Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66833

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document

would be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9J, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 31, 2001, and effective

September 16, 2001, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More

Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO SC E5 Andrews, SC [NEW]

Robert F. Swinnie Airport, SC

(Lat. 33°27′06′′N, long. 79°31′34′′W)

Andrews NDB

(Lat. 33°27′05’’N, long. 79°31′38′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.3—mile

radius of Robert F. Swinnie Airport and

within 4 miles east and 8 miles west of the

174° bearing from the Andrews NDB

extending from the 6.3—mile radius to 16

miles south of the airport, excluding that

airspace within the Georgetown, SC, Class E

airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on

December 18, 2001.

Wade T. Carpenter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 01–31726 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 234

[Docket No. OST 2000–8164]

RIN 2139–AA09

Reporting the Causes of Airline Delays

and Cancellations

AGENCY: Office of Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: As required by Federal

statute, the Department of

Transportation is considering modifying

the reporting requirements regarding air

carriers’ quality of services. We are

proposing requiring air carriers that file

airline service quality performance

reports under the regulations to collect

and report the causes of airline delays

and cancellations. Currently, there is a

lack of data on the specific causes of

airline delays and cancellations. The

proposed changes are designed to fill

the data gaps for airline delays and

cancellations and provide this

information to the public and other

interested parties.

DATES: Comment Deadline: February 25,

2002.

ADDRESSES: Written, signed comments

containing the docket number that

appears in the heading of this document

can be sent to: Docket Clerk, US DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington DC 20590–0001.

All comments will be available for

examination at the above address from

9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. If you

would like notification that we have

received your comment, please include

a self addressed stamped envelop or

postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bernard Stankus or Clay Moritz, Office

of Airline Information, K–25, Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC, 20590–0001,

(202) 366–4387 or 366–4385,

respectively. You can also contact them

by e-mail at bernard.stankus@bts.gov or

clay.moritz@bts.gov or by fax at (202)

366–3383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded by using a

computer, modem, and suitable

communications software from the

Government Printing Office’s Electronic

Bulletin Board Services at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may reach the

Office of the Federal Register’s home

page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and

the Government Printing Office’s

database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/

nara. You can also view and download

this document by going to the webpage

of the Department’s Docket Management

System (http://dms.dot.gov/). On that

page, click on ‘‘search.’’ On the next

page, type the last four digits of the

docket number shown in the heading of

this document. Then click on ‘‘search.’’

Background

Section 227 of the Wendell H. Ford

Aviation Investment and Reform Act for

the 21st Century (AIR–21) requires that

we modify our airline data collection

system, 14 CFR Part 234—Airline

Service Quality Performance Reports, to

explain more fully to the public the

nature and source of airline delays and

cancellations (See Pub. L. 106–181, 114

Stat. 61). AIR–21 also directed that DOT

establish a Task Force to review airline

delays and cancellations and develop

recommendations for the associated

reporting criteria. Since the passage of

AIR–21, Congress has continued to

express concern that DOT needs more

accurate data to better understand gate,

tarmac and airborne delays. The DOT

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

also highlighted the need to examine

airline delays and cancellations in its

July 25, 2000 report on air carrier flight

delays and cancellations. Our own

consumer complaint statistics also

support regulatory action in this area.

In August 2000, we formed the Air

Carrier On-Time Reporting Advisory

Committee (the Task Force). The Task

Force members were chosen to reflect a

balanced cross section of interests. In

addition to government representatives,

they included representatives from

consumer airline groups, air carriers,

labor unions and airport operators. On

September 25, 2000, the Task Force was

chartered as a Federal advisory

committee. Its mission was to consider

66834 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules

changes to the current on-time reporting

system so that the public would have

clear information about the nature and

sources of airline delays and

cancellations.

In the Fall of 2000 (i.e., October 25

and 26, November 1 and 2, and

November 13), the Task Force held

several meetings to identify the issues

surrounding airline delays and

cancellations and to develop reporting

criteria. The meetings were announced

in the Federal Register (65 FR 63285)

and were open to the public. We opened

a public docket for submission of

comments, Docket OST–2000–8164. On

November 29, 2000, the Task Force

submitted its report to DOT. The Task

Force made a number of

recommendations, including that we

establish a reporting framework for

collecting information about the causes

of airline delays and cancellations. The

Task Force also recommended that,

prior to rulemaking, we conduct a pilot

program to test the proposed reporting

categories. Following up on that

recommendation, we contacted a

number of air carriers; four air carriers

agreed to participate in a voluntary pilot

project. The four carriers were American

Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest

Airlines and United Airlines. Over the

past seven months, we met with the four

carriers and discussed what causal

delay and cancellation information

should be collected and how best to

report that delay and cancellation data.

