21841Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

1 An earlier statement of international airtransportation policy and our request for commentson the statement was published at 59 FR 55523,Nov. 7, 1994.

2 Our request for comments on the code sharingstudy was published at 60 FR 2171, Jan. 6, 1995.

Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Ft. Worth, TX76155

or other locally announced locations. Inaddition, applications for economicinjury loans from small businesseslocated in the contiguous counties ofCanadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher,Lincoln, Logan and Pottawatomie in theState of Oklahoma may be filed until thespecified date at the above location.

The interest rates are:

Per-cent

For Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available

Elsewhere.8.000

Homeowners Without Credit Avail-able Elsewhere.

4.000

Businesses With Credit AvailableElsewhere.

8.000

Businesses and Non-Profit Organi-zations Without Credit AvailableElsewhere.

4.000

Others (Including Non-Profit Orga-nizations) With Credit AvailableElsewhere.

7.125

For Economic Injury: Businesses andSmall Agricultural CooperativesWithout Credit Available Else-where.

4.000

The number assigned to this disasterfor physical damage is 276904 and foreconomic injury the number is 850400.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 59002 and 59008).

Dated: April 26, 1995.Bernard Kulik,Associate Administrator for DisasterAssistance.[FR Doc. 9510805 Filed 5295; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 802501M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. 49844]

RIN 2105AC19

Statement of United StatesInternational Air Transportation Policy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,Department of Transportation.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth astatement of U.S. international airtransportation policy.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William Boyd, Office of InternationalAviation, Office of the AssistantSecretary for Aviation and InternationalAffairs, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 400 7th Street SW.,Room 6412, Washington, DC 20590,

(202) 3664870; or Patricia N. Snyder,Office of International Law, Office of theGeneral Counsel, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 400 7th Street SW.,Room 10105, Washington, DC 20590.(202) 3669179.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisstatement of U.S. international airtransportation policy, which wasdeveloped by the Department ofTransportation in consultation with theDepartment of State and other executiveagencies, sets forth objectives andguidelines for use by U.S. Governmentofficials in carrying out U.S.international air transportation policy. Itwas first published in the FederalRegister on November 7, 1994 to enableinterested persons to comment.1 OnJanuary 6, 1995, the Department askedfor comments on a related reportprepared for the Office of the Secretarytitled A Study of International AirlineCode Sharing. 2 After reviewing thecomments received on the policystatement and on the code sharingstudy, the Department of Transportationand other agencies have adopted thefollowing final international airtransportation policy statement.

United States International AirTransportation Policy

IntroductionThe availability of efficient

international air transportation willgreatly enhance the future expansion ofinternational commerce and thedevelopment of the emerging globalmarketplace. Worldwide, travelers andshippers are demanding more and betterquality service to more places. U.S. andforeign airlines are responding to thisdemand by expanding traditional formsof service and by developing new andinnovative services. Increased demandand the variety of carrier responses to itchallenge the existingintergovernmental systems ability toensure the development of acompetitive air transportation systemthat meets the needs of the rapidlyevolving, expanding and increasinglyintegrated international aviationmarketplace. In many cases, existingbilateral agreements impede the growthof the marketplace.

We must address the challengespresented by these rapid changes tomeet our future civil and military airtransportation needs, and to provide ouraviation industry with the environment

and the opportunities that will enable itto grow and compete effectively in theworld market. This policy statementoutlines our approach to addressingthose challenges.

Our Goal

Safe, Affordable, Convenient andEfficient Air Service for Consumers

As established in our last aviationpolicy statement in 1978, our overallgoal continues to be to foster safe,affordable, convenient and efficient airservice for consumers. We continue tobelieve that the best way to achieve thisgoal is to rely on the marketplace andunrestricted, fair competition todetermine the variety, quality, and priceof air service. We believe that thisapproach will provide consumers andshippers with more and better serviceoptions at costs that reflecteconomically efficient operations andwork best to:

Expand the international aviationmarket;

Increase airlines opportunities toexpand their operations;

Increase productivity and high-quality job opportunities within theaviation industry;

Address the nations defense airtransportation needs; and

Promote aerospace exports andgeneral economic growth.

