Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31511 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This proposed 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in subtitle VII, part 

A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This proposed regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

would amend Class E airspace at 

Rutherford County Airport, 

Rutherfordton, NC. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective 

September 15, 2010, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO NC E5 Rutherfordton, NC [Amended] 

Rutherford County Airport, NC 

(Lat. 35°25′44′′ N., Long. 81°56′06′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 11.6-mile 

radius of the Rutherford County Airport. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 13, 

2011. 

Barry A. Knight, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13561 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 oneway 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 longterm 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). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31513 

1Public Law 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). 

2 42 U.S.C. 13232(a). 

3 Id. The provision also states that the 

Commission ‘‘shall give consideration to the 

problems associated with developing and 

publishing useful and timely cost and benefit 

information, taking into account lead time, costs, 

the frequency of changes in costs and benefits that 

may occur, and other relevant factors.’’ 

4 60 FR 26926 (May 19, 1995). 

5The Commission’s Fuel Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 

Part 306, addresses labeling for liquid alternative 

fuels, such as ethanol and liquefied natural gas. 

6The Rule requires fuel importers, producers, or 

distributors to have a reasonable basis for the 

information disclosed on the label, maintain 

records, and provide certifications when 

transferring fuel. 16 CFR 309.11–14. 

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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 309 

Labeling Requirements for Alternative 

Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks public 

comment on its Labeling Requirements 

for Alternative Fuels and Alternative 

Fueled Vehicles (‘‘Alternative Fuels 

Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). As part of its 

systematic review of all FTC rules and 

guides, the Commission requests public 

comment on the overall costs, benefits, 

necessity, and regulatory and economic 

impact of the Alternative Fuels Rule. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether to merge its alternative fueled 

vehicle (AFV) labels with fuel economy 

labels proposed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA); add new 

definitions for AFVs contained in recent 

legislation; and change labeling 

requirements for used AFVs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Regulatory Review for 

Alternative Fuels Rule, (16 CFR part 

309, Matter No. R311002, Program Code 

M04)’’ on your comment, and file your 

comment online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

altfuelsreviewanpr, by following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex N), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division 

of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2889. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 

92 or Act) 1 established federal programs 

that encourage the development of 

alternative fuels and alternative fueled 

vehicles (AFVs). Section 406(a) of the 

Act directed the Commission to 

establish uniform labeling requirements 

for alternative fuels and AFVs. Under 

the Act, such labels should provide 

‘‘appropriate information with respect to 

costs and benefits [of alternative fuels 

and AFVs], so as to reasonably enable 

the consumer to make choices and 

comparisons.’’ 2 In addition, the required 

labels must be ‘‘simple and, where 

appropriate, consolidated with other 

labels providing information to the 

consumer.’’ 3

In response to EPAct 92, the 

Commission published the Alternative 

Fuels Rule in 1995, addressing both 

alternative fuels and AFVs.4 The Rule 

requires labels on fuel dispensers for 

non-liquid alternative fuels, such as 

electricity, compressed natural gas, and 

hydrogen.5 The labels for electricity 

provide the dispensing system’s 

kilowatt capacity, voltage, and other 

related information. The labels for other 

non-liquid fuels disclose the fuel’s 

commonly used name and principal 

component (expressed as a percentage).6

Examples of the fuel labels appear 

below. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS