Amendments to the On-Time Disclosure Rule

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