Changing Environment

Growing economic interdependenceamong nationsthe globalization ofthe world economyhas expandeddemand for convenient, reliable andaffordable international air service.Demand for international service isgrowing faster than demand for U.S.domestic service, and most major U.S.airlines are now providing and planningto expand international operations.Between 1983 and 1993, theinternational component of U.S.airlines route networks, measured inrevenue passenger miles (RPMs), grewfrom around 16% to over 27%. U.S.airline revenues from international airservice nearly tripled from $6.3 billionto $17.6 billion. Moreover, forecastsindicate that U.S. carrier internationaltraffic, measured by RPMs, will increaseto almost one-third of their total systemtraffic by the year 2000.

Just as important, the pattern ofdemand for international service haschanged considerably. First, the regionaldistribution of U.S. carriersinternational revenues has changeddramatically, as the primary focus ofcarriers expansion moved beyondEurope to meet new demand in theemerging markets of Asia, the Pacific

21842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

Rim and Latin America. In 1983, theAtlantic accounted for 48% of ourcarriers international revenues, whilethe Pacific accounted for 32%. By 1993,the Pacific had grown to 46% while theAtlantic was only 37%. The fastestgrowing sectors of the internationalaviation market are new and relativelyundeveloped markets. During this sameperiod, revenues in the Pacific grew286%, in Latin America 151% and inEurope 116%. Second, from 1983 to1993, the number of internationalaviation city-pair markets in which U.S.airlines participate has grown by morethan a third, reflecting the majorexpansion of air service and carriernetworks throughout the world and theincreased dispersion of demand. Manyof these city-pair markets are relativelysmall, generating only a few passengersper day.

Towards a Globalized AviationIndustry

The rapid growth of demand forinternational air service and the widerdispersion of traffic in city-pair marketsare primary factors influencing thedevelopment of the air service industry.Carriers are increasingly finding thatthey cannot remain profitable unlessthey can respond to this changeddemand. To compete effectively,carriers today must have unrestrictedaccess to as many markets andpassengers as possible.

To meet demand and to improve theirefficiency, many carriers are developinginternational hub-and-spoke systemsthat permit them to combine trafficflows from many routes (the spokes)at a central point (the hub) andtransport them to another point eitherdirectly or through a hub in anotherregion. Just as U.S. carriers developedhub-and-spoke systems to tap the broadtraffic pool in the domestic market andto provide the most cost-efficient servicefor hundreds of communities that couldnot support direct service, internationalair carriers are developing world-widehub-and-spoke systems to tap thesubstantial pool of international city-pairs. Internationally, an even largerportion of traffic moving over hub-and-spoke systems will require the use of atleast two hubs (e.g., a hub in both theU.S. and Europe for a passenger movingfrom an interior U.S. point to a pointbeyond the European hub). Thisincreases the complexity andinterdependence of the components ofthe system (both the spokes and hubs)and the importance of multinationaltraffic rights to the success of thesystem.

As a result, carriers wishing toestablish global networks require a

higher quality and quantity ofsupporting route authority than theyhave sought in the past. Airlines willbecome increasingly concerned withevery market that enables them to flowpassengers over any part of their systemnetwork. These airlines will be lookingfor broad, flexible authority to operatebeyond and behind hub points, inaddition to the hub-to-hub marketbetween two countries. At present,governments operating in a bilateralcontext naturally focus on opportunitiesfor their respective carriers to serve thelocal market between their twocountries. In a bilateral context, servicesdestined for or coming from thirdcountries receive less consideration. Inthe future, governments will have toadjust their focus to bargain for thebundles of rights that will permitairlines to develop global networks.

Carriers can either serve marketsthemselves (direct service) or provideservice through commercialarrangements with other carriers(indirect service), whether on atraditional interline connecting basis orunder a closer commercial agreementbetween the carriers, such as codesharing. Carriers will develop serviceproductssingle-plane, on-lineconnecting, interline connecting, jointservicethat respond to the preferencesof the traveling public as measured bypassenger willingness to pay fordifferences in the quality of service andthat take into account their coststructure and market strategy. To thegreatest extent possible, airlines shouldbe free to set prices and offer variousservice products in response topassenger preferences.

Significant challenges face carrierswishing to develop internationalnetworks using their own directservices. They need:

Substantial access not only to keyhub cities overseas, but also throughand beyond them to numerous othercities, mostly in third countries. Thistype of access is not readily obtainablein todays bilateral system of negotiatingair rights, since governments can onlyexchange access rights to their owncountries and cannot, betweenthemselves, deliver access to thirdcountries, thus requiring piecemealnegotiating efforts to build the necessarypackage of rights;

Access to a large number of gatesand takeoff/landing slots, frequently atsome of the worlds most congestedairports. It may become increasinglydifficult for carriers to gain effective,direct access to certain airport facilities,including some in the United States;

Considerable financial resources toestablish and sustain commerciallysuccessful overseas hub systems; and

The ability to obtain infrastructureand establish market presence in a newregion quickly. Existing foreigninvestment laws can effectivelypreclude airlines from entering newmarkets in one of the most efficientmeans available: merger or acquisition.