After the parties agreed on a reporting

framework, the carriers began

submitting delay and cancellation data

to us.

We have used the recommendations

from the Task Force, the results of our

pilot project and our outreach efforts to

form the proposals contained in this

NPRM.

Scope of Proposed Rulemaking

We are proposing to amend 14 CFR

Part 234 to require that air carriers

report the causes of airline delays and

cancellations. We are proposing that

this new reporting requirement apply

only to those air carriers that are already

reporting under part 234. Under part

234, a reporting carrier is an air carrier

that holds a certificate under 49 U.S.C.

41102 and that accounted for at least

one percent of domestic scheduled

passenger revenues in the 12 months

ending March 31 of each year. We

believe that this proposal will provide

those air carriers in a position to quickly

adopt the new reporting system, that

opportunity, but it also would provide

a transition period to those air carriers

who may face technological obstacles.

In taking this approach, we believe that

the proposal minimizes the regulatory

burden on the industry and yet,

provides valuable information to the

public.

We are proposing this phased

regulatory approach, based on a Task

Force recommendation that, after an

assessment of the reporting burdens, we

consider applying the new reporting

requirements to other major and

national air carriers and the code-share

partners of major carriers. In order to

evaluate the Task Force’s

recommendation on expanding the part

234 reporting requirements to other

major and national air carriers and the

code-share partners of major carriers

and to announce the results of the

delay-reporting pilot project, we

conducted several outreach efforts with

industry representatives.

During an August 10, 2001 meeting

with air carriers already reporting under

Part 234, several airline representatives

indicated that non-reporting airlines

would face significant start-up costs,

including software changes and

computer hardware upgrades. Several

representatives voiced the opinion that

the non-reporting carriers would face a

difficult and lengthy transition period

and, from a technological standpoint,

were not in a position to comply with

the Part 234 reporting requirements in

the near term.

During the previous Task Force

meetings, the Air Carrier Association of

America indicated that expanding the

Part 234 reporting requirements to its

members would result in each carrier

facing additional annual costs of

$25,000 to $100,000. The Regional

Airline Association also indicated that

expanding the reporting requirements to

its members would have a significant

impact on resources, personnel, and

operations. It did not provide, however,

an actual cost estimate for its members

to report on-time data.

We have reviewed domestic

enplanement data. Domestic

enplanements include all enplanements

for scheduled service operations

between two U.S. points. For 2000, the

data showed that the 12 air carriers

currently reporting under Part 234

accounted for approximately 83% of the

domestic passenger enplanements. We

also examined the data for ‘‘codesharing partners.’’ Airlines use twocharacter designator codes to identify

themselves in the computer reservation

systems. Code-sharing is an arrangement

whereby one carrier’s designator code is

used to identify a flight operated by

another carrier. The 2000 data showed

that the reporting carrier’s code-share

partners accounted for approximately

9% of the enplanements. There are also

other major and national air carriers that

are not code-sharing partners and the

enplanement data indicates they

handled approximately 5% of the

domestic enplanements.

We reviewed data for medium and

large regional air carriers. We defined

medium and large regional air carriers

as those carriers that provide passenger

service with aircraft having a passenger

capacity of 61 seats or more. Medium

regional air carriers have annual

operating revenue of $20 million or less.

Large regional carriers have annual

operating revenue of more than $20

million but less than $100 million. The

42 medium and regional air carriers

handled approximately 2% of the

domestic enplanements.

We also reviewed data for small air

carriers. One definition of small carriers

is those certificated or commuter air

carriers that do not provide code-share

service for a major air carrier, but do

provide passenger service with aircraft

having passenger capacity of 60 seats or

fewer. For our regulatory purposes, the

Small Business Administration defines

an air carrier as a small business if it has

1500 or fewer employees. We estimate

there are approximately 80–90 small air

carriers. The 2000 data showed that

small carriers accounted for only 1% of

the enplanements.

Based on the our review and the

feedback we received concerning cost,

resource considerations, and the time to

implement a reporting system, we are

limiting the scope of the NPRM. Based

on the small number of enplanements

handled by small air carriers, medium

and large regional air carriers, and the

potential burdens and costs faced by

these carriers that are not now required

to submit on-time flight performance

reports, the NPRM excludes these

carriers from the on-time reporting

requirements. This decision is being

made in recognition of the amount of

time and expense required to implement

a reporting system as well as the

additional potential resource burdens

associated with reporting. We are

therefore not proposing, at this time, to

include code-share partners and other

major/national carriers in the Part 234

reporting system. We believe that based

on the feedback gathered during the

pilot project, we need additional time to

examine and estimate the potential

burdens. Instead, the inclusion of codeshare partners and other major/national

carriers in the Part 234 reporting system

will be the subject of a future

rulemaking.

