[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29426-29431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 234

[Docket No. RITA 2007-28522]
RIN 2139-AA12


Revision of Airline Service Quality Performance Reports and 
Disclosure Requirements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department) will 
collect additional data elements when flights are cancelled, diverted, 
or experience gate returns. The additional data elements will close 
data gaps and provide consumers a more accurate portrayal of arrival 
and tarmac delays. The previous NPRM was inadvertently published under 
RIN 2139-AA13.

DATES: This rule will be effective on October 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bernard Stankus, Office of Airline 
Information, RTS-42, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, 
Fax Number (202) 366-3383, or E-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of this rule, a copy of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and copies of the comments may be downloaded at http://www.regulations.gov, by searching docket RITA 2007-28522.

Background

    The regulation (14 CFR part 234) requiring airlines that account 
for at least one percent of the domestic scheduled passenger revenues 
to submit monthly service quality performance reports was issued on 
September 9, 1987 (52 FR 34071). At that time, close to 40 percent of 
all flights were either late or cancelled. On-time performance 
reporting created a market-based incentive for carriers to improve 
their service and scheduling practices. The immediate result of this 
action was an improvement in carriers' on-time performance. For the 
remainder of 1987, the industry had an on-time arrival rate of over 74 
percent.
    The Department added data elements to the reporting system in 1995 
to enable the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to identify choke 
points within the air traffic control system (60 FR 66722, December 26, 
1995). Aircraft tail number, wheels-off time and wheels-on time gave 
the FAA information concerning aircraft routings through the air 
traffic control system and detailed data on tarmac and airborne delays. 
A tarmac delay is one that takes place on the ground, such as on the 
ramp or taxiway.
    In 1999 and 2000, airline delays increased dramatically with the 
increase in airline operations. Consumer complaints concerning flight 
delays increased by 58%. Section 227 of the Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) called upon the Secretary of 
Transportation to disclose to the public the source of delayed and 
cancelled flights. During this period, the Air Transport Association of 
America also petitioned the Department to report the causes of delays 
and cancellations. In August 2000, an Air Carrier On-time Reporting 
Advisory Committee was established to

[[Page 29427]]

make recommendations on causal reporting. The committee recommended 
four delay causes--Air Carrier, Extreme Weather, National Aviation 
System, and Late Arriving Aircraft. In response to public comments to 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, a fifth cause, Security, was added 
to the final rule (67 FR 70544, November 25, 2002).
    The occurrence of lengthy tarmac delays in late 2006 and early 2007 
once again focused public attention on the Department's collection of 
Airline Service Quality Performance Reports under 14 CFR part 234. In 
response to a media inquiry, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
(BTS) determined that the air carriers were inconsistent in reporting 
gate-departure times when there was a return to gate. Some carriers 
reported the initial gate departure time while others reported the 
``second'' gate departure time. There are advantages and disadvantages 
with both methods.
    If an airline reports the first gate-departure time, the Department 
knows the interval between the time the aircraft was initially ready to 
depart and when the aircraft actually departed the airport (wheels-off 
time). However, the air carrier would be credited with an on-time 
departure when in reality the aircraft returned to the gate only to 
depart well after scheduled departure time. In this instance, the taxi-
out time is also miscalculated, because the time the aircraft was 
parked at the gate waiting re-boarding is counted in the taxi-out time.
    Reporting the second gate-departure time does not fully represent 
the inconveniences that the passengers endured, by making it appear 
that they were on the aircraft for a much shorter duration before 
wheels-off (take-off) time. The gate departure time for carriers 
reporting the second gate departure time provides a more accurate 
assessment of departure delays, but does not account for tarmac delays 
occurring during the initial gate departure.
    A second data gap concerned the reporting of tarmac times for 
flights that were subsequently cancelled. For example these flights 
could spend hours on the tarmac waiting for storms to pass before being 
cancelled. Since airlines do not report any data on cancelled flights 
other than the fact the flight was cancelled, the amount of time 
passengers spent on the tarmac waiting for take-off is not recorded.
    A third data gap concerned the reporting of tarmac times at 
diversion airports for diverted flights i.e., a flight that landed 
somewhere other than the scheduled destination. Under the current 
reporting system, airlines do not report any data once a flight is 
declared diverted. Therefore, the amount of time spent on the tarmac at 
the diversion airport or at the original destination airport if the 
flight was resumed is not recorded.

