[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