We recognize that our proposal would

not include approximately 17% of the

enplanement data in the reporting

system and thus, potentially affect the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66835

utility of the information available to

the public. Accordingly, we are inviting

comments on what should be the proper

time frame to include the remaining

major carriers as well as the national

carriers, and the reporting carriers’

code-share partners in the part 234

reporting requirements. We are also

seeking cost estimates from air carriers

on our proposal and input from

members of the public on whether they

would benefit from expanding the part

234 reporting requirements. After

reviewing all the comments, we will

determine whether the proposed scope

of the rulemaking is appropriate.

Causal Categories and Methodology

By requiring air carriers to report the

causes of delays and cancellations, we

hope to address two important air

transportation issues: (1) identify the

causes of flight delays and cancellations

for future corrective action and (2)

alleviate some of the frustration and

anger that airline passengers have

expressed concerning delayed and

cancelled flights.

The primary purpose for collecting

causal data is to categorize delays and

cancellations so that system problems

can be identified and the appropriate

parties can take corrective action. Based

on the Task Force’s recommendations

and our work in the pilot program, we

are proposing four categories for

reporting delays: (1) Air carrier, (2)

extreme weather, (3) National Aviation

System (NAS), and (4) late arriving

aircraft; and three categories for

reporting cancellations: (1) Air carrier,

(2) extreme weather, and (3) the NAS.

Air Carrier Delays or Cancellations

Below is a list of examples of causes

for delays and cancellations that we

believe are within the control of the air

carrier. This list should be used as a

guide for the type of occurrences that

should be reported as an air carrier

delay and/or cancellation. It should not

be considered a complete list and we

welcome comments on additions or

deletions.

Aircraft cleaning, Aircraft damage,

Awaiting the arrival of connecting

passengers or crew, Baggage, Bird strike,

Cargo loading, Catering, Computer,

outage—carrier equipment, Crew

legality (pilot or attendant rest), Damage

by hazardous goods, Engineering

Inspection, Fueling, Handling disabled

passengers, Late Crew, Lavatory

Servicing, Maintenance, Oversales,

Potable Water Servicing, Removal of

unruly passenger, Slow boarding or

seating, Stowing carry-on baggage,

Weight and balance delays.

During the pilot program, bird strikes

were coded as an air carrier caused

delay and/or cancellation. Although air

carriers generally cannot prevent bird

strikes, they are in the best position to

take corrective action by having spare

aircraft or by repairing damaged parts.

However, during our meetings with

industry representatives, other carriers,

who did not participate in the pilot

program, questioned whether this

coding designation is the appropriate

way to report bird strikes. We request

comments on the appropriate coding

designation for bird strikes.

Extreme Weather

Extreme weather delays or

cancellations are caused by weather

conditions (e.g., significant

meteorological conditions), actual or

forecasted at the point of departure, en

route, or point of arrival that, in

accordance with applicable regulatory

standards and/or in the judgment of the

air carrier, prevents operation of that

flight and/or prevents operations of

subsequent flights due to the intended

aircraft being out of position as a result

of a prior delay or cancellation

attributable to weather.

National Aviation System (NAS)

Delays and cancellations attributable

to NAS refer to a broad set of

conditions: weather-non extreme,

airport security, airport operations,

heavy traffic volume, air traffic control,

etc. Recent Congressional legislation

will transition passenger screening and

other security responsibilities from the

air carriers to the Department of

Transportation.

Using the available internal data, the

FAA will review the delays reported by

the air carriers in the NAS category to

identify the actual causes of the delays.

As stated earlier, air carriers track

delays up to the time the aircraft pushes

away from the departure gate. Delays

that occur after ‘‘push-back’’ are

generally assigned to the NAS category.

The FAA has various data sets, which

would be used to identify delays after

‘‘push-back.’’ One of these data sets is

FAA’s Air Traffic Operations Network

(OPSNET) information. This data set

provides information on delays incurred

by aircraft while under the control of

the air traffic system.

In addition, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration provides

the FAA with weather information.

Airport operators provide the FAA with

information on runway closures and

other airport incidents. With these data

sets, the FAA has the capability to refine

the NAS delays into weather-non

extreme, volume, equipment outages,

runway closures, other or ‘‘no match.’’

Volume delays are those delays that

occur because the amount of air traffic

exceeds the airport’s capacity. These

delays or cancellations are assigned to

NAS rather than to the air carriers

because the heavy traffic volume

generally consists of flights from a

multitude of carriers. Consistent high

volume delays are an indication to

airport operators and to state and local

governments that there is a need for

infrastructure investments and

improvements. Equipment outages are

failures that involve FAA equipment

and do not involve the air carrier’s

equipment. A ‘‘no match’’ means there

was a NAS delay reported, but FAA

found nothing in its tracking system that

would account for a NAS delay.