Some carriers are taking on thesechallenges directly and are striving todevelop their own global systems ofdirect service. Other carriers havechosen to side-step the obstacles,turning instead to a new network-building technique: Cross-bordermarketing alliances that link trafficflows between established hub-and-spoke systems in key cities of theWestern Hemisphere, Europe and Asia.Some of these alliances involve crossownership, while others do not. Underthis strategy, the linking of hubsrequires indirect market access throughcode-sharing or other cooperativemarketing arrangements. Although codesharing has become a widely-usedmarketing device for airlines and iscurrently the most prevalent form ofcommercial arrangement, furtherevolution of the industry and itsregulatory environment may lead to newmarketing practices that couldsupplement or supplant code sharing.

Code sharing and other cooperativemarketing arrangements can provide acost-efficient way for carriers to enternew markets, expand their systems andobtain additional flow traffic to supporttheir other operations by using existingfacilities and scheduled operations.Because these cooperative arrangementscan give the airline partners new oradditional access to more markets, thepartners will gain traffic, somestimulated by the new service, and somediverted from incumbents. In this way,cooperative arrangements can enhancethe competitive positions of bothpartners in such a relationship.

Increased international code sharingand other cooperative arrangements canbenefit consumers by increasinginternational service options andenhancing competition betweencarriers, particularly for traffic to orfrom cities behind major gateways. Bystimulating traffic, the increasedcompetition and service options shouldexpand the overall international marketand increase overall opportunities forthe aviation industry. U.S. airlinesshould be major beneficiaries of thisexpansion and the concomitantincreased service opportunities, giventheir competitive advantages.

Moreover, code sharing should alsoenhance domestic competition. Many

21843Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

international passengers traveling to orfrom U.S. interior cities use domesticservices for some portion of theirinternational journey. Code sharingshould increase competition amongdomestic carriers to carry thosepassengers on the domestic segment oftheir international journey.

Although we expect the expansion ofcooperative arrangements to be largelybeneficial, there may be some negativeeffects. The greater traffic access ofparticipants may give them considerablecompetitive muscle, and we may needto watch for harmful effects oncompetition. In addition, cooperativearrangements may affect the availabilityof civil aircraft to meet emergency airliftrequirements. Our national defenseestablishment relies on U.S. civilaircraft committed to the Civil ReserveAir Fleet program to respond toworldwide crises. As set forth in ourNational Airlift Policy, the globalmobility needs of our national defenseestablishment, and ensuring that thenations defense air transportation needsare met during peace and contingencyoperations, are importantconsiderations.

Global systems and the growing use ofcode sharing may put significantcompetitive pressure on carriers whosestrategy does not include participationin such systems or in code-sharingalliances, or whose options toparticipate may be limited due to thelack of potential partners. Such carrierswill have to develop other commercialresponses to compete effectively. Weexpect these pressures and responses tolead to a restructuring of service andairlines, similar to the U.S. domesticexperience in the 1980s. Overall, citiesand consumers will probably enjoyimproved service and access to theinternational transportation system,although some cities may have fewer orless convenient service options in somemarkets than they have today. Similarly,although some airlines will grow andprosper, others will not. Moreover, werecognize that the balance of benefits inany particular alliance will depend onthe specific structure of thatarrangement between the partners.Overall, this evolution should expandthe level and quality of international airservice for consumers.

Code-sharing arrangements aredesigned to address the preference ofpassengers and shippers for on-lineservice from beginning to end throughcoordinated scheduling, baggage- andcargo-handling, and other elements ofsingle-carrier service. However,innovative service products, such ascode sharing, can only respond toconsumer preferences accurately, and

thereby enable the marketplace tofunction efficiently, if consumers makechoices based on full information.Therefore, we must ensure that airlinesgive consumers clear information aboutthe characteristics of their serviceproduct, and that consumers candistinguish between code sharing andother forms of service.

