 

elements are already available to the air 

carriers. Using the high end range of the 

original estimates, compliance with this 

rule could impose a one-time cost on 

the affected segment of the industry of 

$1.2 million. 

We believe that the rule will result in 

many unquantifiable benefits that 

exceed the costs. Consumers will have 

more accurate data for making their 

transportation selections. The public 

availability of these data may influence 

carriers to limit the length of the tarmac 

portion of delays (i.e., to reduce the 

amount of time that a delayed flight 

spends on the ground away from the 

gate). The FAA will have complete data 

on all long tarmac delays to use in its 

airport modeling. Aside from costs and 

benefits, it is important to note that H.R. 

2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2007 (Title IV—Air Service 

Improvements; Section 401), includes a 

provision that would require BTS to 

expand the reporting system to capture 

all operational data on gate returns and 

cancelled and diverted flights. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

This Act requires agencies to analyze 

the economic impact of regulatory 

changes on small entities. The carriers 

that are required to report Airline 

Service Quality Performance (ASQP) 

data are all large air carriers with annual 

passenger revenues exceeding $600 

million each. Thus, this final rule 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 expenditures 

by State, local, or tribal government. 

This final rule imposes no expenditures 

on State, local or tribal governments. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The Department has analyzed this 

final rule under the principles and 

criteria of Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism. We determined that this 

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 reporting burden associated with 

this final rule will be reviewed by OMB 

under the OMB Approval No. 2138–

0041. The NPRM asked for public 

comments on costs and burdens. Based 

on carrier comments, the major burden 

increase will be reprogramming. We 

estimate 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, the reporting burden 

should increase slightly from 159 

annual burden hours to 175 annual 

burden hours per carrier. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 29431 

1Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109–

58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005) (EPAct 2005). 

2Conference on Enforcement Policy, Docket No. 

AD07–13–000, Nov. 16, 2007. 

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–AA12 contained in 

the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

The Final Rule 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234 

Air carriers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Accordingly, the Department of 

Transportation amends 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 and Sections 

41708 and 41709. 

■ 2. Section 234.4 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding paragraphs (a)(22) 

through (a)(29) as set forth below. 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (i) as paragraphs (c) through (j), 

respectively. 

■ c. By adding new paragraph (b). 

■ d. By revising newly designated 

paragraph (c). 

§ 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance. 

(a) * * * 

(22) For gate returns, first gatedeparture 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) Longest time away from gate for 

gate return or cancelled flight 

(25) Three-letter code of airport where 

diverted flight landed 

(26) Wheels-on time at diverted 

airport 

(27) Total time away from gate at 

diverted airport 

(28) Longest period of time away from 

gate at diverted airport 

(29) Wheels-off time at diverted 

airport 

(b) Repeat fields (25) through (29) for 

each subsequent diverted airport 

landing 

(c) 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 item (25). 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 

2008. 

M. Clay Moritz, Jr., 

Acting Assistant Director, Airline 

Information, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics. 

[FR Doc. 08–1274 Filed 5–16–08; 12:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 1b 

[Docket No. RM08–10–000; Order No. 711] 

Submissions to the Commission Upon 

Staff Intention to Seek an Order To 

Show Cause 

Issued May 15, 2008. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending 

its regulations to expand and clarify the 

right of an entity to submit a written 

response to the Commission in the event 

staff intends to recommend that the 

Commission initiate a proceeding 

governed by 18 CFR Part 385, or make 

the entity a defendant in a civil action 

to be brought by the Commission. 

Subjects of investigations currently have 

the right under 18 CFR 1b.19 to be 

informed in the latter instance, but only 

in the event staff finds it appropriate 

and in the public interest. The 

amendment would grant that right, for 

both types of proceedings, in all cases 

except those in which extraordinary 

circumstances make prompt 

Commission review necessary to 

prevent detriment to the public interest 

or irreparable harm. The amendment 

also clarifies the timing requirements for 

such submissions. These changes codify 

current staff practice regarding 

recommendations for orders to show 

cause, and will allow subjects of 

investigations a fuller opportunity to 

present their positions to the 

Commission. 

DATES: Effective Date: The rule will 

become effective immediately upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn Kuhlen, Office of Enforcement, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6855. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, 

Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, 

Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 

Final Rule 

Issued May 15, 2008. 

I. Background 

1. The procedural rule set forth in 18 

CFR 1b.19 (2007) governs the 

procedures to be followed regarding 

submissions to the Commission in the 

event Commission staff recommends 

that the subject of an investigation be 

made a defendant in a civil action to be 

brought by the Commission. Before 

enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005,1 this provision rarely came into 

play, as most investigations have been 

resolved either through closure without 

further action or by settlement. Indeed, 

at a recent technical conference on 

enforcement held by the Commission,2

it appeared that many energy 

practitioners were unaware of the 

submission process set forth in this 

regulation, and expressed a desire for 

more clarity regarding the due process 

rights of the subjects of staff 

investigations. 

2. In light of the comments at the 

technical conference and the need to 

ensure due process in our 

investigations, the Commission has 

reexamined 18 CFR 1b.19 and 

determined to clarify its provisions and 

expand the procedural rights it 

provides. 

3. The current language in the 

regulation provides that staff need only 

advise the subject of an investigation of 

staff’s intent to seek an order to show 

cause in the event staff determines that 

it is appropriate in the interest of the 

proper administration of the law to do 

so. However, it is staff’s practice to 

advise the subject of an investigation of 

such intent in all cases, except where 

exigent circumstances, such as the 

danger of irreparable harm, require 

prompt Commission action. Therefore, 

we believe it appropriate to codify the 

current practice and provide subjects 

the right to be informed of staff’s intent, 

with the concomitant ability to present 

a response to be provided to the 

Commission for its consideration along 

with staff’s recommendation. 

II. Commission Determination 

4. This Final Rule amends 18 CFR 

1b.19 to provide that in the event 

Commission staff intends to recommend 

to the Commission that it initiate a 

proceeding under 18 CFR Part 385 

against the subject of an investigation 

being conducted under the provisions of 

18 CFR Part 1b, or to recommend that 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with RULES