Late Arriving Aircraft

Consumers have an interest in

knowing if particular flights are

consistently late due to late arriving

aircraft. Delays reported under the ‘‘late

arriving aircraft’’ category demonstrate

the ripple effects of an earlier flight

delay problem. The cause of the initial

delay would have to be addressed to

cure the delays associated with late

arriving aircraft. Some carriers track the

initial causes and use an internal code

to identify the initial cause for downline

late arriving aircraft. Other carriers do

not track the downline effects of earlier

delays and only code that the flight was

late because of the previous flight’s late

‘‘turn around.’’ While we would like to

collect data that identifies the initial

causes of downline delays, we are not

proposing that carriers alter their

tracking systems to provide the data.

Rather, we are proposing to give the

carriers the flexibility of reporting a

delay caused by previous late arriving

aircraft under several reporting codes.

Under our proposal, a carrier would use

the code D for delays attributed to a

previous late arriving aircraft and the

initial cause is unknown. Also, carriers

may use the codes DA for delays

attributed to a previous late arriving

aircraft where the initial delay was

assigned to the air carrier; DB for delays

attributed to a previous late arriving

aircraft where the initial delay was

caused by extreme weather; and DC for

delays attributed to a previous late

arriving aircraft where the initial delay

was assigned to the NAS.

As a result of our delay reporting pilot

program with American Airlines, Delta

Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and

United Air Lines, we have discovered

that most air carriers only track and

code delays up to the time the aircraft

pushes away from the gate at the origin

66836 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules

airport. After that time, the aircraft is

generally under the command of the air

traffic control system. Some carriers

track delays for each minute of the delay

and other carriers track delays only

when the delay is five minutes or

longer.

One of our aims in developing the

causal reporting system is to require

minimal change to the air carriers’

internal tracking systems, while still

collecting useful data. Thus, based on

the results of our pilot project, we are

proposing to collect the number of

minutes for each flight delay category

for every flight that arrives 15 minutes

or more after the scheduled arrival time.

As such, carriers would be required to:

1. Create a bridge or map to translate

their internal codes to the BTS assigned

categories.

2. Report delay categories when the

arrival delay is 15 minutes or more. The

proposal would not require carriers to

report causal data for flights that are

considered Aon-time,’’ meaning the

flight arrived less than 15 minutes after

its published arrival time.

3. Ensure that the total minutes of

causal delays equal the actual minutes

of arrival delay.

Since not all carriers track and code

departure delays of less than 5 minutes,

we are proposing that carriers code the

total delay as a NAS delay when there

is a departure delay of 4 minutes or less

and an arrival delay of 15 minutes or

more.

Air carriers track only departure

delays. Therefore, whenever the arrival

delay is greater than the departure

delay, the air carriers will assign NAS

minutes to make up the difference

between the departure delay and the

arrival delay (Departure delay + NAS

delay = Arrival delay).

Whenever the departure delay is more

than the arrival delay, the en route time

savings would be prorated back to the

departure delay categories. For example,

if a 50 minute departure delay consists

of a 15 minute air carrier delay, a 10

minute NAS delay, and a 25 minute late

arriving aircraft, then the departure

delay would be 30% air carrier, 20%

NAS and 50% late arriving aircraft. If

the flight arrived 40 minutes late, this

would be reported in minutes as 12

minutes air carrier, 8 minutes NAS and

20 minutes late arriving aircraft.

Reporting of Delayed Flights

Carriers use a fixed-length file format

to report on-time data. We propose to

add four-position numeric fields for

each of the seven possible causes of

delays. Instead of reporting delay codes,

we proposes that carriers report the

number of minutes attributed to the

cause of delay into the assigned fields

for the appropriate cause of delay. There

often are multiple reasons for delayed

flights, and we propose that air carriers

report each category of flight delay as

applicable. The proposed fixed-length

file format is as follows:

FIELD SPECIFICATIONS FOR FORM 234, ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORTS

Field and description Type Location Length Comments

A—Carrier code ................................................... Alpha ........... 1–2 2

B—Flight number ................................................. Num ............. 3–6 4

C—Origin airport code ......................................... Alpha ........... 7–9 3

D—Destination airport code ................................. Alpha ........... 10–12 3

E—Date of flight operation .................................. Num ............. 13–20 8 Format yyyymmdd.

F—Day of the week of flight operation ................ Num ............. 21 1 Mon = 1, Sun = 7.

