[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24169]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 234
[Docket No. 48524; RIN 2137-AB94]
Amendments to the On-Time Disclosure Rule
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the on-time flight performance reporting
requirements by: Eliminating the exclusion of flights delayed or
canceled due to mechanical problems; adding the aircraft tail number,
and wheels-off and wheels-on times for each flight reported; adding
several definitions; clarifying the reporting requirements for a new
flight; and deleting references to obsolete organizational offices.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Stankus or Jack Calloway,
Office of Airline Statistics, DAI-10, Research and Special Programs
Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4387 or 366-4383, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 4, 1992, the Research and Special Programs
Administration (``RSPA'') issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NPRM'') (57 FR 58755; December 11, 1992) seeking public comments on
the proposal to improve the on-time flight performance reporting
requirements in 14 CFR Part 234 Airline Service Quality Performance
Reports. The Department proposed to eliminate the reporting exclusion
for flights delayed or canceled due to mechanical problems; to add the
aircraft tail number, and wheels-off and wheels-on time for each flight
reported; to define ``canceled flight,'' ``discontinued flight,''
``diverted flight,'' and ``extra-section flight''; to clarify the
reporting requirement for a new flight; and, to delete references to
obsolete offices.
Part 234 requires the largest U.S. air carriers to report their on-
time departure and arrival performances for every domestic scheduled-
passenger flight operated to or from a reportable airport, with the
exception of flights that are delayed 15 minutes or more, or canceled,
because of mechanical problems. A flight is considered on-time if the
flight departs and arrives less than 15 minutes after its published
scheduled times. The Department publishes separate listings for
departure and arrival performances. The reporting system developed for
the administration of these reporting requirements is called the On-
Time Flight Performance System.
The U.S. carriers covered by the Part 234 requirements are those
generating at least 1 percent of the U.S. domestic scheduled-passenger
revenues on a yearly basis. Currently, there are ten carriers reporting
the data. They are Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska), America West
Airlines, Inc. (America West), American Airlines, Inc. (American),
Continental Air Lines, Inc. (Continental), Delta Air Lines, Inc.
(Delta), Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest), Southwest Airlines Co.
(Southwest), Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), United Air Lines, Inc.
(United) and USAir, Inc. (USAir).
Reportable airports are those airports in the contiguous 48 states
generating at least 1 percent of the domestic scheduled-passenger
enplanements on an annual basis. There are 29 reportable airports in
1994. In practice, all reporting carriers are voluntarily submitting
data for their entire domestic scheduled-passenger operations.
One of the main purposes of the rule is to create a market-based
incentive for airlines to improve their service quality and schedule
reliability for consumers. The public availability of comparative data
on airline service quality creates this market-based carrier incentive.
The addition of wheels-off and wheels-on times, and the
identification of aircraft by tail number, will enable the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to analyze air traffic operations and
create system models for use in reducing enroute and ramp delays. Air
traffic delays cost the public and the industry an estimated $8.5
billion in 1990, according to the FAA.
Public Comments
Comments on the NPRM were received from Alaska, American, Delta,
Northwest, Southwest, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA),
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), and
America West which filed comments along with a motion for leave to file
late comments.
The ATA is an airline trade association with 17 U.S. carrier
members and two Canadian air carrier associate members. Of the ten
carriers currently reporting on-time flight performance data, America
West is the only non-ATA member. The ATA stated that Alaska, Northwest
and Southwest did not join in ATA's comments to the NPRM.
The comments address safety, alternative data sources, the
proprietary nature of aircraft tail number data, elimination of the
rule in its entirety, the addition of new data items and definition
changes. Each of these subjects is addressed under a separate caption.
Safety
Northwest, Southwest and America West opposed the elimination of
the mechanical exclusion.
Northwest believes the existing rule balances the need for consumer
information with safety, and gives carriers an incentive to engage in
realistic scheduling. Northwest states it has placed a high priority on
improving its on-time performance, and has developed a comprehensive
system which includes employee training to assure flights are
dispatched on time. However, Northwest also states that it has, and
always will place safety ahead of on-time flight performance.
Consequently, it has instructed its employees to ignore on-time flight
performance when safety is an issue. Northwest believes the proposed
change will make on-time flight performance an issue that employees may
wrongly consider when making decisions that have major safety
implications. Northwest states it does not want its employees to feel
pressure to choose between safety and on-time flight performance.
Northwest believes the current rule is an unqualified success, and
should not be amended to include mechanical delays and mechanical
cancellations.
Southwest believes the policy of each air carrier is ``safety
first.'' However, Southwest feels a carrier cannot guarantee that an
employee's commitment to safety will not be affected by a desire to see
the carrier do well in its on-time flight performance. Southwest
contends including mechanical delays in the reported flight records
will intensify the conflict between safety and on-time performance.
Southwest states the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) did not reveal any need for the proposed change in the treatment
of mechanical delays, other than the Inspector General's (IG) audit
report which found minor discrepancies in some nonreported flights.
After the IG audit, RSPA issued an accounting and reporting directive
on the subject of nonreported mechanical delays and mechanical
cancellations. Southwest asserts a follow-up audit has not been
conducted, and concludes that there is no evidence that the problem
continues to exist.
Southwest further states that in a 1990 internal DOT memorandum,
RSPA expressed concern with the IG's suggestion that mechanical delays
and mechanical cancellations should be collected with a suppression
code to enable DOT to continue excluding those flights from the monthly
consumer report. RSPA commented that collecting data on mechanical
delays and mechanical cancellations would duplicate FAA's collection
and would be counter to DOT's current policy. RSPA also questioned
whether the data on mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations
could be protected under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)
(FOIA).
In response to Southwest's contention that the NPRM did not reveal
any need for eliminating the mechanical exclusion, other than the IG's
recommendation, RSPA notes that the NPRM specifically stated, ``The
improved modifications in the reporting system would result in improved
consumer information . . .'' (57 FR 58756).
As asserted by Southwest, the Department did not conduct a follow-
up audit on the exclusion of flights impacted by mechanical problems.
Southwest, therefore, concludes there is no evidence as to carrier
reporting compliance after RSPA issued its accounting and reporting
directive to clarify the reporting instructions. However, the
Department's decision to propose eliminating the mechanical exclusion
rendered a follow-up unnecessary.
Southwest also states that RSPA even had concerns about collecting
data on mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations, as the
collection would duplicate an existing FAA collection and be counter to
Departmental policy. While RSPA did express concerns about the
suggestion to collect mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations
and suppress that information in the data base, RSPA's concerns were
with its ability to withhold the mechanical data from public release.
RSPA believed it would be required to release the mechanical data under
the FOIA even if a suppression code were used. Also, RSPA questioned
whether the reporting of specific mechanical data to RSPA and the FAA
was duplicate reporting, which would be counter to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This concern has been addressed
because carriers would not, under this rule, report specific mechanical
data to the Department. All flights would be reported, with no
distinction between flights impacted by mechanical delays and those
flights impacted by other delays.
America West requests the present exclusions for mechanical delays
and mechanical cancellations be retained. The carrier believes DOT
would be ill-advised to make any changes in the existing regulations,
unless DOT can assure the change will not cause ``one employee at one
airline on one occasion to send out an aircraft in order to avoid
having a `late' flight and that an incident or accident occurs.''
The Department does not believe reporting mechanical delays and
mechanical cancellations would cause an employee to compromise safety
to improve an airline's on-time performance. Under the present system,
an employee could easily improve its employer's on-time performance by
miscategorizing a delayed flight as a mechanical delay. The IG's report
did not find a pattern of this type of behavior at any of the reporting
carriers. Rather, some flights were reported as delayed flights that
should have been excluded as mechanical delays, while other flights
that were called mechanical delays were actually delayed for other
reasons. In no case was a carrier's monthly on-time performance ranking
affected by misclassification of flights. Given the fact employees did
not attempt to improve on-time performance by intentionally
misclassifying flights, the Department does not believe employees will
violate FAA regulations, risk their own jobs, and threaten passenger
safety by dispatching unairworthy aircraft to improve on-time
performance.
