[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29514-29518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13630]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 234

[Docket No. 50053; Notice No. 95-7]
RIN 2137-AC67


Amendments to the On-time Disclosure Rule

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and denial of petitions for 
emergency waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise the on-time flight 
performance reporting requirements by re-instituting the exclusion of 
flights delayed or cancelled due to mechanical problems and seeks 
comments on the retroactive application of the proposal. This action is 
taken in response to recommendations made at the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Aviation Safety Conference and a petition for 
rulemaking by Northwest Airlines. This document denies the petitions of 
Northwest, Southwest and America West for an emergency waiver from the 
current on-time reporting requirements, and seeks comments concerning 
the collection of flight completion data and the filing frequency of 
the data collection.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before July 
5, 1995. Petitions for reconsideration of the staff action denying the 
emergency waiver must be received on or before June 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to the Docket Clerk, Docket 
50053, Room PL 401, Office of the Secretary, Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. 
Comments should identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted 
in duplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the 
Department to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with 
those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following 
statement is made: Comments on Docket 50053. The postcard will be 
dated/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All comments 
submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both 
before and after the closing date for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Stankus or Jack Calloway, 
Office of Airline Statistics, DAI-10, Research and Special Programs 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C., 20590, (202) 
366-4387 or 366-4383, respectively. [[Page 29515]] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 9, 1987, the Department of Transportation (DOT or 
Department) issued a rule (52 FR 34056) which required the largest U.S. 
airlines to report their on-time performance for every domestic 
scheduled passenger flight operated to or from a reportable airport, 
with the exception of qualifying flights that were delayed 15 minutes 
or more or cancelled because of mechanical problems. A flight is 
considered on-time if it arrives less than 15 minutes after its 
published arrival time. The U.S. airlines covered by the reporting 
requirement are those generating at least 1 percent of the U.S. 
domestic scheduled-passenger revenues on a yearly basis. 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. In practice, all reporting airlines are voluntarily 
submitting data for their entire domestic scheduled-passenger 
operations. The purpose of the rule was to reduce airline flight delays 
and consumer dissatisfaction with airline service by providing a 
persuasive, market-based incentive for airlines to improve their 
quality of service and reliability of schedules. The reporting system 
developed for the administration of these reporting requirements was 
called the On-Time Flight Performance Reporting System.
    Flights that were delayed 15 minutes or more, or cancelled, because 
of mechanical problems which were reported to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR 121.703 or 121.705, were excluded 
from the reporting requirements. Mechanical delays included delays of 
the flight on which the mechanical problem was encountered and 
subsequent delayed flights performed by the same or substitute aircraft 
for which the delay was attributed to the initial mechanical problem. 
However, flights delayed less than 15 minutes because of a mechanical 
problem were included in the on-time performance data.
    The issuance of the rule was in response to the Department's year-
long study conducted in 1986-87 of airline operating performance at 
eight of the country's largest airports. This study included all 
flights, even those delayed or cancelled because of mechanical 
problems, and it showed that only 40 to 50 percent of the flights 
arrived on-time. In December 1994, the on-time flight performance for 
the 10 reporting airlines ranged from 73 to 84 percent. These figures 
are higher than the airlines' actual performance, since mechanical 
delays and cancellations (estimated to impact about 4 percent of all 
flights) are excluded. Nonetheless, there has been marked improvement 
in airline on-time performance, to the benefit of consumers.
    The improvement can be attributed to, among other things, more 
realistic flight scheduling by the airlines and improved traffic 
management by the FAA. The reporting requirements and the publication 
by the Department of each reporting airline's on-time performance 
created an incentive for the airlines to adjust scheduled flight times 
and make other changes to improve schedule reliability. These actions 
reduced unrealistic scheduling and resulted in improved on-time 
performance.
    On December 4, 1992, the Department's Research and Special Programs 
Administration (``RSPA'') issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``NPRM'') (57 FR 58755; December 11, 1992) seeking public comments on 
a proposal to improve the on-time flight performance reporting 
requirements in 14 CFR Part 234. The Department proposed to eliminate 
the reporting exclusion for flights delayed or cancelled due to 
mechanical problems; to add the aircraft tail number, and wheels-off 
and wheels-on time for each flight reported; to define ``cancelled 
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.
    Comments on the NPRM were received from Alaska Airlines, Inc. 
(Alaska), American Airlines, Inc. (American), America West Airlines, 
Inc. (America West), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta), Northwest Airlines, 
Inc. (Northwest), Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), the Air Transport 
Association of America (ATA), and The Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey (Port Authority).
    The comments addressed 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.
    Northwest, Southwest and America West opposed the elimination of 
the mechanical exclusion. They contended that including mechanicals in 
their on-time reports could compromise safety. They believed airline 
personnel might dispatch aircraft with mechanical problems to improve 
on-time performance.
    ATA, American, Delta and the Port Authority filed in support of the 
proposed amendment. They contended the elimination of the exclusion 
would not compromise safety.
    Alaska stated the Department should initiate a rulemaking to see 
whether the existing on-time performance requirements should be 
eliminated in their entirety, rather than imposing additional reporting 
requirements.
    On September 30, 1994, the Department issued a final rule that 
revised the reporting requirements in 14 CFR part 234 for the On-Time 
Flight Performance Reporting System (59 FR 49793, September 30, 1994). 
The rule change eliminated the exclusion of reporting flights delayed 
or cancelled due to mechanical problems and added three new data items 
(aircraft tail number, wheels-off time and wheels-on time) for each 
flight reported. These changes were effective on January 1, 1995. The 
initial monthly airline reports under the new requirements covering 
January 1995 operations were due at DOT on February 15, 1995. These 
reports have been filed. Since then February, March and April reports 
have also been filed.
    One of the main purposes of the original rule, adopted on September 
9, 1987, was 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 created this 
incentive. In issuing the September 30, 1994 final rule, the Department 
believed the elimination of the exclusion for mechanical delays and 
mechanical cancellations would provide better consumer information 
since aircraft dispatch reliability would now be a factor in airline 
on-time performance. At the same time, the new consumer reports would 
provide more complete information on an airline's operation.
    A benefit of the revised reporting requirement was an 840 hour 
reduction in airline reporting burden. The elimination of a time-
consuming sort to exclude mechanical delays and cancellations more than 
offset the increase in burden of adding three new data items.
    The addition of the new data items--wheels-off and wheels-on times, 
and the identification of aircraft by tail number--enables the FAA to 
analyze air traffic operations and create system models for use in 
reducing enroute and ramp delays. The reporting of these three data 
items is not at issue in this notice, and airlines will continue to 
report these items.