In addition to the two types of globalnetworks (sole-carrier systems and jointcarrier systems), there will continue tobe a role for air services outside ofglobal networks. The U.S. experiencewith deregulation indicates thatabsentlegal barriers to entryspecializedcompetitors will enter the market anddiscipline the pricing and servicebehavior of the larger network operators.The introduction of technologicallyadvanced aircraft such as the B767, theMD11 and the B777 make directservice on longer or thinner routeseconomically viable. Moreover, airlinescan viably serve heavily traveled routeswith point-to-point service.

In short, as indicated by our domesticexperience, a variety of service formsglobal networks with carriersparticipating either as the sole provideror as participant in a joint network, andregional niche carrierscan exist in theinternational aviation market and thecompetition among these services willenhance consumer benefits throughefficient operations and low fares. Thus,our international aviation strategyshould provide opportunities for all ofthese forms of service so that we realizethe benefits from maximum competitionamong them.

Our airlines are well positioned to beprimary participants in all aspects of thefuture global marketplace. In recentyears, our largest domestic carriers havebecome our primary internationalcarriers, replacing specializedinternational operators. After operatingin a deregulated domestic market formore than 15 years, our carriers havedeveloped operating efficiencies thatgive them a cost advantage over theirmajor foreign competitors. Moreover,the financial positions of our carriers areimproving due to their cost-cuttingmeasures and improving economicconditions. Coupled with their costefficiencies, their improving financialstatus will further enhance theircompetitive capabilities. Over time,however, trends toward privatizationand increased productivity of majorforeign competitors may affect thecurrent cost advantage U.S. airlinesenjoy. We must try to provide ourcarriers with the flexible rights andeconomic environment that will enablethem to respond to the dynamics of themarketplace.

Intergovernment Aviation Relations

International air services between twonations have traditionally beenconducted pursuant to bilateralagreements. The U.S. NationalCommission to Ensure a StrongCompetitive Airline Industry and theEuropean Unions Comite des Sages forAir Transport have both recognized thatthe bilateral system is limited in itsability to encompass the broad,multinational market access required bythe new global operating systems.Consequently, progress in developingglobal networks has been and will beextremely fragmented and may precludeor limit the development of efficientoperations. We must consideralternative forums for internationalaviation negotiations and agreements inwhich we can obtain the necessarybroad access rights. We should examinethe feasibility of achieving multilateralair service agreements among tradingpartners. Although such negotiationsmay be more complex and difficultbecause of the number of partiesinvolved, they should be undertakenwhen they present a reasonable prospectfor further liberalization.

Moreover, some governments aretaking steps to enhance their airlinespositions both by restricting thedevelopment of new, competitiveservices and by trying to overcome,through government fiat, their carrierscost disadvantages that make it difficultfor them to compete against U.S. airlinesin a free market. These efforts underliemany of the disputes we face ininternational negotiations today.

Such countries are responding to thehighly competitive integrated and globalair transportation market, in which theirairlines may not be fully prepared tocompete. Most foreign airlines are onlybeginning to adapt to the morecompetitive operating environmentthrough such mechanisms asstreamlining costs and realigning theiroperations to achieve greaterproductivity and operating economies.For state-owned airlines, privatization isan important initial step as it will leadthose airlines to develop cost-efficientoperations and, in the longer term, toexpand their markets. Thesegovernments also may be reacting to theU.S. airlines recent operating successesin the international aviation market,which are largely attributable to the U.S.airlines productivity and competitivegains.

Some national governments continueto give their national airlines financialaid. Some also distort the marketplaceby permitting their national airlines tomaintain ground-handling and other

21844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

monopolies, by denying airlines accessto necessary airport facilities, or byallowing user fees that equalize costdifferentials between carriers. Theseactions distort competition and deprivethe aviation system and consumers ofthe benefits that greater cost efficiencyand lower prices would encourage. Inthe long run, these efforts will workagainst the overall best interest of theworld economy. Moreover, they will beunsuccessful in providing long-termprotection against the developing globalaviation systems because no individualgovernment can control all facets of itsairlines marketplace.

U.S. ObjectivesWe have outlined above our

expectations about the future of theworld air transportation industry andthe role of U.S. airlines. We expect thatinternational operations will dependmore on traffic flows from multiplecountries. In light of our goals, recentdevelopments in the market andindustry, and the positions and actionsof our trading partners, we havedesigned our international aviationstrategy to meet the followingobjectives:

Increase the variety of price andservice options available to consumers.

Enhance the access of U.S. cities tothe international air transportationsystem.