Comments

    The Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to fill 
tarmac-delay data gaps on November 20, 2007 (72 FR 65230). A joint 
comment was received from the Air Transport Association of America 
(ATA) and the Regional Airline Association (RAA), representing 18 air 
carriers currently reporting performance data. Other comments were 
received from Delta Air Lines, the National Business Travel Association 
(NBTA), the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), the Coalition for 
an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, and from five private citizens/
airline consumers.
    Of the five citizen comments, two stated that airlines should 
report all delays and publish their delay data on their Web sites, and 
one stated that the Department should fine air carriers $1 million for 
their first lapse in reporting. The issue concerning the displaying of 
on-time data on carrier Web sites is being addressed in a separate 
rulemaking titled Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233, 
Docket OST 2007-0022). The Department is limited by law on the 
assessment of fines to air carriers. Failure to file accurate and 
timely reports required by part 234 violates 49 U.S.C. sec. 41708, 
which subjects the carrier to civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each 
violation and $25,000 for each day any violation continues under 49 
U.S.C. sec. 46301. Two other comments addressed issues in other 
aviation related rulemakings--Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 
(72 FR 65233, Docket OST 2007-0022) and Oversales and Denied Boarding 
Compensation (final rule, 73 FR 21026). Those comments were forwarded 
to the personnel coordinating those rulemakings. The last comment dealt 
with a specific lost/stolen baggage issue. That letter was forwarded to 
the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement 
and Proceedings for appropriate action.
    The Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights said all 
carriers operating aircraft with over 30 seats should be required to 
report delay data; and that international flights should be reportable. 
This issue is being addressed in the rulemaking titled Enhancing 
Airline Passenger Protections.

Tracking Individual Passenger Delay

    NBTA was the only party to comment on whether the Department should 
track individual passenger delays. It stated:

    ``It would be an inappropriate burden to require air carriers to 
create statistics for every contingency a flight might face. * * * 
There are too many passenger-specific scenarios that airlines should 
not be spending time tracking. For instance, a delayed passenger 
switching carriers on a connecting trip would require interfaces 
across corporate databases that do not exist. NBTA agrees * * * that 
capturing individual passenger delays on missing connections, 
cancellations or diversion, would be difficult and for little 
benefit. Also, * * * travelers would be wary about the federal 
government collecting information on their personal flight data. 
While NBTA recognizes the need to give personally identifying 
information for the purposes of national security; giving that same 
information for the purposes of tracking delays is unreasonable.''

The Department is not requiring air carriers to track and submit 
individual passenger data.

Gate Returns

    A gate return occurs when the aircraft departs the boarding gate 
with passengers aboard and returns to a gate at that airport to deplane 
the passengers before the flight progresses to wheels-off at the 
departure airport. As stated previously, some carriers are reporting 
the first time the aircraft leaves the departure gate as the official 
gate departure time. Other carriers are reporting the last time the 
aircraft leaves the departure gate as the official gate departure time. 
Both methods of reporting produce misleading information for flights 
with multiple gate departures. The earlier gate departure makes it 
appear that the flight experienced an on-time departure and overstates 
taxi-out time. The reporting of the later departure time properly 
records a late departure but masks the total time the aircraft and 
passengers were sitting on the taxiway.
    Commenters agreed that the Department should correct this reporting 
inconsistency. ATA and RAA proposed that the last time a flight leaves 
the boarding gate be reported as the official gate departure time. NBTA 
states that ``* * * a flight that is delayed and given a new departure 
time should not be considered on-time when it leaves at the subsequent 
time.'' ATA and RAA also suggested that the Department add new data 
fields to collect the first time the flight left the boarding gate, the 
total time the aircraft was away from the gate at the departure 
airport, and the average time the aircraft was away from the gate at 
the departure airport.

[[Page 29428]]

    The Coalition for Airline Passenger Bill of Rights commented that 
the longest time period away from the boarding gate is more informative 
than the average time. They also recommended that the Department 
clarify that the carrier may only count a gate return if passengers are 
permitted to deplane.
    The Department will require air carriers to report the last time 
the aircraft leaves the boarding gate as the official gate-departure 
time. When there is a gate return, carriers will report new data fields 
to indicate the first time the aircraft left the boarding gate, the 
total time the aircraft was away from the boarding gate at the 
departure airport, and the longest single period of time that the 
aircraft was away from the boarding gate at the departure airport. 
Carriers will only report a gate return when passengers are permitted 
to deplane.
    The Department agrees that the longest time away from the boarding 
gate is more meaningful information to consumers than the average time 
and the final rule requires the reporting of the longest time.

Cancelled Flights

    All parties concur that the Department should collect additional 
data when a flight is cancelled after the aircraft leaves the boarding 
gate but before the flight lifts off from the tarmac.

    ``NBTA understands that in some cases it may be far preferable 
to have an extended tarmac delay than returning a flight to a gate, 
thus canceling or delaying the flight considerably * * * However, if 
a plane is cancelled after a tarmac delay, that fact needs to be 
taken into account when evaluating airline and airport performance. 
Current law does not provide this information and thus is not 
helpful to sophisticated buyers capable of evaluating trends over 
time.''

    Currently, the carriers report only the scheduled departure and 
arrival times and no actual times for cancelled flights. To capture 
tarmac times for these cancelled flights, carriers now will complete 
the actual gate departure field, and report the new fields developed 
for total time away from gate and longest single period away from gate.

Diverted Flights

    The rulemaking component which received the most wide-ranging 
comments was the reporting of data pertaining to flight diversions. 
Delta Air Lines objected to reporting data on diverted flights. It 
claimed that the reported data from diverted flights will have little 
or no value to DOT for the purpose of setting policy. Delta said the 
new requirements will cost up to $500,000, and result in ``no tangible 
benefit to passengers.'' Delta asserts that most if not all diversions 
occur because of safety factors. ``As such, no amount of analysis by 
DOT of the diversion data requested in this NPRM will change in the 
least bit the frequency and effect of diversions.''
    ATA/RAA supports the Department's desire to collect additional data 
on diverted flights but believes the data should be limited. ATA/RAA 
said that the structure of the Department's proposal to collect items 
at diverted airports would compromise the integrity of the fixed-length 
record format which is oriented to a single scheduled flight. They 
submitted examples where multiple diversion and turn backs would be 
difficult to capture under the proposal. Diversions account for 0.16 
percent of all flights. ``ATA believes that if the Department were 
concerned with information on such a small segment of operations, we 
should submit a proposal that would collect information for all 
possible scenarios.''
    The Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights said the 
data gaps in the on-time reporting system should be closed. The 
coalition said that a new set of codes to identify the cause of 
diversions should be implemented with a unique code to distinctly 
identify diversions caused by insufficient fuel.
    ASTA, the world's largest association of professional travel 
agencies, said it is ``particularly important to include the data on 
diverted flights, which, while a small percentage of total flights, 
impact a large number of passengers. This data may be hard to collect, 
as the Air Transport Association (ATA) claims, but every effort should 
be made to get it so the manner in which these events occur, and their 
impact on the public, can be better understood.''
    The Department agrees with the comments that, while the incidents 
of flights diversions are infrequent (16 out of every 10,000 flights), 
the impact on travel resulting from these relatively rare occurrences 
is noteworthy and is not adequately reflected in the Department's on-
time reports. BTS' existing data understate the problem of extended 
tarmac delays because of lack of data created by gaps in the reporting 
system. After receiving numerous requests for information on tarmac 
delays, BTS decided to display a web page on tarmac delays of 3 hours 
or longer (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/taxi_out_times/html/over_3_hours_airport_2007_12.html). The lack of data 
from cancelled and diverted flights has the potential to disguise a 
serious problem and block its resolution. Alternatively, the data could 
show that the problem is not as severe as some parties suggest. New 
carrier reports, identifying long tarmac delays on cancelled and 
diverted flights, would provide additional information on the extent of 
the problem. The Department also agrees with ATA that the reporting 
structure proposed in the NPRM would make it difficult, if not 
impossible, to report all possible flight scenarios, especially in the 
case of gate returns at diverted airports.
    As proposed in the NPRM, the Department will add five data elements 
to capture diversions. However, instead of adding the gate-arrival and 
gate-departure times at the diverted airport, the carrier will instead 
report total time away from gate at the diverted airport and the 
longest time away from gate at the diverted airport. This change will 
avoid reporting uncertainty when there are gate returns at diverted 
airports or when a diverted flight remains on the tarmac without 
proceeding to an airport gate. The five data elements will be repeated 
for each additional airport to which a flight is diverted.
    For on-time reporting purposes, a diversion is a non-stop flight 
that lands at a destination other than the original scheduled 
destination. Returns to the origin airport without arriving at a 
destination other than the origin airport are considered diverted 
flights.
    The new data elements to be reported to BTS are:
    Airport code of diverted airport.
    Wheels-on time at diverted airport.
    Total time away from gate at diverted airport.
    Longest time away from gate at diverted airport.
    Wheels-off time at diverted airport.
    If a flight terminates at a diverted airport, the carrier would not 
report Wheels-off time at the diverted airport. If a flight ultimately 
arrived at the scheduled destination airport, the carrier would 
complete the fields for Actual Gate Arrival Time (at scheduled 
destination) and Wheels-on Time (Actual).
    This reporting structure captures the data elements most desired by 
the Department and those consumer groups that submitted comments. The 
new reporting elements will provide information on:
    (1) Where diverted flights landed,
    (2) The total time the flights were on the ground away from the 
gates at the diverted airport,
    (3) The single longest period of time that the passengers were in 
the plane, on the ground, and away from the gate,

[[Page 29429]]

    (4) The total time spent at the diverted airport (wheels-off time 
minus wheels-on time),
    (5) Time spent by passengers in the airport terminal, or in the 
aircraft at the gate, but with access to the terminal (wheels-off time 
minus wheels-on time minus total time away from gate at diverted 
airport),
    (6) Whether the flight reached its final destination,
    (7) The total minutes of delay for a diverted flight that reached 
its final destination.
    Also, the Department will be able to differentiate between diverted 
flights that reach their final destination from those that terminate at 
alternative airports.
    At this time, the Department will not require air carriers to 
report a code showing the cause for diverted flights. Since the issue 
was not raised in the NPRM, the air carriers and other parties did not 
have sufficient opportunity to comment. As ATA and Delta commented, 
diversions are unplanned, fairly rare occurrences which take place for 
a variety of reasons, including safety. The Department initiated 
collection of causal information in 2003 as a tool to spot problem 
areas within the aviation system and to identify the party best able to 
initiate corrective action to prevent or mitigate future incidences. 
For example, air carrier delays would be addressed by the airlines. 
National Aviation System delays would be addressed by the FAA and 
airports. Security delays would be the responsibility of the 
Transportation Security Administration. Additional codes on diverted 
flights would not provide the Department or the air carriers with 
relevant information that would prevent or lessen the incidences of 
future diversions.
    ATA asked a number of questions, including a request for 
clarification that the definition of on-time performance is not 
changing due to the new requirements. For clarity, we are addressing 
each of ATA's questions in the order asked.
    The definition of an on-time flight is unchanged. An on-time flight 
is still a flight that arrives at the destination gate less than 15 
minutes after the published gate arrival time. In computing a carrier's 
on-time percentage, BTS divides total scheduled flights into the number 
of flights that arrived less than 15 minutes after their published 
arrival times.

ATA Q 1. Will diversion data be reported in a single or multiple 
records?

    A 1. The Department prefers to keep the single-record format; 
however, that opinion would change if it is shown that a multi-record 
format is more efficient or produces better data. The Department 
invites carriers to participate in a working group to determine the 
technical details for submitting and processing this rulemaking's 
required data. The Department will also ask for volunteers for a pilot 
test of the new reporting requirements. Finally, the Department will 
issue a technical directive. ATA accurately states that a collaborative 
effort will provide DOT ``the greatest likelihood that the new data 
elements will accurately account for information on all flight 
scenarios. Furthermore, this approach will ensure that all carriers 
will implement the same methodology to report accurately, reliably, 
consistently, and comparably.''
    ASTA requested to be a party to any industry work group to 
determine the data that would be collected. The decision on the data to 
be collected was based on the comments filed in Docket RITA 2007-28522. 
Meetings with air carriers are needed to review the technical aspects 
of the reporting requirements and to assure that the regulated 
community understands the new requirements.

ATA Q 2. For flights that divert to an airport and do not reach a gate, 
how should the gate-arrival and gate-departure data fields be reported?

    A 2. From the comments received, the Department determined that the 
data need would be met by collecting total time on tarmac and longest 
time away from the gate instead of the gate-arrival and gate-departure 
fields for diverted flights.

ATA Q 3. When a flight diverts, how should the flight data be 
represented?

    A 3. Carriers will report the following:
    Airport code of the diverted airport.
    Wheels-on time at diverted airport.
    Total time spent away from gate at diverted airport.
    Longest single period of time spent away from gate at diverted 
airport.
    Wheels-off time at diverted airport.
    If the flight terminates at the diverted airport, the carriers 
would report a ``0'' (zero) in the wheels-off time field. If the flight 
departs the diverted airport on its way to the scheduled destination 
airport, the carrier would repeat these same 5 data fields.

ATA Q 4. When a flight over-flies an intermediate stop and diverts, how 
should the flight be represented?

    A 4. Any time a non-stop flight segment is operated from its 
scheduled origin airport and lands at a place other than the scheduled 
destination airport, carriers will report the 5 data elements listed in 
Answer 3.

ATA Q 5. When a flight originates at an unscheduled airport prior to 
the scheduled airport, how should the data be represented?

    A 5. Flights that truly originate at nonscheduled airports are not 
reported. However, if a carrier's flight 123--BOS-DCA-MIA was 
diverted to an alternate airport (BWI) before landing at DCA, flight 
123 BWI to DCA would not be considered an originating flight. 
The carrier would report the five data items for the diverted airport, 
and report the wheels-on and gate-arrival times at DCA for the BOS-DCA 
segment of flight 123. The DCA-MIA segment of flight 
123 would be reported as normal. If, instead, flight 
123 landed at BWI and operated directly to MIA, the BWI-MIA 
segment would not be reported. For the BOS-DCA segment, the carrier 
would still report the diversion data but it would have no time to 
report for wheels-off at BWI. Also, the DCA-MIA portion of flight 
123 would be reported as a cancelled flight.

ATA Q 6. When a flight extends beyond the scheduled destination 
airport, how should the data be represented?

    A 6. Using the flight 123 example, if the carrier 
announced to its passengers in advance that the flight would not land 
at DCA but would fly directly to MIA, both the BOS-DCA and the DCA-MIA 
segments would be reported as cancelled flights. But if it was 
determined that conditions at DCA made it impossible to land after 
departure from BOS, and the flight continued to MIA, the MIA landing 
would be considered a diversion of the BOS-DCA segment. The DCA-MIA 
segment would be reported as a cancelled flight. These reporting 
instructions are consistent with the historical reporting of 
cancellations and diversions.

ATA Q 7. When a flight operates to an alternate airport, same city, how 
should the flight be represented?

    A 7. Flights that land at alternate airports are reported as 
diverted flights even when the alternate airport serves the same city.

[[Page 29430]]

ATA Q 8. What happens when we have multiple operation issues? Such as a 
flight that is scheduled to operate Seattle-Boston, has a gate return, 
then leaves Seattle but diverts to Denver due to a medical emergency, 
then continues on, but again diverts due to weather in Boston, then at 
last makes it to Boston. Are we to have four different data records to 
account for the mishaps?

    A 8. The carrier would report the flight as follows:
    The last time the aircraft left the gate at the scheduled airport 
would be reported as the Actual Gate Departure Time. The time the 
aircraft originally left the gate would be reported as the Gate 
Departure Time--First Time Out. The carrier would complete the fields, 
Total Time Away from Gate for All Gate Returns, including cancelled 
Flights and Longest Time Away from Gate for All Gate Returns, including 
Cancelled Flights for the gate return at Seattle. The fields: Airport 
code of the diverted airport; Wheels-on time at diverted airport; Total 
time spent away from gate at diverted airport; Longest single period of 
time spent away from gate at diverted airport; and Wheels-off time at 
diverted airport would be completed for the landings at Denver and 
Newark.

ATA Q 9. How is On-Time calculated since we left our scheduled origin 
airport and did not arrive at the scheduled destination?

    A 9. Flights that are scheduled and do not reach their scheduled 
destination are counted against the air carrier when computing the 
percentage of on-time arrivals; however, no minutes for late arrivals 
are computed for flights that do not reach their scheduled 
destinations.

ATA Q 10. If you divert to another airport and report the times there, 
then continue to the original destination, what scheduled times do you 
use for On-Time performance calculations?

    A 10. On-time calculations are made by comparing the scheduled 
gate-arrival time at the scheduled destination with the actual gate-
arrival time at the scheduled destination airport.

Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

Economic Summary

Executive Order 12866
    Under Executive Order No 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this final rule is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order No. 12866. The rule was 
reviewed by OMB. In addition, this rule is significant under the 
Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
    This Executive Order also requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. To the extent possible, this 
proposed rule meets these criteria.
Cost/Benefits
    After a public meeting in June 2007 some carriers commented to BTS 
that the cost for programming to provide additional data on gate 
returns and cancelled and diverted flights could range from $10,000 to 
$60,000 per carrier. Delta Air Lines commented to the Docket that the 
reprogramming costs to capture information on diversions could be up to 
$500,000 for Delta alone. Since the carriers have the additional data 
that the Department is requesting, the Department believes the original 
cost estimate of $10,000 to $60,000 is accurate. Delta's estimate seems 
overstated because the new data elements are already available to the 
air carriers. Using the high end range of the original estimates, 
compliance with this rule could impose a one-time cost on the affected 
segment of the industry of $1.2 million.
    We believe that the rule will result in many unquantifiable 
benefits that exceed the costs. Consumers will have more accurate data 
for making their transportation selections. The public availability of 
these data may influence carriers to limit the length of the tarmac 
portion of delays (i.e., to reduce the amount of time that a delayed 
flight spends on the ground away from the gate). The FAA will have 
complete data on all long tarmac delays to use in its airport modeling. 
Aside from costs and benefits, it is important to note that H.R. 2881, 
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Title IV--Air Service 
Improvements; Section 401), includes a provision that would require BTS 
to expand the reporting system to capture all operational data on gate 
returns and cancelled and diverted flights.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
    This Act requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. The carriers that are required to 
report Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP) data are all large 
air carriers with annual passenger revenues exceeding $600 million 
each. Thus, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
Trade Agreements Act
    This Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to foreign commerce of the United States. ASQP 
data are for domestic operations only and have no impact on the foreign 
commerce of U.S. carriers.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    This Act requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the 
costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State, 
local, or tribal government. This final rule imposes no expenditures on 
State, local or tribal governments.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The Department has analyzed this final rule under the principles 
and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or 
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, and therefore does not have federalism implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    The reporting burden associated with this final rule will be 
reviewed by OMB under the OMB Approval No. 2138-0041. The NPRM asked 
for public comments on costs and burdens. Based on carrier comments, 
the major burden increase will be reprogramming. We estimate a first-
year increase in reporting burden of 900 hours per carrier or an 
industry increase of 18,000 hours. After the carriers have revised 
their systems, the reporting burden should increase slightly from 159 
annual burden hours to 175 annual burden hours per carrier.

[[Page 29431]]

Regulation Identifier Number
    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda each 
April and October. The RIN Number 2139-AA12 contained in the heading of 
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

The Final Rule

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234

    Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter II 
as follows:

PART 234--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709.

0
2. Section 234.4 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraphs (a)(22) through (a)(29) as set forth below.
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (i) as paragraphs (c) 
through (j), respectively.
0
c. By adding new paragraph (b).
0
d. By revising newly designated paragraph (c).


Sec.  234.4  Reporting of on-time performance.

    (a) * * *
    (22) For gate returns, first gate-departure time at origin airport
    (23) Total ground time away from gate for all gate/air returns at 
origin airport, including cancelled flights--actual minutes
    (24) Longest time away from gate for gate return or cancelled 
flight
    (25) Three-letter code of airport where diverted flight landed
    (26) Wheels-on time at diverted airport
    (27) Total time away from gate at diverted airport
    (28) Longest period of time away from gate at diverted airport
    (29) Wheels-off time at diverted airport
    (b) Repeat fields (25) through (29) for each subsequent diverted 
airport landing
    (c) When reporting the information specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section for diverted flights, a reporting carrier shall use the 
original scheduled flight number and the origin and destination airport 
codes except for item (25).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2008.
M. Clay Moritz, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 08-1274 Filed 5-16-08; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P