[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31511-31513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13554]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 217, 241, 298
(Docket Nos OST-98-4043)
RIN 2105-AC71
Aviation Data Modernization
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (the Department) is
withdrawing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on February
17, 2005 (70 FR 8140 et seq.) that proposed revisions to the rules
governing the nature, scope, source of and means for collecting and
processing aviation traffic data.
We are withdrawing this NPRM because, after review of all comments,
we have determined that the approach we proposed to solve the
identified problems does not adequately address a number of aspects,
including measures that could both enhance the utility, integrity and
accuracy of the data and reduce the cost of reporting. This action is
being taken to allow for later revision and refinement of a proposed
methodology for aviation data modernization.
DATES: June 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Pittaway, Office of Aviation
Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W86-461, Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366-8856.
Electronic Access: You can view and download related documents and
public comments by going to the Web site http://www.regulations.gov.
Enter the docket number DOT-OST-1998-4043 in the search field.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 15, 1998, the Department published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (63 FR 28128) requesting comment on a
variety of issues related to aviation economic data collection. The
ANPRM noted that the Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger
Traffic (O&D Survey) and Form 41, Schedule T-100--U.S. Air Carrier
Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market and
Form 41, and Schedule T-100(f)--Foreign Air Carrier Traffic and
Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market (the last two are
known collectively as the T-100/T-100(f))O&D Survey and the T-100/T-
100(f)) may not provide sufficiently reliable data in some
circumstances to ensure that the Department can meet its obligation to
disseminate information that enables the transportation system to adapt
to the present and future needs of the American public. At that time,
we stated our concern that the aviation data systems should be reviewed
and modernized in order to meet our statutory responsibilities.
Also, because of difficulties private industry would have in
assembling these data, the need for scheduled air traffic information
cannot be satisfied other than through governmental means. However,
while there are no other sources of comprehensive traffic data
available in the aviation industry, a significant market exists in
supplying services to supplement the Department's information offerings
using the service provider's own statistical insight and experience.
The public, academics, manufacturers, airports, air carriers, local,
state and various branches of the Federal government all remain
dependent on the reliability of this commercially enhanced data.
Approximately 50 comments were filed in response to the ANPRM by
airlines, airports, trade associations, unions, and private citizens
who use this data. Commenters confirmed that these data are not only
critical to the work of both private and public aviation stakeholders
(including the reporting airlines themselves), but that there are
universal concerns about the capability and accuracy of the existing
data collection to satisfy the changing needs of the industry and its
stakeholders. The respondents overwhelmingly agreed
[[Page 31512]]
that the O&D Survey and the T100 segment data were essential.
Commenters repeatedly mentioned that the current data elements
collected were insufficient to meet the data needs of the public and
the aviation industry now and in the future. There was near universal
agreement that the data suffer from lack of quality and lack of
consistency. Deficiencies in the O&D Survey and in the T-100/T-100(f)
further reduce the ability of the data to meet the needs of the
aviation community.
On February 17, 2005, OST published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (70 FR 8140 et seq.) as part of the Department's effort to
revise the requirements for aviation data to modernize the way we
collect, process, and disseminate aviation data. The NPRM reflected
analysis of the O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f) data, and it documented
the use of that data by the government, the airline industry,
consumers, and other stakeholders. We proposed revisions to the rules
governing the nature, scope, source of and means for collecting and
processing this aviation traffic data.
At the time the notice was published, we noted that the Department
has a statutory responsibility to collect and disseminate information
about aviation transportation in the U.S. The Department must, at
minimum, collect information on the origin and destination of
passengers and information on the number of passengers traveling by air
between any two points in air transportation, 49 U.S.C. sec. 329(b).
Additionally, the Department is charged with maintaining a sound
regulatory system that is responsive to the needs of the public, and
must disseminate information to make it easier to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of the commerce
of the United States (49 U.S.C. 40101(a) (7)).
We also acknowledged the Department's responsibility to maximize
the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of influential
statistical information it disseminates. Although the O&D Survey
collected quarterly and the T-100/T-100(f) collected monthly are the
means by which the Department disseminates aviation traffic
information, the NPRM identified various technical deficiencies and
limitations in the data.
In the 2005 NPRM, we also proposed a plan to create the O&D Survey
using a fundamentally different collection methodology and considered
commensurate changes in the collection of the T-100/T-100(f). In
addition to seeking comments on the change of methodology, we sought
input into other key topics such as information about what kind of data
should be withheld from release for reasons of competitive sensitivity.
Discussion of Comments
In response to the 2005 NPRM, the Department received substantive
comments from ten organizations or groups, and limited comments from
twelve additional groups or organizations. Most of the commenters were
airlines or aviation trade associations, but some of the other users of
the data also provided comments. While there was opposition to certain
aspects of the Department's proposed methodology for collecting data,
no comments filed in response to the NPRM disputed the Department's
authority to gather aviation information, the Department's review of
the data's current deficiencies, the Department's assessment of the
data's limitations, or the Department's assertion that the current
traffic statistics had outlived the economic model for which it was
designed. We, therefore, conclude that there is support for obtaining
and disseminating accurate aviation traffic data by aligning it with
modern airline business practices, but that the methodology we proposed
may not have been the best solution to repair the deficiencies in the
system.
The Department's proposal for collecting aviation traffic data
continued to rely on the airline passenger revenue accounting system as
the principal source of data. However, we proposed changing the carrier
designated to report the data, increasing the scope and volume of data
collected, and reducing the number of reporting exemptions. The NPRM
also sought comments on several specific issues to achieve greater
uniformity in statistical reporting in light of the industry's
divergent business models. We believed that changing the carrier
responsible for reporting a ticket to the ticket issuing carrier would
be a significant simplification in the airline's process of reporting
and would, therefore, result in a reduction of reporting costs. While
there was considerable support for these changes, the comments
indicated that some believed that the burdens of reporting the data
would still be disproportionately high.
We proposed a specific set of data elements that we anticipated
would be necessary in the new methodology to define one-way trips, and
asked for comment on how to construct the one-way trips. However, no
one-way trip methodology appeared in the record, leading a number of
commenters to claim that the Department had not sufficiently
articulated a rationale for collecting the newly proposed data
elements.
Similarly, the Department proposed that the public supply guidance
regarding how the Department should safeguard competitively sensitive
information, but no such safeguards were suggested in the comments.
With no specific proposals for safeguards in the record, a number of
commenters asserted that the Department had not made sufficient plans
to safeguard competitively sensitive information.
In addition, the Department pointed to evidence that the current
ticket sample methodology produces a sample that could be impacted by
decisions at travel agencies to assign ticket numbers at their own
convenience for their own reasons. We have no authority to regulate
such activities of travel agents, and so the Department proposed to
either change the method of creating the sample or to do away with
sampling and collect a census of data. Despite evidence presented in
the NPRM that the current 10% sampling system produces a biased sample
of inconsistent size and inadequate scope, and the Department's
calculation indicating that to ensure reasonable accuracy the target
sample size should be a minimum of 24.34% of the total enplaned
passengers, several airlines commented that a 20% sample with no change
in collection methodology would be easier to implement and therefore
preferable to the Department's proposal.
Although many stakeholders provided comments on the manner in which
data could be collected, it is the airlines who must supply the data
and are, therefore, in the best position to effectively comment on the
difficulty of producing the data. Some airlines questioned certain
aspects of the rulemaking's data collection proposal, characterizing
the changes as potentially expensive and cumbersome. No airline,
however, suggested an alternative, statistically defensible proposal
for collection of data that would be less expensive and less cumbersome
while simultaneously producing the desired improvements in the utility
of the data.
Reason for Withdrawal
The stated purposes of this rulemaking were to (1) Reduce the long-
term reporting burden on the Participating Carriers, (2) make the O&D
Survey more relevant and useful, (3) reduce the time it takes to
disseminate the information and (4) achieve 95% statistical correlation
between the O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f).
[[Page 31513]]
In light of the responses to the NPRM, we have determined that it
will be in the public interest to significantly modify our proposal to
modernize aviation data products. We have also determined that an
additional request for public comment based on the current proposal
would not provide us with the information we need in order to
accomplish our purpose.
We have engaged a contractor with expertise in the industry to
identify necessary and useful system features, and to address how data
collection can be aligned with modern airline information technology so
as to minimize the data-reporting burden on air carriers. Further, the
contractor will assist the Department in assessing alternatives to the
Department's proposal as stated in the NPRM that will help all
stakeholders realize a better value for the investment in the data
modernization effort.
Although this rulemaking is being withdrawn, the Department
anticipates the issuance at a later date of a new NPRM and will
continue to involve the public in its effort to increase efficiency,
effectiveness, integrity, quality, and utility of the aviation traffic
information available, in a way that is also sensitive to the
information collection costs that would be imposed on the carriers.
Issued in Washington, DC on May 25, 2011.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13554 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P