Provide carriers with unrestrictedopportunities to develop types ofservice and systems based on theirassessment of marketplace demand:These opportunities should include

unrestricted rights for airlines tooperate between internationalgateways by way of any point andbeyond to any point, at the discretionof airline management. Carriersshould be able to pursue both directservice using their own equipmentand indirect service throughcommercial relationships with othercarriers;

Service opportunities should not berestricted in any manner, such asrestrictions on frequencies, capacityor equipment, so that carriers mayprovide levels of servicecommensurate with market demand;

Carriers ability to set prices shouldalso be unrestricted to createmaximum incentives for costefficiencies and to provide consumerswith the benefits of price competitionand lower fares; and

These opportunities should apply notonly to scheduled passenger services,but also to cargo and charteropportunities, because of theirgrowing importance to the worldseconomy. We have long recognized

the significant differences amongthese types of operations. Inparticular, air cargo services havespecific qualities and requirementsthat are significantly different fromthe passenger market. We willcontinue to follow our longstandingpolicy of seeking an open, liberaloperating environment to facilitate theestablishment and expansion ofefficient, innovative and competitiveair cargo services. Recognize the importance of

military and civil airlift resources beingable to meet defense mobilization anddeployment requirements in support ofU.S. defense and foreign policies.

Ensure that competition is fair andthe playing field is level by eliminatingmarketplace distortions, such asgovernment subsidies, restrictions oncarriers ability to conduct their ownoperations and ground-handling, andunequal access to infrastructure,facilities, or marketing channels.

Encourage the development of themost cost-effective and productive airtransportation industry that will be bestequipped to compete in the globalaviation marketplace at all levels andwith all types of service:Infrastructure needs should be

addressed and unnecessary regulatorybarriers eliminated.

Privately held airlines have betterincentives to reduce costs andrespond to public demand. Therefore,as we have in the past, we will besupportive of governments wishing toprivatize their airlines so that theirprivatization efforts will besuccessful; and

Reduce barriers to the creation ofglobal aviation systems, such aslimitations on cross-borderinvestments wherever possible.

Plan of Action

We recognize that considerable timeand effort will be required to achieve anopen aviation regime worldwide. Wecan get there by making a concertedeffort to eliminate the obstacles to thatregime and by taking a more strategicand long-term approach to our overallinternational aviation policies. At aminimum, we must increase our focuson emerging markets and theircontribution to global networks; build acoalition of like-minded tradingpartners committed to the principles offree trade in aviation services; workclosely with our trading partners toaddress their concerns; develop newincentives for encouraging marketreform, such as increased opportunitiesfor cross-border investment in airlines;and devise alternatives to the bilateral

aviation system for achieving ourobjectives. We are launching our newinitiatives to create freer trade inaviation services by taking the followingsteps:

Extend invitations to enter intoopen aviation agreements to a group ofcountries that share our vision ofliberalization and offer important flowtraffic potential for our carriers eventhough they may have limited Third andFourth Freedom traffic potential. Thiswould assist the development of globalsystems and increase the momentum forfurther worldwide liberalization.

Give priority to building aviationrelationships between the United Statesand potential growth areas in Asia,South America and Central Europe. Thisrecognizes the importance of thesetrading partners and the need to provideair transportation to support thosedeveloping trade markets. It will alsomake available new markets to buildglobal networks.

Renew efforts to achieve liberalagreements with trading partners withwhich our aviation relationships lagbehind those of our general tradeadvancements, as we have donesuccessfully with Canada.

Emphasize the importance of soundeconomic analysis based on sufficientdata in developing policies andstrategies for achieving our overallaviation goals. This will enable us toremain focused on the overall strategicobjectives, understand developments inthe industry and market, and plan forthe future.

Seek changes in U.S. airline foreigninvestment law, if necessary, to enableus to obtain our trading partnersagreement to liberal arrangements to theextent it is consistent with U.S.economic and security interests.

Increase our efforts to reach out toCongress and constituent groups, suchas consumers, corporations withinternational perspectives (aircraftmanufacturers, telecommunications,travel and tourism industries), cities,airports, airlines, labor and travel agentsto learn their anticipated needs over a35 year period. This will provide uswith valuable information fordeveloping our positions, as well asenlisting their support in pushing forgreater liberalization.