G—Scheduled departure time per OAG .............. Num ............ 22–25 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

H—Scheduled departure time per CRS .............. Num ............ 26–29 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

I—Gate departure time (actual) ........................... Num ............. 30–33 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

J—Scheduled arrival time per OAG .................... Num ............. 34–37 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

K—Scheduled arrival time per CRS .................... Num ............. 38–41 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

L—Gate arrival time (actual) ................................ Num ............. 42–45 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

M—Difference between OAG and CRS scheduled departure times.Num ............. 46–49 4 In minutes (2 hrs = 120 min) Caused-In Minutes.

N—Difference between OAG and CRS scheduled arrival times.Num ............ 50–53 4 In minutes.

O—Scheduled elapsed time per CRS ................. Num ............ 54–57 4 In minutes.

P—Actual gate-to-gate time ................................. Num ............. 58–61 4 In minutes.

Q—Departure delay time (actual minutes CRS) Num ............ 62–65 4 In minutes.

R—Arrival delay time (actual minutes CRS) ....... Num ............. 66–69 4 In minutes.

S—Elapsed time difference (actual minutes

CRS).

Num ............. 70–73 4 In minutes.

T—Wheels-off time (actual) ................................. Num ............ 74–77 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

U—Wheels-on time (actual) ................................. Num ............. 78–81 4 Local time 24 hour clock.

V—Aircraft tail number ......................................... Alpha/Num .. 82–87 6 Left justified, trailing blanks.

W—Cancellation code ......................................... Num ............ 88 1 (1, 2, or 3).

X—Minutes late for delay code A ........................ Num ............ 89–92 4 Carrier Caused Delays—In min.

Y—Minutes late for delay code B ........................ Num ............ 93–96 4 Extreme Weather Delays—In minutes.

Z—Minutes late for delay code C ........................ Num ............. 97–100 4 NAS Delays—In minutes.

AA—Minutes late for delay code D ..................... Num ............ 101–104 4 Late Arriving Aircraft Delays—In minutes.

AB—Minutes late for delay code DA ................... Num ............. 105–108 4 Late Arriving Aircraft—Carrier Caused—In Minutes.

AC—Minutes late for delay code DB ................... Num ............. 109–112 4 Late Arriving Aircraft—Weather.

AD—Minutes late for delay code DC .................. Num ............. 113–116 4 Late Arriving Aircraft—NAS Caused—In Minutes.

Cancellation codes Delay codes

1—Carrier Caused .................................................................................... A—Carrier Caused.

2—Extreme Weather ................................................................................ B—Extreme Weather.

3—National Aviation System .................................................................... C—National Aviation System.

D—Late Arriving Aircraft.

DA—Late Arriving Aircraft—Carrier Caused.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66837

Cancellation codes Delay codes

DB—Late Arriving Aircraft—Weather Caused.

DC—Late Arriving Aircraft—NAS Caused.

All numeric fields for which data are

unavailable will be zero-filled.

All alpha fields for which data are

unavailable will be left blank. The data

fields in this document are Y2K

compliant.

For delays that were caused by a

previous late arriving aircraft, the carrier

has two options for reporting this delay.

Carriers that do not track the initial

cause of the late arriving aircraft would

report the minute for the late arriving

aircraft in Delay Code D, and report

zeros for delay codes DA, DB and DC.

Carriers that track the initial cause,

would assign the minutes to the

applicable DA, DB and DC codes, and

report a zero for delay code D.

Examples of Delayed Flight Coding

1. A flight received a 20 minute

ground hold because of congestion at

the destination airport, and the flight

was 18 minutes late arriving at the

destination airport gate. The delayed

flight would be coded 18 minutes for

NAS.

2. A flight was 4 minutes late pushing

back from the gate and arrived 21

minutes late. The delayed flight would

be coded 21 minutes for NAS. Please

note in this example that the air carrier

delay was less than 5 minutes, and thus,

would not be attributed to the air

carrier.

3. A flight was delayed 4 minutes to

load a handicapped passengers and

another 3 minutes to load late-arriving

baggage. The flight arrived 15 minutes

late. The delayed flight would be coded

7 minutes for air carrier and 8 minutes

for NAS. Please note in this example

that while no single air carrier caused

delay was 5 minutes or more, the sum

of the carrier delay was more than 5

minutes and the total delay was 15

minutes and thus, reportable.

4. A flight was delayed 20 minutes

waiting for connecting passengers from

another flight and arrived 28 minutes

late. The delayed flight would be coded

20 minutes for air carrier and 8 minutes

for NAS.

5. A flight had a 16 minute ground

hold and arrived 14 minutes late. There

is no delay coding as the flight is

consider on-time.

6. A flight is 20 minutes late because

of weather and is coded 20 minutes for

weather. The next flight with that

aircraft is 15 minutes late leaving the

gate and arrives 20 minutes late. The

delayed flight would be coded 15

minutes for late arriving aircraft—

weather or 15 minutes for late arriving

flight, if the carrier did not track the

initial delay cause. Please note in this

example that the air carrier made up 5

minutes of the initial late arriving

aircraft delay, but then experienced a 5

minute en-route delay.

7. A flight was 30 minutes late

pushing back from the gate. The 30

minute delay consisted of 10 minutes

for a late arriving aircraft and 20

minutes for slow boarding process

because of an oversales problem. The

flight arrived 24 minutes late. The

delayed flight would be coded 8

minutes for late arriving flight and 16

minutes for air carrier. Please note in

this example that the 6 minutes gained

after push back was prorated back to the

two recorded delays. In this example,

late arriving aircraft was 33.3% of the

original delay and the air carrier delay

was 66.6% of the delay. Therefore, late

arriving aircraft was computed as 33.3%

of 24 which equals 8; and air carrier was

computed as 66.6% of 24 which equals

16.

8. A flight was 20 minutes late

because of a thunderstorm and 6

minutes late because of a crew problem.

The flight arrived 18 minutes late. The

delayed flight would be coded 14

minutes for weather and 4 minutes for

air carrier. In this example, the air

carrier must round the prorated minutes

to whole numbers. Carriers should not

report fractions or decimals. Also,

carriers would report an air carrier delay

of less than 5 minutes because the

carrier was required to track the crew

delay because it was 5 minutes or more.

9. Flight number 234 was 20 minutes

late departing the gate because the air

carrier substituted a spare aircraft to

reduce a known upcoming delay. The

flight was scheduled to be operated with

an aircraft that, at the time, was

experiencing a 3 hour extreme weather

delay. Flight number 234 arrived 16

minutes late, and was reported as a 16

minute late arriving aircraft—extreme

weather.

Reporting of Cancelled Flights

Carriers use a fixed-length file format

to report on-time data. We propose to

add a one position numeric field for the

cancellations code. The proposed codes

are as follows: ‘‘1’’—Air Carrier, ‘‘A2’’—

Extreme Weather, ‘‘3’’—NAS (national

aviation system).

Examples of Cancelled Flight Coding

1. A flight cancelled because of

mechanical problems is code ‘‘1’’ for air

carrier.

2. Flight 123, BOS–DCA was

cancelled because, overnight, the airport

had two feet of snow. The cancellation

would be coded ‘‘2’’ for weather.

3. The next segment of Flight 123,

DCA—MIA was cancelled because the

aircraft that was to be used for this flight

is stuck in two feet of snow in Boston.

The weather in Washington and Miami

is clear. The cancellation would be

coded ‘‘2’’ for weather, because the

intended aircraft was out of position as

a result of a prior cancellation attributed

to weather.

4. It’s a clear day at O’Hare. However,

there is a ground hold for flights to DFW

because of severe thunderstorm around

the DFW airport. After a 3 hour wait, the

weather at DFW has not changed, and

the carrier cancels the flight. The

cancellation would be coded ‘‘2’’ for

weather.

5. It’s a rainy, misty day at O’Hare.

Operations have been slow all morning.

The air carrier receives a call from air

traffic control asking that it cancel one

of its next five flights to allow the

airport to return normal operations.

Other carriers receive similar calls.

These cancellations would be coded ‘‘3’’

for NAS.

ADP Computer Tape

We are proposing to remove the

requirement that carriers must submit

on-time data on ADP computer tape.

BTS is migrating from the mainframe

computer to a mid-tier processing

environment. Thus, BTS will be able to

accommodate other types of reporting

media.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is ‘‘significant’’

under Executive Order 12866 and the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11034), and was reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget. As

discussed above, the purpose of the

proposed rule is to disclose more fully

to the public the nature and source of

the delays and cancellations

experienced by air travelers. This

objective is achieved by amending 14

CFR 234 to require reporting air carriers

66838 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules

to identify and report causes of airline

delays and cancellations. Based on

information collected during the pilot

project, we estimate that the proposed

reporting requirements would require

each reporting carrier to expend 10–20

hours to reconfigure its data system.

Once these initial resources are

expended, we estimate that there will be

no additional costs or burdens for delay

and cancellation reporting. We

estimated reprogramming costs of

$100.00/hour. Thus, we estimate that for

the 12 reporting air carriers, there would

be an initial reprogramming costs of

$12,000–$24,000. We estimate that the

benefits to the traveling public, as well,

more accurate information for the

allocation of transportation resources

outweigh the minimal costs that would

be incurred by the reporting air carriers.

Executive Order 12612

This proposed rule has been analyzed

in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 (‘‘Federalism’’) and we have

determined the rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to

review its regulations to assess their

impact on small entities unless the

agency determines that a rule is not

expected to have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Unless alternative definitions have been

established by the agency in

consultation with the Small Business

Administration (SBA), the definition of

Asmall business’ has the same meaning

as under the Small Business Act (15

CFR parts 631–657c). For those

companies providing scheduled

passenger air transportation, the SBA

defines a small business as an air carrier

that has 1500 employees or fewer (See

NAICS Number 48111).

The proposed rule would apply only

to those air carriers that meet the part

234 reporting criteria (i.e., carriers that

hold a certificate under 49 U.S.C. 41102

and account for at least 1 percent of the

domestic scheduled-passenger revenues

in the past 12 months). We have

reviewed our data base and find that

none of the air carriers that report under

part 234 have 1500 employees or fewer.

In fact, our information indicates that all

of these carriers employ more than

3,000 employees. Therefore, we believe

that the proposed rule would not apply

to any Asmall business’ as defined by

the SBA.

Thus, based on the above discussion,

I certify this proposed rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rulemaking would not impose

unfunded mandates under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995. It would not result in costs of

$100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector.

Environmental Assessment

We believe that the proposed changes

to the part 234 reporting system would

have no significant impact on the

environment. The changes proposed in

this NPRM should increase the quality

of data collected on the causes of airline

delays and cancellations, thus

increasing our ability to evaluate

potential air traffic problems and

allocate the appropriate resources. Thus,

the proposed revisions should produce

a small net benefit to the environment

by improving the data sources used in

regulatory development. Therefore, we

find that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

this proposed rule.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis

The reporting and recordkeeping

requirements associated with this

proposed rule are being sent to the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35

under OMB NO: 2138–0040.

Administration: Bureau of

Transportation Statistics; Title: Airline

Service Quality Performance Reports;

Need for Information: Statistical

information on the cause of airline

delays and cancellations; Proposed use

of Information: To disclose more fully to

the public the nature and source of the

delays and cancellations experienced by

air travelers; Frequency: Monthly;

Burden Estimate: 180 hours; Average

Annual Burden Hours per Respondent

After Final Rule is Issued—No burden.

Based on information collected during

the pilot project, we estimate that the

proposed reporting requirements would

require each reporting carrier to expend

10–20 hours to reconfigure its data

system. We estimated reprogramming

costs of $100.00/hour. Thus, we

estimate that for the 12 reporting air

carriers, there would be an initial

reprogramming costs of $12,000–

$24,000. Once these initial resources are

expended, we estimate that there would

be no additional annual burden. We

invite comments on our burden

estimates. For further information or to

comment on the burden hour estimate

contact: The Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10235,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention Desk

Office for the Department of

Transportation or Bernie Stankus at the

address listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Regulation Identifier Number

A regulation identifier number (RIN)

is assigned to each regulatory action

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal

Regulations. The Regulatory Information

Service Center publishes the Unified

Agenda in April and October of each

year. The RIN number 2139–AA09

contained in the heading of this

document can be used to cross reference

this action with the Unified Agenda.

Regulatory Text

Accordingly, the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics, under

delegated authority pursuant to 49 CFR

part 1, proposes to amend chapter II of

14 CFR, as follows:

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234

Advertising, Air carriers, Consumer

protection, Reporting requirements,

Travel agents.

PART 234—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 234

would be revised to read as follows:

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

413, 417.

2. Section 234.4 would be amended

by adding paragraphs (a)(16) through

(a)(23), revising paragraph (b), and

adding paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) as

follows:

§ 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance.

(a) * * *

(16) Causal code for cancellation, if

any.

(17) Minutes of delay attributed to the

air carrier, if any.

(18) Minutes of delay attributed to

extreme weather, if any.

(19) Minutes of delay attributed to the

national aviation system, if any.

(20) Minutes of delay attributed to a

previous late arriving aircraft, if any.

(21) Minutes of delay attributed to a

previous late arriving aircraft where the

original delay was an air carrier delay,

if any.

(22) Minutes of delay attributed to a

previous late arriving aircraft where the

original delay was caused by extreme

weather, if any.

(23) Minutes of delay attributed to a

previous late arriving aircraft where the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Proposed Rules 66839

1We do not edit personal, identifying

information, such as names or electronic mail

addresses, from electronic submissions. Submit

only information you wish to make publicly

available.

original cause was assigned to the

national aviation system, if any.

(b) When reporting the information

specified in paragraph (a) of this section

for a diverted flight, a reporting carrier

shall use the original scheduled flight

number and the original scheduled

origin and destination airport codes.

Carriers are not required to report causal

information for diverted flights.