Aviation Safety Conference

    On January 9 and 10, 1995, the DOT and FAA sponsored an aviation 
safety [[Page 29516]] conference in Washington, D.C. The two-day 
conference, with over 1,000 attendees, focused on ways to improve 
safety measures and increase public confidence in airline 
transportation. Six workshops dealt with specific safety areas, namely: 
(1) Crew Training, (2) Air Traffic Control and Weather, (3) Safety Data 
Collection and Use, (4) Application of New Technology, (5) Aircraft 
Maintenance Procedures and Inspection, and (6) Development of Flight 
Crew Procedures.
    Workshop # 5, Aircraft Maintenance Procedures and Inspection, 
recommended that DOT remove maintenance delays and cancellations from 
the On-Time Flight Performance Reporting System stating that: (1) their 
inclusion intimidates maintenance personnel, (2) their inclusion 
encourages potentially unsafe practices, (3) the risk of abuse 
outweighs the benefits of the information, and (4) the information is 
already required for submission to local FAA offices.
    Following the Aviation Safety Conference, Transportation Secretary 
Federico Pena and FAA Administrator David Hinson issued a press release 
on February 9, 1995, outlining the actions that government and industry 
are taking to achieve a goal of ``zero accidents.'' Secretary Pena and 
Administrator Hinson presented 173 safety action initiatives that the 
government, industry and labor developed. The Aviation Safety Action 
Plan of February 9, 1995, sets the timetable for achieving these safety 
action initiatives. While 104 of the safety initiatives are scheduled 
for completion by September 30, 1995, there is no specific time 
schedule to resolve the issue of maintenance delays in the On-Time 
Flight Performance Reporting System. However, the plan states 
``Administrative policy determination necessary.''

Petitions for Reversal of the Final Rule

    After the January 1995 safety conference, Northwest petitioned the 
DOT (Docket 50053) on January 19, 1995, to (1) grant an emergency 
waiver to all airlines permitting them to exclude mechanical delays or 
cancellations from the monthly on-time reports; and (2) institute a 
rulemaking proceeding to reinstate the mechanical exclusion.
    Northwest maintained that the 220 industry representatives at the 
Aircraft Maintenance Procedure and Inspection Workshop unanimously 
recommended that mechanical delays and cancellations be eliminated from 
the on-time performance reporting. Northwest believes the present rule 
has the potential to jeopardize public safety by introducing the 
possibility of conflict between an airline's commitment to on-time 
performance and its commitment to safety. Northwest estimated that 60 
hours of re-programming time would be required to convert back to the 
previous system of excluding mechanical delays and cancellations from 
on-time performance reporting.
    Southwest and America West filed answers on February 1 and February 
3, 1995, respectively, with motions to file late. The motions are 
hereby granted. Both airlines supported Northwest's petition for 
rulemaking and emergency waiver application.
    On February 15, 1995, America West, Northwest, and Southwest (joint 
petitioners) filed a joint emergency petition (Docket 50053). The 
petition requested the immediate issuance of an order instructing all 
reporting airlines covered by the On-Time Flight Performance Reporting 
System to exclude mechanical delays and cancellations from the reports 
submitted to the Department.
    Senator Larry Pressler, Congressman James L. Oberstar, the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), the Air Line Pilots 
Association (ALPA), the International Airline Passenger Association 
(IAPA), and the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace 
Workers (IAM) have each sent letters to Secretary Pena on this subject. 
They asked the Secretary to reverse the decision to include mechanical 
delays and cancellations in the on-time reports and to restore the 
previous data collection requirements. IAPA also proposed the exclusion 
of delays and cancellations caused by weather, since airlines cannot 
control these events. IAPA believes that passengers want to know which 
airlines are not operating on-time because of their own shortcomings, 
not external causes such as weather.
    Comments in opposition were filed by American and Delta. Also, 
American, Delta, United and USAir sent a letter (joint letter) to 
Secretary Pena.
    American does not believe airline employees would risk their jobs 
and threaten passenger safety by dispatching unsafe aircraft with 
mechanical problems to improve on-time performance. American asserts 
that there are many opportunities for airlines to behave recklessly in 
order to improve on-time performance, if they are so inclined. American 
believes Northwest could make the same argument about weather or a 
medical emergency. For example, an airline could unsafely dispatch 
aircraft or attempt landings in bad weather, or refuse to make an 
emergency landing for an on-board medical emergency to avoid chargeable 
delays and improve on-time performance. American believes that this 
does not happen.
    The joint emergency petitioners responded that American's comments 
are without merit and frivolous. The joint petitioners do not believe 
mechanicals can be equated with inclement weather or medical 
emergencies. The decision to delay a flight based on mechanical 
problems can be made by a single airline employee, while the decision 
to delay a flight based on adverse weather conditions is a group 
process in which the government is involved. Furthermore, the 
petitioners contend it is absurd to think a pilot would not make a 
landing for a medical emergency.
    Delta stated that the Department has already fully examined the 
safety issue and properly concluded that there is no safety risk. Delta 
asserts that the mechanical exclusion generated considerable 
unnecessary expenses for the reporting airlines. Delta believes that 
Northwest was less than candid in its portrayal of the opposition to 
reporting mechanical delays and cancellations at the safety conference. 
Delta compared reporting mechanical delays with reporting flights 
delayed because of time-consuming deicing procedures required by the 
FAA. Delta notes that no one has suggested that airline employees are 
exposed to undue pressures to meet schedules when they are faced with a 
decision whether to deice an aircraft or not.
    The joint letter expressed the carriers' concerns about the 
Department reversing the on-time reporting requirements. They believe 
that the Department performed a thorough analysis of the issues in its 
final rule issued on September 30, 1994. They also believe the current 
requirements provide better consumer information. They suggested that 
the consumer information would be further improved by adding a 
requirement for reporting completion factor.

Completion Factor

    The Department seeks comments on whether it should publish the 
percentage of scheduled domestic passenger departures completed or 
scheduled domestic revenue-passenger miles completed by the reporting 
carriers. Commenters should address whether the publication of this 
information would allow consumers to make better decisions on air-
travel purchases.
    Under the present reporting requirement of including mechanicals, 
[[Page 29517]] the Department is able to calculate for each carrier's 
domestic system the percentage of scheduled passenger departures 
completed. However, if the Department reverts to the old system of 
excluding flights impacted by mechanicals, it could calculate 
departure-completion percentages for only the reported flights. Please 
comment on (1) whether the departure-completion percentage should 
exclude or include flights impacted by mechanical problems, and (2) if 
flights impacted by mechanicals are included in the completion 
percentage, how should the Department collect this data?
    Commenters should also address the use of existing data such as the 
T-100 System for calculating the percentage of scheduled domestic 
revenue-passenger miles completed. While the Department can presently 
make this calculation, the percentage is slightly overstated when an 
airline operates extra-section flights. Aircraft miles for extra-
section flights are reported as aircraft-miles completed, but are not 
reported as scheduled aircraft miles. If the Department uses this 
system to determine a completion factor, there would be no special 
treatment for flights cancelled because of mechanical problems.
    Commenters, that propose additional data items, should address the 
cost to the airlines to submit those data items.

Frequency of Reporting

    A recent Presidential regulatory initiative directs federal 
agencies to review their reporting regulations in order to reduce the 
burden on business and the public. In many instances, less frequent 
reporting may relieve some burden.
    From our initial review of the likely benefits of less frequent 
filing of on-time data, we believe that there would be no burden 
reduction. Airlines are required to file data for each individual 
flight segment, and less frequent reporting would not change this 
requirement. Therefore, we are not proposing to amend the filing 
frequency. However, if commenters can show a savings from less frequent 
reporting, we may be agreeable to amending the regulations.
    Commenters should address the burden reduction and the effect on 
the usefulness of consumer information if the on-time performance data 
were filed less frequently. For instance, commenters may want to 
consider such options as: (1) Quarterly submissions to DOT with 
consumer information published quarterly and quarterly tapes provided 
CRS vendors; (2) quarterly submissions to DOT with consumer information 
published quarterly and monthly tapes provided CRS vendors; and (3) 
quarterly submissions to DOT but data separated by month, with monthly 
tapes provided CRS vendors. Under option (3), the quarterly consumer 
information could be shown by month, by quarter or by the last month of 
the quarter.

The Proposal

    The Department is proposing to reinstate the exclusion of 
mechanical delays and cancellations in the on-time performance reports. 
At the January 1995 Aviation Safety Conference, representatives of the 
mechanics and pilots unions expressed concerns that there may be undue 
pressure on mechanics to dispatch aircraft in the name of on-time 
performance. Neither the pilots nor the mechanics responded to the 
December 4, 1992 NPRM. In the interest of public safety, we wish to 
fully explore this issue.
    When the Department decided to eliminate the mechanical exclusion, 
the decision was based on information in the docket and the belief that 
the majority of the air transportation industry, including the 
airlines, labor, ATA, and the general public did not oppose the change. 
There was no evidence in the record to indicate that safety would be 
adversely affected by eliminating the mechanical exclusion. The only 
airlines opposing the change were America West, Northwest and 
Southwest. These airlines generally ranked in the top three for on-time 
performance.
    Since the Department's September 30, 1994 final rule, safety 
concerns have been raised. The purpose of this rulemaking is to fully 
explore these concerns. We do not, however, believe a safety emergency 
exists. As American, Delta, United, USAir and even Northwest have 
stated, airlines are faced with many instances where an airline must 
decide between safety and on-time performance, and safety always is 
given first priority. Accordingly, the emergency waiver requests of 
Northwest, America West and Southwest are hereby denied. Airlines have 
10 days to appeal for review of this action to the Administrator, 
Research and Special Programs Administration, under 14 CFR 385.50 et 
seq.
    For historical data base purposes, we are also asking airlines to 
comment on the retroactive application of the proposal. Specifically, 
the Department proposes to require airlines to refile all relevant 
monthly on-time reports beginning with January 1995, to exclude 
mechanical delays or cancellations. Comments should discuss, among 
other things, the availability of historical data, and burden and 
monthly costs involved.
    Until this rulemaking is completed, airlines will continue to 
report according to the final rule issued on September 30, 1994. All 
back issues of the Department's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report, 
which includes data from the On-Time Flight Performance Reporting 
System, will be issued contemporaneously with the publication of this 
proposed rulemaking. Future issues will be issued monthly on a current 
basis as the data are received.
    IAPA's proposal to exclude weather-related delays and cancellations 
will not be considered in this rulemaking, as it is beyond the scope of 
the September 30, 1994 final rule. Moreover, while airlines do not have 
control over the weather, they do control where they establish hub 
airports. The various hub airports throughout the country are not 
affected by weather to the same degree. Consumers should have this 
information.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This notice of proposed rulemaking is not considered a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 
therefore it was not reviewed 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), 
because it involves Departmental policy concerning the reporting of 
flight delays and their potential impact on safety.
Executive Order 12612

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 
(``Federalism'') and DOT has determined the proposed rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposal will 
affect only large certificated U.S. airlines accounting for at least 1 
percent of U.S. domestic scheduled passenger revenues (over $450 
million annually for the 12 months ended March 31, 1994). 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 
[[Page 29518]] 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 requirement associated with this 
rule is being sent to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB NO: 2138-0041; 
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; FREQUENCY: Monthly; BURDEN 
ESTIMATE: 1,920; AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT 192. For further 
information contact: The Information Requirements Division, M-34, 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
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-AC67 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.

Proposed Rule

    Accordingly, it is proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 234, Airline 
Service Quality Performance Reports, as follows:

PART 234--AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS

    1. The authority for Part 234 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40114, 41702, 41708, 41712; 5 U.S.C. 
553(e) and 14 CFR 302.38.

    2. Section 234.2, Definitions, is amended by revising the 
definition of ``reportable flight'' and by adding the definitions for 
``mechanical delay'' and ``mechanical cancellation'' in alphabetical 
order as set forth below, and the introductory text is republished as 
follows:


Sec. 234.2  Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part:
* * * * *
    Mechanical delay and mechanical cancellation mean respectively, the 
arrival delay (by 15 minutes or more) or cancellation of a flight 
scheduled to be operated with a particular aircraft on a particular day 
due to mechanical problems on that aircraft that are reported to the 
Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 14 CFR 121.705 or 121.703. 
Mechanical delays will include delays in both the flight on which the 
mechanical problem was encountered and subsequent delayed flights 
performed by the same aircraft, or the aircraft substituted for it, on 
the same day, where the delay was attributable to the initial 
mechanical problem.
* * * * *
    Reportable flight means any nonstop flight to or from any airport 
within the contiguous 48 states that accounted for at least 1 percent 
of domestic scheduled passenger enplanements in the previous calendar 
year, as reported in reports submitted to the Department pursuant to 
part 241 of this title. Qualifying airports will be specified 
periodically in reporting directives issued by the Office of Airline 
Statistics. Flights delayed or cancelled because of qualifying 
mechanical problems are excluded from the carriers reports.
    3. Section 234.4 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) as (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively, and 
adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 234.4  Reporting of on-time performance.

* * * * *
    (b) A reporting carrier shall not report any of the information 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for any scheduled operation 
that was late or cancelled due to a mechanical cancellation or 
mechanical delay.
* * * * *
    4. Section 234.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) as set 
forth below, and the introductory text of paragraph (b) is republished 
as follows:


Sec. 234.8  Calculation of on-time performance codes.

* * * * *
    (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, extra-section flights, nor 
flight operations affected by mechanical delays or mechanical 
cancellations for which data are not reported to the Department.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 26, 1995.
Ana Sol Gutierrez,
Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-13630 Filed 6-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P