Moreover, the Department believes the elimination of the exclusion
for mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations will provide better
consumer information since aircraft dispatch reliability will now be a
factor in a carrier's on-time performance. For example, two carriers
each ground one of their aircraft for a day because of mechanical
problems. Carrier A fulfills its schedule using a backup aircraft. All
of Carrier A's flights are on-time except for the last flight operated
with the backup aircraft. Carrier B does not have a backup aircraft
available, so it cancels eight flights that were to be operated with
the disabled aircraft. Carrier B fulfills the rest of its schedule in a
timely manner. Under the mechanical exclusion provision, Carrier B
would have the better on-time flight performance for that day even
though it was without a backup aircraft and cancelled eight flights.
The present system, in some circumstances, penalizes the carrier
with the more reliable service. Elimination of the mechanical exclusion
would end this inequity. If the previous example were based on the new
rule, the carrier meeting its schedule with backup equipment would have
the better on-time rating. The availability of this additional
information would result in a more accurate portrayal of a carrier's
flight operation, thereby enabling the consumer to make a more informed
flight-selection decision. Furthermore, the elimination of the
exclusion should benefit the on-time rankings of carriers with more
effective preventive maintenance programs because such carriers would
experience fewer mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations.
The Department intends for the airlines to continue to put safety
first, and to train their employees accordingly. As Northwest stated,
it too always places safety ahead of on-time performance and instructs
its employees to do the same when there is a conflict between
timeliness and safety. The Department is confident all carriers operate
in the same manner as Northwest. The change in the reporting
requirements in 14 CFR Part 234 does not affect the requirement under
14 CFR Secs. 121.703 and 121.705 that carriers report equipment
malfunctions to the FAA. It is important to remember the Department is
not establishing a required level of performance that each carrier must
meet. Rather, the Department merely discloses to the public the
carriers' on-time performance by month. The public will be better
informed when each carrier reports its complete schedule.
ATA, American and Delta filed in support of the proposed amendment.
They contend the elimination of the exclusion would not compromise
safety.
ATA does not believe the elimination of the exclusion will
adversely affect reporting air carriers or the travelling public. The
inclusion of mechanical-delay and mechanical-cancellation information
will give those interested in air carrier flight performance a better
picture of flight delay and cancellation activity. The safety of
passengers and crew is the most important responsibility of air
carriers. ATA states that carriers devote enormous resources and
attention to fulfilling that responsibility. ATA does not believe the
elimination of the mechanical-delay and mechanical-cancellation
exclusion will induce ATA members to dispatch aircraft that are
unairworthy, or have any other adverse effect upon aviation safety.
American believes that carriers would not risk safety for
competitive reasons. Reporting all flights would ``provide consumers
with a more accurate picture of a carrier's overall on-time record,
which is the reason for the rule in the first place.''
Delta states that it has incurred considerable unnecessary expense
to exclude the mechanical delays and mechanical cancellations, and
argues that their inclusion will not have a negative effect on the
safety of airline operations. Moreover, the existing rule ``has the
effect of punishing carriers with better dispatch reliability records
relative to their competitors.''
The Port Authority also believes safety would not be compromised by
the inclusion of maintenance-related delays; and, the proposed changes
would provide consumers with more useful information to make informed
decisions.
Alternative Data Sources--Wheels-Off/On Times
While not objecting to the reporting of wheels-off and wheels-on
data, ATA does not believe airlines should be required to submit data
that the agency itself could compile.
Delta believes the wheels-off, wheels-on and tail number data could
provide the FAA with valuable information for improving the air traffic
control system. However, Delta also believes carriers are already
providing much of this information to the FAA, and questions whether
reporting the same data in a different format is cost justified.
The Port Authority believes the additional data items will
significantly benefit the study and reduction of air traffic delays. By
measuring wheels-off/on times against gate departure/arrival times, an
airport operator can better assess the efficiency of its airfield
layout and take action to improve traffic flow and reduce ground
delays, which the authority estimates account for 70 percent of the
total aircraft delay time at its airports.
Alaska believes carrier submission of wheels-off and wheels-on time
data is unnecessary and unjustified. The proposed elements should be
based on DOT's on-time flight performance needs rather than on FAA's
air traffic control needs.
By collecting wheels-off and wheels-on times and tail numbers, the
FAA will be able to use the on-time flight performance data base to
track flight delays. It is cost efficient to add these data items to an
existing data base rather than to create a new one.
The Department agrees with Alaska that wheels-off and wheels-on
times are not needed for consumer information purposes, although
consumers would benefit directly from reduced aircraft delays.
There is an existing company that is a potential data source for
aircraft tail numbers, and wheels-off and wheels-on times. Through its
tracking system, the company captures these data elements for all
scheduled domestic flights for six of the ten reporting air carriers.
The Department would accept carrier data through any outside
company, if the proper arrangements can be made for data transmittal. A
carrier must give its permission to the outside company to provide the
data to the government without cost to the government.
Proprietary Data--Aircraft Tail Number
The collection of tail number data will benefit the FAA directly,
by giving the FAA the necessary information to track aircraft
throughout the air traffic system. This tracking will enable the FAA to
reduce aircraft delays, thereby benefiting the consumer.
ATA opposes collecting aircraft tail number information because it
believes: (1) The information is proprietary and very sensitive; (2)
there is an appreciable cost burden to the carrier, especially to one
carrier that tracks its aircraft by nose numbers rather than tail
numbers; and (3) consumers would not derive any benefits from the
reporting of tail numbers.
ATA believes that the availability of tail-number data would enable
a person to determine the way a carrier deploys its aircraft throughout
its route system. Thus, the reporting would reveal basic management
decisionmaking. ATA argues that such fundamental business decisions
should not be required to be disclosed in monthly reports to the
government.
The claim that data are proprietary in nature does not preclude the
Department from collecting the data. FOIA provides safeguards from the
public disclosure of proprietary information. Moreover, the Department
has no plans for routine public release of tail-number data. A carrier
objecting to public disclosure of tail-number data may file a motion
under the Department's regulation 14 CFR Sec. 302.39 Objections to
public disclosure of information. Such a motion would be reviewed under
the requirements of FOIA.
The adoption of the tail number requirement would not result in an
``appreciable'' cost to the carriers, since most of them already track
their aircraft movements by tail number. While ATA states one of its
member carriers tracks its aircraft by nose number instead of tail
number, no individual carrier has stated it would have difficulty in
supplying data by tail number. A carrier could easily program a bridge
for converting its nose number to a tail number for Part 234 reporting
purposes. If this is not feasible, the carrier may contact the Office
of Airline Statistics (OAS) to make other arrangements for tracking
aircraft through the carrier's system. Any air carrier may request a
waiver under 14 CFR Sec. 234.12 from the on-time flight performance
reporting provisions.
Eliminate On-Time Flight Performance Reporting
Alaska stated the Department should initiate a rulemaking to see
whether the existing on-time performance requirements should be
eliminated, rather than imposing additional reporting requirements.
Alaska believes the airline industry's condition is far too dire to
permit the continuation of a reporting regulation which Alaska argues
has no appreciable influence on consumer choice or industry scheduling
conduct. Alaska does not adjust its schedules based on on-time
performance ratings. Its scheduling practices are tied to its internal
schedule monitoring system that uses departure times, in contrast to
the Department's arrival-based reporting requirement.
Alaska believes that collection of additional data--mechanical
delays and mechanical cancellations, wheels-off and wheels-on times,
and aircraft tail numbers--is unnecessary and unjustified until the
current reporting requirements are shown to have improved carrier
scheduling conduct.
The Department disagrees with Alaska's position that carrier on-
time performance is unaffected by the reporting requirements. In its
answer to this rulemaking, Northwest stated it has made changes to its
schedule to improve on-time performance. On May 17, 1993, Delta
implemented a system-wide communication program to improve its on-time
performance. Given the industry's improvement in on-time flight
performance since the reporting requirement was instituted in 1987, the
Department believes most carriers have made similar changes. Before the
reporting regulations were in effect, a Department investigation into
scheduling practices of selected air carriers at four major airports
disclosed that 25 to 60 percent of those carriers' scheduled flights
were more than 15 minutes late (52 FR 34056; September 9, 1987). Today,
more than 80 percent of the reporting carriers' flights are on time.
On-time flight disclosure helps to eliminate deceptive scheduling
practices by carriers, to the benefit of consumers.
