Revised Rule (2138-0041)

65230

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 234
[Docket No. OST 2007–28522]
RIN 2139–AA13

Revision of Airline Service Quality
Performance Reports and Disclosure
Requirements
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

AGENCY:

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS

ACTION:

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) is proposing to
collect additional data elements when
flights are cancelled, diverted, or
experience gate returns. The additional
proposed data elements would fill in
data gaps giving the Department, the
industry, and the public a more accurate
portrayal of on-ground delays after
flights depart the gate but prior to the
time they take off and after flights land
but before they reach the gate.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket ID Number
OST 2007–28522 by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: Identify docket number,
OST 2007–28522, at the beginning of
your comments, and send two copies.
To receive confirmation that DOT
received your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may access all comments received
by DOT at http://www.regulations.gov.
All comments are posted electronically
without charge or edits, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:18 Nov 19, 2007

Jkt 214001

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline
Information, RTS–42, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Telephone Number (202) 366–4387, Fax
Number (202) 366–3383 or e-mail
[email protected].
DOT
invites air carriers and other interested
persons to participate in this rulemaking
by submitting written comments or
views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
The Department’s rule requiring
airlines that account for at least one
percent of the domestic scheduled
passenger revenues to submit service
quality performance reports, 14 CFR
part 234, was first 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 marketbased 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.
In 1995, the Department added
additional data elements to the
reporting system 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. In
addition, the department required air
carriers to report delays related to
mechanical problems.
In 1999 and 2000, airline delays
increased dramatically with the increase
in airline operations. Consumer
complaints concerning flight delays
increased by 18% from 1999 to 2000.
Section 227 of the Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(Air-21; See Pub. L. 106–181, 114 Stat.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

61) called upon the Secretary of
Transportation to disclose to the public
the causes of delayed and cancelled
flights. On July 25, 2000, the
Department’s Office of Inspector
General (IG) issued a report Air Carrier
Flight Delays and Cancellations (Report
Number CR 2000–112). In its report, the
IG recommended that DOT provide
consumers, on a monthly basis,
information about the major causes of
flight delays and cancellations. 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
make recommendations on causal
reporting. The committee recommended
four delay causes—Air Carrier, Extreme
Weather, National Aviation System, and
Late Arriving Aircraft. After notice and
comment on the matter, in November
2002, the Department adopted a final
rule that required carriers to report the
causes of delays in these four categories,
along with a fifth category, Security. (67
FR 70535, November 25, 2002.)
The occurrence in late 2006 and early
2007 of significantly long on-ground
delays, particularly those involving
flights that departed the gate but were
delayed taking off and those that had
landed but were delayed in reaching a
gate, commonly referred to as ‘‘tarmac
delays,’’ once again focused public
attention on the Department’s collection
of Airline Service Quality Performance
Reports under part 234. In reviewing the
currently available data, we find that the
Department can determine the extent of
tarmac delays for most flights. However,
these data cannot be used to capture
tarmac delays in all instances since the
reporting requirements were never
intended for such a purpose. In this
regard, when first adopted, the intent of
part 234’s reporting requirements was to
obtain and provide to the public data
involving on-time departures and
arrivals, while later revisions to the rule
were concerned with taxi times and the
causes of flight delays. Currently, the
Department cannot calculate tarmac
delays for canceled or diverted flights.
For example, on February 14, 2007,
during snowstorms in the Northeast,
many flights departed the boarding gates
only to spend many hours on the tarmac
being de-iced and waiting for the
weather to clear. When the weather
failed to clear sufficiently, flights were
cancelled. Under current reporting
rules, if a flight is canceled, only that
fact is required to be reported. Air
carriers are not required to report the
time of departure from a gate for
canceled flights. Thus, under current

E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM

20NOP1

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
reporting rules, air carriers do not
provide information that enables the
Department to determine whether a
flight, that is ultimately canceled,
experienced a tarmac delay and the
extent of that delay. Similar data gaps
exist for flights that are diverted to
alternate airports, as was demonstrated
by massive flight diversions that
occurred in the Southwestern United
States in late 2006 as a result of bad
weather. Under the current reporting
regulations, on-time reporting ceases
when a flight is diverted from its
scheduled routing. The carrier reports
the scheduled departure and arrival
times and the actual gate departure and
wheels-off times. However, no
information is reported on the arrival at
the airport to which a flight is diverted
or the departure from that alternate
airport, and no information is reported
on whether or not that flight ultimately
arrived at its scheduled destination
airport and, if it did, its time of arrival
at that airport.
Moreover, in our review of the
available data, we discovered that
carriers were not uniformly reporting
gate-departure times (i.e. when a flight
that had departed a gate returned to the
gate and subsequently departed the gate
again for take-off). Some carriers
reported the initial gate-departure time
while others reported the ‘‘second’’ gatedeparture time. There are advantages
and disadvantages with both reporting
methods.
By receiving data on only the first
gate-departure time, the Department
knows the time interval from when the
aircraft initially departed the gate and
when the aircraft ultimately departed
the airport (wheels-off time). However,
there are times when a carrier is
credited with an on-time departure,
when in reality the aircraft returned to
the gate only to depart well after its
originally-scheduled departure time. In
such instances, the taxi-out time (and
tarmac delay time) for the aircraft is also
miscalculated, because the time the
aircraft was parked at the gate awaiting
its second gate departure, a time when
passengers are often deplaned, would be
counted in the taxi-out/tarmac delay
time.
On the other hand, while reporting
data on only the second gate-departure
time might be seen as a more accurate
assessment of delay in departure, this
information would fail to capture the
duration of any tarmac delay that
occurred after the first gate departure,
thereby disguising the true
inconvenience to passengers on that
flight.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:18 Nov 19, 2007

Jkt 214001

Public Meeting
On June 20, 2007, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS)/Research
and Innovative Technology
Administration hosted a public meeting
to discuss data gaps and inconsistencies
in the reporting of on-time data. A
summary of the public meeting is
available in Docket No. OST 2007–
28522. The airlines present at the
meeting and the Air Transport
Association (ATA), which represents 11
airlines that submit on-time data, fully
supported the objectives of filling data
gaps and improving the utility of ontime data. American Airlines
recommended that any change to the
reporting regulations ensure that: (1)
The information is reported consistently
by all carriers; (2) the potential for
misinterpretation of the data is limited;
and (3) the reporting burden on the air
carriers is limited. ATA proposed that
carriers report the last gate-departure
time in the normal data field for gatedeparture time and create a new field
where the carriers would report the
initial gate-departure time when there is
a return-to-gate situation. ATA also
proposed that BTS create another field
for total time on tarmac for multiple gate
departures.
Various consumer groups expressed
the opinion that the current system was
providing misleading information by
understating tarmac delays. The
Aviation Consumer Action Project
(ACAP) stated that the delay statistics
are so incomplete or inaccurate as to be
misleading or deceptive to the public.
ACAP objects to the way carriers report
cancellations and diversions:
specifically, it objects to the fact that no
delay minutes are assigned to cancelled
and diverted flights. Also, ACAP is of
the view that, rather than requiring
airlines to track the delay minutes of
aircraft, the public would better be
served by knowing the delay suffered by
each passenger. For instance, a flight
could arrive 50 minutes late causing
some passengers to miss connecting
flights. The overall delay experienced
by these passengers likely would be
much greater than the 50 minutes of
aircraft delay reported to BTS.
On June 20, 2007, Congresswomen
Jean Schmidt sent a letter to Secretary
Mary Peters commending the
Department’s action to review on-time
reporting, and recommending that the
Department collect complete
information on gate returns, and
cancelled and diverted flights.
As a follow up to the public meeting,
BTS asked the reporting air carriers to
provide answers to the following
questions:

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

65231

1. For Gate Returns, do you collect or have
access to:
The number of times a plane returns to the
gate?
The time the plane leaves and returns to
the gate for each gate departure/return?
The number of minutes a plane stays on
the tarmac for all gate returns until the final
departure or cancellation?
In the case where a plane takes off and
returns to the gate, the number of minutes the
plane stays in the air (i.e., is there a wheelson and wheels-off time)?
The cause for the gate return(s)?
2. For Cancelled Flights:
No additional questions.
3. For Diverted Flights, do you collect or
have access to:
If the plane lands at an alternative airport,
the airport’s three letter code?
The number of minutes the plane stays on
the tarmac at the alternative airport?
The wheels-on time at the alternative
airport?
The cause of the diversion?
If the passengers are not deplaned, the
wheels-off time when the flight resumes?
If the passengers are deplaned, the time the
plane arrives at the gate?
Whether the flight continues on to the
original destination airport?
If yes, what is the plane’s departure date,
gate departure time, and wheels-off time?
For all continuation flights, what are the
wheels-on and gate arrival time at the
original destination airport?

The answers of those carriers that
responded to the questions lead us
tentatively to conclude that the
requested data can be collected with a
couple of exceptions. Some carriers
apparently do not currently retain
information on how long an aircraft sits
on the tarmac before the flight is
ultimately cancelled. Other carriers
apparently do not currently record the
cause of gate returns or flight diversions.
Nevertheless, the general opinion
expressed by those carriers responding
is that with some reprogramming to the
individual carriers’ internal systems, all
the data could be collected and
retrieved. ATA responded by proposing
the addition of five data elements:
(1) Gate Departure Time—first time
out at origin airport.
(2) Total ground time away from gate
for all gate/air returns at origin airport,
including cancelled flights—actual
minutes.
(3) Average ground time away from
gate for all gate/air returns at origin
airport, including cancelled flights—
actual minutes.
(4) Total ground time away from gate
at divert and destination airport(s)—
actual minutes.
(5) Average ground time away from
gate at divert and destination
airport(s)—actual minutes.
ATA requested that any changes to
the reporting requirements be made at

E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM

20NOP1

65232

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules

the same time and that the
implementation of the changes become
effective no sooner than 6 months after
the Department issues a new
Accounting and Reporting Directive on
the new reporting system. ATA also
offered to participate in an industry
working group comprised of DOT and
interested carrier officials, much like the
group that successfully collaborated on
the reporting of the causes of delay.
Need for Improved Reporting and
Disclosure
The Department believes that the
Airline Service Quality Performance
reporting system needs to be revised in
order to provide consumers with a
complete picture of tarmac delays. The
current system also does not provide
information on whether diverted flights
ultimately reach their intended
destination. The Department proposes
to make the following revisions to its
reports required pursuant to Part 234:
Current Data Fields
1. For gate/air returns and
cancellations—carriers would report the
last gate departure as the Gate Departure
Time (Actual).
2. For diverted flights that ultimately
reach their destination, carrier would
report:
• Gate Arrival Time (Actual) at
destination airport.
• Difference in Minutes Between
Official Airline Guide (OAG) and
Scheduled Arrival Time.
• Actual Gate to Gate Time in
Minutes.
• Arrival Delay Difference in Minutes
Between Actual Arrival Time and
Computer Reservation System (CRS)
Scheduled Arrival Time.
• Wheels-On Time (actual) at
destination airport.
• The Minutes Late for the proper
Delay Code(s).
New Data Elements

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS

Cancellations and Gate/Air Returns
1. For gate/air returns, first gatedeparture time at origin airport.
2. Total ground time away from gate
for all gate/air returns at origin airport,
including cancelled flights—actual
minutes.
3. Average ground time away from
gate for all gate/air returns at origin
airport, including cancelled flights—
actual minutes.
New Data Elements
Diverted Flights
1. Three letter code of airport for
diverted airport(s).
2. Wheels-on Time at diverted airport.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:18 Nov 19, 2007

Jkt 214001

3. Gate Arrival Time at diverted
airport.
4. Gate Departure Time at diverted
airport.
5. Wheels-off Time at diverted airport.
Technical Directive
BTS plans to issue a technical
reporting directive in combination with
a final rule. In the development of the
directive, BTS would like to work with
the air carriers to form a pilot group for
submitting the new data elements. With
proper testing, we hope to ensure that
we would be collecting the required
data in the most efficient manner
possible for both BTS and the air
carriers.
Tracking Individual Passenger Delay
We agree with ACAP that the airline
quality service reports currently
required to be filed do not capture the
delays experienced by individual
passengers when a missed connection,
cancellation or diversion occurs. With
the very high passenger loads on
aircraft, it is becoming increasingly
more difficult for passengers to rebook
a flight. The current reporting system
required under Part 234 was designed,
however, to track aircraft and airline
operations. When delays occur there are
two types of delayed passengers: nondisrupted and disrupted. The nondisrupted passenger completes the flight
itinerary without suffering a missed
connection, diversion or cancellation.
The delay minutes of a non-disrupted
passenger are relatively easy to
calculate.
The disrupted passenger either misses
a connecting flight, or experiences a
cancelled or diverted flight. The
Department does not have the data
available to accurately assign flight
delay minutes to disrupted passengers
as information is lacking on how the
passenger completed the journey or
even if the passenger completed their
journey. Time-sensitive passengers may
abandon their trip plans and return
home while others may remain at the
airport awaiting the next available
flight. Tracking the movement of
individual passengers and assigning
delay minutes to individuals is difficult,
if not impossible, and could be seen by
some as an invasion of privacy. We
believe the cost of tracking individual
passenger movements would outweigh
the benefit of assigning a delay time to
a disrupted passenger.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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
proposed action is a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ [or non-significant if
OMB agrees] under Executive Order No.
12866. The proposal has high Executive,
Congressional and public interest.
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
Congress has proposed that BTS
expand the reporting system to capture
all operational data on gate returns,
cancelled and diverted flights (see H.R.
2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2007). Carriers have commented that the
cost for programming to provide
additional data on gate returns,
cancelled and diverted flights could
range from $10,000 to $60,000 per
carrier. Using the high estimate,
compliance to this rule could cost the
industry $1.2 million. It is difficult to
assign a dollar value to the intangible
benefits derived from the rule.
Consumers will have more accurate data
for making their transportation
selections. The FAA will have complete
data on all long tarmac delays.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This Act requires agencies to analyze
the economic impact of regulatory
changes on small entities. The carriers
that are required to report ASQP data

E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM

20NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
are all large air carriers with annual
operating revenues exceeding $600
million. Thus, this proposal, if adopted,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Trade Agreements Act

1. The authority citation for part 234
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 Secs. 41708 and
41709.

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 the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
government. This proposed rule
imposes no expenditures on State, local
or tribal governments.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The Department has analyzed this
proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132,
Federalism. We determined that this
proposed 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 Department has submitted a copy
of the new information requirements in
this proposed rule to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
Based on carrier comments, we are
estimating 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, reporting burden should
be reduced slightly in the future. We
request that carriers provide estimates of
what they perceive as increased costs
and burdens from this proposed action.

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS

Regulation Identifier Number

Jkt 214001

2. Section 234.4 is amended by
adding paragraphs (a)(22) through
(a)(29) and revising paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
§ 234.4

Reporting of on-time performance.

(a) * * *
(22) For gate/air returns, first gatedeparture 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) Total number of gate returns.
(25) Three letter code of airport where
diverted flight landed.
(26) Wheels-on Time at diverted
airport.
(27) Gate Arrival Time at diverted
airport.
(28) Gate Departure Time at diverted
airport.
(29) Wheels-off Time at diverted
airport.
(b) 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 items cited in
paragraph (a)(25) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
15, 2007.
M. Clay Moritz, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Director, Office of Airline
Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 07–5759 Filed 11–15–07; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary

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–AA13 contained in
the heading of this document can be
used to cross reference this action with
the Unified Agenda.

15:18 Nov 19, 2007

Air carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the U.S. Department of
Transportation proposes to amend 14
CFR Chapter II as follows:
PART 234—[AMENDED]

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.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234

14 CFR Parts 234, 253, 259, and 399
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2007–0022]
RIN No. 2105–AD72

Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

AGENCY:

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

65233

Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM).

ACTION:

SUMMARY: The Department of
Transportation (DOT or Department) is
seeking comment on whether it should
adopt a rule to enhance airline
passenger protections in the following
seven ways: require carriers to adopt
contingency plans for lengthy tarmac
delays and incorporate them in their
contracts of carriage, require carriers to
respond to consumer problems, deem
operating a chronically delayed flight to
be unfair and deceptive, require carriers
to publish delay data, require carriers to
publish complaint data, require on-time
performance reporting for international
flights, and require carriers to audit
their compliance with their customer
service plans. We are proposing that
most of these measures cover
certificated or commuter air carriers that
operate domestic scheduled passenger
service using any aircraft with more
than 30 passenger seats. We are
proposing that one measure cover the
largest U.S. and foreign carriers and that
two other measures cover the largest
U.S. carriers.
DATES: Comments should be filed by
January 22, 2008. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.

You may file comments
identified by the docket number DOT–
OST–2007–0022 by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number DOT–
OST–2007–0022 or the Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your
comment. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM

20NOP1