* * * * *

(g) Reporting carriers should use the

following codes to identify causes for

cancelled flights:

CODE

1—Air Carrier

2—Extreme Weather

3—National Aviation System (NAS).

(1) Air Carrier cancellations are due to

circumstances that were within the

control of the air carrier (e.g., lack of

flight crew, maintenance, etc.).

(2) Extreme weather cancellations are

caused by weather conditions (e.g.,

significant meteorological conditions),

actual or forecasted at the point of

departure, en route, or point of arrival

that, in accordance with applicable

regulatory standards and/or in the

judgment of the air carrier, prevents

operation of that flight and/or prevents

operations of subsequent flights due to

the intended aircraft being out of

position as a result of a prior

cancellation or delay attributable to

weather.

(3) NAS cancellations are caused by

circumstances within the National

Aviation System. This term is used to

refer to a broad set of condition:

weather-non extreme, airport

operations, heavy traffic volume, air

traffic control, etc.

(h) Reporting carriers should use the

following causes to identify the reasons

for delayed flights:

CAUSE

A—Air Carrier

B—Extreme weather

C—NAS

D—Late arriving aircraft

DA—Late arriving aircraft—air carrier

DB—Late arriving aircraft—extreme

weather

DC—Late arriving aircraft—NAS.

(1) Air carrier delays are due to

circumstances within the control of the

air carrier.

(2) Extreme weather delays are caused

by weather conditions (e.g., significant

meteorological conditions, actual or

forecasted at the point of departure, en

route, or point of arrival that, in

accordance with applicable regulatory

standards and/or in the judgment of the

air carrier, prevents operation of that

flight and/or prevents operations of

subsequent flights due to the intended

aircraft being out of position as a result

of a prior cancellation or delay

attributable to weather.

(3) NAS delays are caused by

circumstances within the National

Aviation System. This term is used to

refer to a broad set of conditions:

Weather—non extreme, airport

operations, heavy traffic volume, air

traffic control, etc.

(4) Late arriving aircraft delays are the

result of a late incoming aircraft from

the previous flights. Reporting carriers

should use this code only when they are

unable to identify the root cause of the

initial delay.

(5) Late arriving aircraft—carrier

caused delays are the result of a late

incoming aircraft from the previous

flight, in which the root cause of the late

arriving aircraft was within the air

carrier’s control.

(6) Late arriving aircraft—extreme

weather delays are the result of a late

incoming aircraft from the previous

flight, in which the root cause of the late

arriving aircraft was extreme weather.

(7) Late arriving aircraft—NAS caused

delays are the result of a late incoming

aircraft from the previous flight, in

which the root cause of the late arriving

aircraft was a NAS problem.

(i) When reporting causal codes in

paragraph (a), reporting carriers are

required to code delays only when the

arrival delay is 15 minutes or greater;

and reporting carriers must report each

causal component of the reportable

delay when the causal component is 5

minutes or greater.

3. Section 234.5 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 234.5 Form of reports.

Except where otherwise noted, all

reports required by this part shall be

filed within 15 days of the end of the

month for which data are reported. The

reports must be submitted to the Office

of Airline Information in a format

specified in accounting and reporting

directives issued by the Assistant

Director for Airline Information.

Ashish Sen,

Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

[FR Doc. 01–31725 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 230

[Release No. 33–8041; File No. S7–23–01]

RIN 3235–AI25

Defining the Term ‘‘Qualified

Purchaser’’ Under the Securities Act of

1933

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange

Commission today proposes a definition

for the term ‘‘qualified purchaser’’

under the Securities Act of 1933 to

implement a provision of the National

Securities Markets Improvement Act of

1996. The proposed definition mirrors

the definition of accredited investor

under Regulation D of the Securities

Act. Thus, the new qualified purchaser

definition identifies well-established

categories of persons we have

previously determined to be financially

sophisticated and therefore not in need

of the protection of state registration

when they are offered or sold securities.

This proposal should facilitate capital

formation, especially for small

businesses. It will implement the

Congressional intent, impose uniformity

in the regulation of transactions to these

financially sophisticated persons and

reduce burdens on capital formation.

DATES: Public comments are due

February 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of

your comment letter to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and

Exchange Commission, and 450 Fifth

Street, NW, Washington DC 20549–

0609. You may send comment letters

electronically to the following e-mail

address: Rule-comments@sec.gov.

Comment letters should refer to File No.

S7–23–01; if you use e-mail, please

include the file number on the subject

line. We will make all comments

available for public inspection and

copying in our public reference room at

the same address. Comment letters

(submitted electronically) will be posted

on our Internet site (http://

www.sec.gov).1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marva Simpson, Office of Small

Business Policy, at (202) 942–2950,

Division of Corporation Finance, U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission,