# Is the Internal Study an Available Executive Option, and Is the FAA Uniquely Qualified? — Memo **Date:** June 2026 **Register:** Institutional / policy / legal analysis in the disciplined "could support" mode. Nothing here asserts unlawful conduct, claims the unrun study would show any particular result, treats protected raw data as concealment, or revives a takings theory. **Status of the locked verdict:** Does NOT re-open the locked safety verdict ("sign indeterminate, magnitude small, modest adverse lean"). It addresses only two antecedent institutional questions — *can* the study be commissioned, and *who* uniquely can run it — and the disciplined implications. --- ## Executive Summary — Two Verdicts **Q1 — Is commissioning the internal experience-stratified precursor study an available executive option under existing authority? — YES (qualified only by internal governance, not law).** The FAA Administrator can direct an ASIAS experience-stratified precursor analysis under existing authority. Directed studies and vulnerability-discovery analyses are exactly what ASIAS is mandated to perform, authorized through the ASIAS Executive Board (AEB) / CAST tasking process — an administrative act within agency discretion. A **de-identified, aggregate** output is ASIAS's intended product and is *expressly permitted* by the disclosure regime (14 CFR 193.9; 49 U.S.C. 44735), not blocked by it. No new legislation and no notice-and-comment rulemaking required. The Administrator needs only: a tasking directive + AEB/CAST buy-in + an ASIAS data-governance sign-off. **Q2 — Is the FAA/ASIAS uniquely qualified to run a valid national experience-stratified precursor analysis? — QUALIFIED YES.** The FAA, via the ASIAS pool combined with the FAA-held Pilot Records Database (PRD), is the **only** entity that can lawfully assemble the inputs for an industry-wide experience-stratified precursor analysis. A single carrier can answer only for itself; academics cannot access the protected pool; NTSB investigates accidents, not precursor surveillance. But "uniquely positioned to run it" is **not** "guaranteed a clean answer" — the same low-tail-compression and confounding limits in the locked verdict persist, and event-level linkage would require building a join that does not exist off-the-shelf. **Q3 — Combined implication:** The conjunction (uniquely-can + discretionarily-may + hasn't) sharpens FRISA's "non-performance is itself a reportable result" finding and the concrete recommendation (the Administrator could direct an ASIAS study under existing authority). It does **not** convert any APA hook into a winning merits claim; §706(1) "withheld/unreasonably delayed" stays cleanest only against a discrete statutory deadline (the EQP hook), since a discretionary study is not a mandatory duty (*Norton v. SUWA*). --- ## 1. Available Executive Option? **1.1 ASIAS mandate includes "directed studies" and "vulnerability discovery."** ASIAS (joint government-industry, launched 2007) conducts "analyses authorized by the AEB in terms of **directed studies**, assessment of safety enhancements, **known risk monitoring**, and **vulnerability discovery**" ([SKYbrary](https://skybrary.aero/articles/aviation-safety-information-analysis-and-sharing-asias); [CAST/FAA fact sheet](https://www.cast-safety.org/pdf/asias_factsheet.pdf)). An experience-stratified precursor analysis is on its face a directed study in that family. **1.2 Statutory authority already exists — no new law.** - **49 U.S.C. 44505** — Administrator "shall conduct or supervise research on... aviation safety." *(Flag: §44505 doesn't name ASIAS expressly; ASIAS rests on general research authority + program-specific recognition.)* - **49 U.S.C. 44735** — **expressly names ASIAS and "directed studies"**; protects ASAP/FOQA/LOSA/SMS data AND contemplates de-identified release. - *Correction:* **§44507 is NOT the right hook** (it authorizes CAMI aeromedical research only); rely on 44505 + 44735 + 40123. **1.3 The protection regime PERMITS the aggregate output — not a gate.** 14 CFR Part 193 / 49 U.S.C. 40123 protect voluntarily-submitted info from FOIA, but **14 CFR 193.9 expressly permits release of de-identified, summarized information** — specifically "to explain the need for changes in policies and regulations." An aggregate, experience-stratified, de-identified trend output is the **paradigmatic permitted ASIAS product**, not a prohibited disclosure. *(Genuinely unverified: the specific FOQA/ASAP member MOU terms and AEB voting rules — whether a particular study scope triggers a governance consent step. That is internal governance, not a legislative/rulemaking gate.)* **1.4 CAST tasking is administrative and within agency discretion** — ASIAS partners with CAST (a standing government-industry body the FAA co-chairs); directed studies are implemented by AEB decision. Commissioning one is an executive act, not a fresh external grant. **Conclusion — Q1: YES**, qualified only by internal governance. --- ## 2. Uniquely Qualified? **2.1 ASIAS is the only industry-wide pool** — aggregates FOQA/ASAP/traffic across ~40–47 Part 121 carriers (~80% of commercial flights via ASAP) ([DOT IG ASIAS 2021](https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FAA%20ASIAS%20Final%20Report%20-%2003.10.2021.pdf)); MITRE/CAASD is the trusted third-party analyst that lawfully fuses de-identified member data. **2.2 The PRD is the unique national pilot-experience linkage source** — the Pilot Records Database (14 CFR Part 111; [2021 final rule](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-11424/pilot-records-database)) ties individual pilots to employment, training, qualification, currency, certificates, and FAA accident/incident/enforcement records. No carrier or academic holds a national equivalent. **2.3 No other entity can run the national analysis** — a single carrier holds only its own data; outside analysts cannot access the protected pool (40123/Part 193/44735 wall it off); NTSB is not a precursor-surveillance body. **PRD + ASIAS** is uniquely positioned to join precursor events to crew experience at national scale, lawfully and de-identified. **2.4 Symmetric limits — "uniquely positioned" ≠ "guaranteed clean answer."** Per the feeder-network memo: low-tail compression (the lowest-experience FO cohort is thin and shrinking); confounding (pathway/carrier/route/equipment/pairing entangled with FO experience); and linkage is a *build*, not a lookup (event-level FOQA↔roster↔PRD join under data governance). Unique access does not guarantee a well-powered estimate. **Conclusion — Q2: QUALIFIED YES.** --- ## 3. Legal / Policy Implication (disciplined) **3.1 The APA hooks.** - **§706(1) "unlawfully withheld / unreasonably delayed"** — *Norton v. SUWA* limits this to a discrete action the agency is *legally required* to take. A directed study the agency *may* commission is not one it is *required* to. So §706(1) stays cleanest only against a discrete statutory deadline (the **EQP-deadline** hook), not the failure to run a discretionary study. Unique qualification strengthens the *narrative*, not the *mandatoriness*. - **§706(2) State Farm "failure to consider an important aspect"** — defensible only against discretionary credit-rulemaking / petition-denial decisions (where the FAA *acted*). Unique qualification could support an argument that an available agency-controlled analytic capability was an "important aspect" not reckoned with — but it attaches to a reviewable *action*, not to abstract inaction. **3.2 Strengthens "non-performance is a reportable result"** — the conjunction removes the "someone else could have / the data doesn't exist" off-ramps: the one entity that uniquely *can* run the national analysis, and discretionarily *may*, has not. This is evidentiary/institutional, not a liability claim; it does not imply the unrun study would show any particular result (it might confirm the small/indeterminate verdict), and protected raw data is not concealment — the aggregate product is precisely what is releasable. **3.3 Concrete policy recommendation** — the Administrator could direct an ASIAS experience-stratified precursor study under existing authority (tasking directive via CAST/AEB; de-identified aggregate output permitted by 14 CFR 193.9 and 49 U.S.C. 44735) without new legislation or rulemaking. Pre-specifying strata, endpoints, and power limits up front would make the result informative *whatever its sign* — including confirming the locked verdict. --- ## Implications for the Safety Paper and the FOQA Pre-Registration 1. **Safety paper:** these verdicts belong in the institutional/feasibility section — they establish the locked "indeterminate / modest adverse lean" verdict reflects a **public-data limitation, not a knowledge limitation at the national level**: the capability and authority to test it exist and sit with one uniquely-positioned agency. Frame as feasibility-and-authority, "could support" register, explicitly not re-opening the locked verdict. 2. **FOQA pre-registration:** because ASIAS+PRD is the only lawful national pathway, a pre-registered protocol is the highest-value artifact — the thing the FAA (or a single carrier for itself) could execute as-is. Pre-register the strata, the precursor endpoints, the FOQA↔roster↔PRD join under data governance, and — critically — the power analysis and confound-handling plan, so a null/small result is *interpretable* rather than merely under-powered. --- ### Verification caveats - FAA.gov pages/PDFs blocked WebFetch (403); ASIAS program facts corroborated via search snippets + multiple secondary descriptions. **Load-bearing legal claims** (44735 naming ASIAS + directed studies; 193.9 de-identified release; 40123/Part 193 scope; PRD scope; APA §706 / Norton / State Farm) verified against primary statutory/regulatory text or the Federal Register. - ASIAS participant counts / coverage % are as-of-date (40 @ 2020; ~47 later; ~80% via ASAP) — refresh before publication. - **Genuinely unverified:** specific FOQA/ASAP MOU terms and AEB voting rules — the only residual gate, and it is internal governance, not legislative/rulemaking.