Alaska believes departure times, rather than arrival times, are a
better indicator of a carrier's reliability. The Department disagrees.
Consumers are more interested in arrival times, because they have
meetings to attend or may have somebody meeting them at the destination
airport. Consumers also consider elapsed flight time when selecting an
air carrier. If arrival times were ignored, schedule times could be
shaved to make them more appealing to consumers. If the flights
departed on time, the carrier would have a 100 percent on-time record
even if every flight arrived a half-hour late. Such information would
be very deceptive to the consumer.
New Data
American suggested the Department collect aircraft-type data along
with the other proposed data elements, as a means of increasing the
utility of the data.
The Department agrees with American that aircraft-type data are
useful for tracking the number of passengers affected by aircraft
delays. However, the Department can convert tail-number information
into aircraft-type data using the aircraft inventory data base
maintained from the carriers' Schedule B-43 Inventory of Airframes and
Aircraft Engines and B-7 Airframe and Aircraft Engine Acquisitions and
Retirements. These schedules provide aircraft type by tail number.
Thus, DOT does not need air carriers to supply aircraft-type
information with its Part 234 submission.
Definitions
Delta suggested minor changes or clarifications to some of the
definitions in the proposed rule. Delta recommended RSPA clarify
whether days mean calendar days or twenty-four hour periods. Delta also
recommended RSPA revise ``diverted flight'' to read: ``A diverted
flight means a flight which is not operated from the originating
point(s) to each of the destinations set forth in the carrier's
published schedule.''
The Department agrees with Delta's comments concerning the
definitions, and has amended the definitions in the final rule to show
``days'' mean calendar days; and ``diverted flight'' means a flight
operated from the scheduled origin point to a point other than the
scheduled destination point in accordance with the carrier's published
schedule. Also, since the ensuing flight segment from the nonscheduled
destination airport is not a scheduled departure, that flight segment
is not reported under Part 234.
Technical Directive
A Technical Directive was issued with the original rule in 1987
(Appendix I-Reporting Directive-Office of Aviation Information
Management, RSPA, 52 FR 34073, September 9, 1987), which instructed
carriers on the proper reporting format. Since then, the Technical
Directive has been updated by other accounting and reporting
directives, which were issued by OAS. RSPA will reissue the Technical
Directive to the industry concurrently with the publication of this
rule in the Federal Register. The reissued Technical Directive includes
the changes made in this rulemaking and other effective revisions made
in previous Accounting and Reporting Directives. The major revision in
the Technical Directive is in the ADP area.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is considered significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). The
purpose of the rule is to improve consumer information on carrier on-
time flight performance while, at the same time, reducing carrier costs
for providing such information and providing the FAA with the necessary
data to reduce flight delays. These objectives will be achieved by
amending 14 CFR Part 234. The savings would be derived from the
decrease in air traffic delays, resulting from FAA's more efficient
management of air traffic. The FAA estimated a mere 1 percent reduction
in delays would produce a cost savings of $85 million to the public and
industry. According to a study conducted by FAA's Information Systems
Branch, the total cost of air traffic delays for calendar year 1990 was
$8.5 billion. More recently, on May 27, 1993, in testimony before the
National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry,
Mr. Joseph M. Del Balzo, the FAA's Acting Administrator, stated the ATA
estimates that air traffic delays impose annual costs of $8 billion on
the nation's airlines and air travelers.
The industry-wide cost for adding the three data items at issue
would be a one-time programming and testing cost of approximately
$34,000, ten carriers at $3,400 per carrier. Once the programming is in
place, the annual cost to the carriers would be approximately $1,000
per carrier. The economic benefits to the industry, as well as to the
consumer, far outweigh the cost of supplying the data. Eliminating the
exclusion of flights that are delayed by mechanical problems in the
carriers' on-time performance reports should result in a net savings to
the air carriers. Delta stated that the mechanical exclusion has caused
it to incur unnecessary expenses. While the elimination of the
mechanical exclusion will require carriers to report more data to DOT,
the carriers will not be required to identify the cause of the delays
and to filter out those flights delayed by mechanical problems. The end
result will be better consumer information and a cost savings to the
reporting air carriers. The NPRM estimated the elimination of the
mechanical exclusion should save the airline industry at least
$154,000. Although the Department encouraged carriers to comment on
this estimate, Delta was the only carrier that did; however, Delta did
not quantify costs. A regulatory evaluation has been prepared and
placed in the rulemaking docket. In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
the Department estimated there was a potential annual savings to the
airline industry and to the general public of $85 million.
This rule is consistent with the objectives of the executive order
because the rule creates market based incentives for carriers to
improve their on-time flight performance by providing consumers with
superior information with which to make informed choices.
The amendments to 14 CFR Part 234 enable the Department to readily
verify that the carriers are in compliance with the reporting
requirements. The Department will be able to match a carrier's reported
flights with the carrier's scheduled flights as listed in the Official
Airline Guide. Previously, such a matching was not possible, because
carriers did not report qualifying mechanical delays and mechanical
cancellations.
Title 14 CFR Part 234 does not specify an on-time flight
performance standard which carriers must meet. Rather, the carriers'
reports provide consumers with information on carrier performance,
which the consumer may use in carrier selection.
On-time flight performance data are pertinent information for state
or local airport operators. The Port Authority filed in support of the
amendments to 14 CFR 234.
The amendments to 14 CFR Part 234 simplify carrier reporting by
eliminating the special, and sometimes complicated, treatment of
flights affected by mechanical delays.
The three new data items were added at the request of the FAA, who
will now be able to use the existing data base as a more complete
source of information for airport and enroute delay studies. This
action negates the need for the FAA to create a data base of its own.
Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'') and
DOT has determined the rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments will
affect only large certificated U.S. air carriers accounting for at
least 1 percent of U.S. domestic scheduled passenger revenues (over
$450 million annually for the 12 months ended March 31, 1993). The
Department's economic regulations define ``large certificated air
carrier'' to include U.S. air carriers holding a certificate issued
under section 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, that
operate aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more
than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds.
Consequently, small carriers are not affected by this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this
rule were sent at the NPRM stage to the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB NO: 2138-0041. The
final rule adopts those requirements. OMB has approved 14 CFR Part 234
through July 31, 1995. ADMINISTRATION: Research and Special Programs
Administration; TITLE: Airline Service Quality Performance Reports;
NEED FOR INFORMATION: Consumer Information and Flight Data for Air
Traffic Control; PROPOSED USE OF INFORMATION: Consumer Publications and
Modeling for Studying and Reducing Air Traffic Delays; FREQUENCY:
Monthly; BURDEN ESTIMATE: 1,780; AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT
178. For further information contact: The Information Requirements
Division, M-34, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001, (202) 366-4735 or
Transportation Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 3228, Washington, D.C. 20503.
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 2137-AB94 contained in
the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234
Advertising, Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting
requirements, Travel agents, Mishandled baggage reports.
Final Rule
Accordingly, RSPA amends 14 CFR Part 234 Airline Service Quality
Performance Reports as follows:
PART 234--AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS--[AMENDED]
1. The authority for Part 234 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40114, 41702, 41708 and 41712; 5
U.S.C. 553(e) and 14 CFR 302.38.
2. Section 234.2 Definitions is amended by revising the definitions
of reportable flight and reporting carrier; removing the definitions of
mechanical delay and mechanical cancellation; and adding new
definitions in alphabetical order as follows:
Sec. 234.2 Definitions.
For the purpose of this part: Cancelled flight means a flight
operation that was not operated, but was listed in a carrier's computer
reservation system within seven calendar days of the scheduled
departure.
Discontinued flight means a flight dropped from a carrier's
computer reservation system more than seven calendar days before its
scheduled departure.
Diverted Flight means a flight which is operated from the scheduled
origin point to a point other than the scheduled destination point in
the carrier's published schedule. For example, a carrier has a
published schedule for a flight from A to B to C. If the carrier were
to actually fly an A to C operation, the A to B segment is a diverted
flight, and the B to C segment is a cancelled flight.
Extra-section flight means a flight conducted as an integral part
of scheduled passenger service, that has not been provided for in
published schedules and is required for transportation of traffic that
cannot be accommodated on the regularly scheduled flight.
* * * * *
Reportable flight means any nonstop flight, including a
mechanically delayed flight, to or from any airport within the
contiguous 48 states that accounts for at least 1 percent of domestic
scheduled-passenger enplanements in the previous calendar year, as
reported to the Department pursuant to Part 241 of this title.
Qualifying airports will be specified periodically in accounting and
reporting directives issued by the Office of Airline Statistics.
Reporting carrier means an air carrier certificated under section
401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 that accounted for at least 1
percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the 12 months
ending March 31 of each year, as reported to the Department pursuant to
Part 241 of this title. Reporting carriers will be identified
periodically in accounting and reporting directives issued by the
Office of Airline Statistics.
Wet-leased flight means a flight operated with a leased aircraft
and crew.
3. Section 234.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b),
redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as (e) and (f), respectively, and
adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance.
(a) Each reporting carrier shall file RSPA Form 234 ``On-Time
Flight Performance Report'' with the Office of Airline Statistics on a
monthly basis, setting forth the information for each of its reportable
flights held out in the Official Airline Guide (OAG), in the computer
reservations systems (CRS), or in other schedule publications. The
reportable flights include, but are not limited to, cancelled flights,
mechanically cancelled flights, diverted flights, new flights and wet-
leased flights. The report shall be made in the form and manner set
forth in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Director,
Office of Airline Statistics, and shall contain the following
information:
(1) Carrier and flight number.
(2) Aircraft tail number.
(3) Origin and Destination airport codes.
(4) Published OAG departure and arrival times for each scheduled
operation of the flight.
(5) CRS scheduled arrival and departure time for each scheduled
operation of the flight.
(6) Actual departure and arrival time for each operation of the
flight.
(7) Difference in minutes between OAG and CRS scheduled arrival
times.
(8) Difference in minutes between OAG and CRS scheduled departure
times.
(9) Actual wheels-off and wheels-on times for each operation of the
flight.
(10) Date and day of week of scheduled flight operation.
(11) Scheduled elapsed time, according to CRS schedule.
(12) Actual elapsed time.
(13) Amount of departure delay, if any.
(14) Amount of arrival delay, if any.
(15) Amount of elapsed time difference, 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.
(c) A reporting carrier shall report the information specified in
paragraph (a) of this section for a new flight beginning with the first
day of the new scheduled operation.
(d) A reporting carrier shall not report the information specified
in paragraph (a) of this section for any discontinued or extra-section
flight.
* * * * *
4. Section 234.5 is be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 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
Statistics on ADP computer tape in the format specified in accounting
and reporting directives issued by the Director of that office.
5. Section 234.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 234.6 Baggage-handling statistics.
Each reporting carrier shall report monthly to the Department on a
domestic system basis, excluding charter flights, the total number of
passengers enplaned systemwide, and the total number of mishandled-
baggage reports filed with the carrier. The information shall be
submitted to the Department within 15 days of the end of the month to
which the information applies and must be submitted with the
transmittal letter accompanying the data for on-time performance in the
form and manner set forth in accounting and reporting directives issued
by the Director, Office of Airline Statistics.
6. Section 234.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 234.8 Calculation of on-time performance codes.
(a) Each reporting carrier shall calculate an on-time performance
code in accordance with this section and as provided in more detail in
accounting and reporting directives issued by the Director, Office
Airline Statistics. The calculations shall be performed for each
reportable flight, except those scheduled to operate three times or
less during a month. In addition, each reporting carrier shall assign
an on-time performance code to each of its single plane one-stop or
multi-stop flights, or portion thereof, that the carrier holds out to
the public through a CRS, the last segment of which is a reportable
flight.
(b) The on-time performance code shall be calculated as follows:
(1) Based on reportable flight data provided to the Department,
calculate the percentage of on-time arrivals of each nonstop flight.
Calculations shall not include discontinued or extra-section flights
for which data are not reported to the Department.
* * * * *
7. Section 234.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 234.12 Waivers.
Any carrier may request a waiver from the reporting requirements of
this part. Such a request, at the discretion of the Administrator,
Research and Special Programs Administration, may be granted for good
cause shown. The requesting party shall state the basis for such a
waiver.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 23, 1994.
D.K. Sharma,
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-24169 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6901-05-P