Establish stronger connectionsamong U.S. government agencies whosefunctions are to promote U.S. businessand trade interests (e.g., Departments ofCommerce, State, and Transportation,Office of the United States TradeRepresentative, and the Export/ImportBank) as well as the Department ofDefense, to ensure that we share a singlevision of the future global marketplace

21845Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

1 Our X.400 e-mail address is S=dotdockets/OU1=qmail/O=hq/p=gov+dot/a=attmail/c=us.

while meeting national securityrequirements.

Given the diverse positions of ourtrading partners and their varyingdegrees of willingness to liberalizeaviation relations, we must also have astrategy for dealing with countries thatare not prepared or willing to join us inmoving quickly to an unrestricted airservice regime. Our approach is apractical one: It proposes to advance theliberalization of air service regimes asfar as our partners are willing to go, andto withhold benefits from thosecountries that are not willing to moveforward. Specifically, we will pursuethe following strategy:

1. We will offer liberal agreements toa country or group of countries if it canbe justified economically orstrategically. We will view economicvalue more broadly than we have in thepast, in terms of both direct and indirectaccess and in terms of potential futuredevelopment. Moreover, there may bestrategic value in adopting liberalagreements with smaller countrieswhere doing so puts competitivepressure on neighboring countries tofollow suit.

2. We recognize that some countriesbelieve that they can resist the trend ofeconomic forces and continue to controlaccess to their markets tightly. Webelieve that they cannot, and thatattempts to do so will ultimately fail.Nevertheless, we will work with thesecountries to develop alternatives thataddress their immediate concerns wherethis will advance our internationalaviation policy objectives. We willexamine alternative approaches thatmay include departing from establishedmethods of negotiation (perhapsnegotiations with two or more tradingpartners); trying to develop serviceopportunities for the foreign airline tomake service to the U.S. moreeconomically advantageous for it; andcontinuing our efforts to help thosegovernments and their constituenciesappreciate the benefits that unrestrictedair services can bring to their economiesand industries.

While we work with such countries,we can consider, in the interim,transitional or sectoral agreements.

Transitional agreementsUnder thisapproach, we would agree to a specifiedphased removal of restrictions andliberalization of the air service market.This approach contemplates that bothsides would agree, from the beginning,to a completely liberalized air serviceregime that would come into effect atthe end of a certain period of time.

Sectoral agreementsTraditionally,aviation agreements have covered allelements of air transportation between

two countries. However, as a first step,we can consider agreements thateliminate restrictions only on servicesin specific aviation sectors, such as aircargo or charter services.

3. For countries that are not willing toadvance liberalization of the market, wewill maintain maximum leverage toachieve our procompetitive objectives.We can limit their airlines access to theU.S. market and restrict commercialrelations with U.S. airlines. Whenairlines request authority to serverestricted bilateral markets that is notprovided for under an internationalagreement, we will consider theirrequests on a case-by-case basis in lightof all our policy objectives, including,inter alia:

Whether approval will increase thevariety of pricing and service optionsavailable to consumers;

Whether approval will improve theaccess of cities, shippers and travelers tothe international air transportationsystem;

The effect of granting code-sharingauthority on the Civil Reserve Air Fleetprogram;

The effect of the proposedtransaction on the U.S. airline industryand its employees. In this regard, wewill ascribe greater value to code-sharing arrangements where U.S.airlines provide the long-hauloperations. We will also recognize thegreater economic value of sucharrangements where the servicesconnect one hub to another; and

Whether the transaction willadvance our goals of eliminatingoperating and market restrictions andachieving liberalization.

If aviation partners fail to observeexisting U.S. bilateral rights, ordiscriminate against U.S. airlines, wewill act vigorously, through allappropriate means, to defend our rightsand protect our airlines.

Conclusion

We are living through a period inwhich international aviation rules mustchange. Privatization, competition, andglobalization are trends fueled byeconomic and political forces that willultimately prevail. Governments andairlines that embrace these trends willfar outpace those that do not. The U.S.government will be among those thatembrace the future.

Authority citation: 49 U.S.C.40101, 40113,41102, 41302, and 41310.

Dated: April 25, 1995.Patrick V. Murphy,Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation andInternational Affairs, Department ofTransportation.[FR Doc. 9510584 Filed 5295; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 491062P

[Docket No. 50315]

Study of Gambling on CommercialAircraft

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,Department of Transportation.ACTION: Notice of request for commentson study of gambling on commercialaircraft.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth theelements of an ongoing study ofgambling on commercial aircraft. Thisnotice is being published to provideinterested persons an opportunity toprovide comments on specific questionsimportant to the study.DATES: Comments must be received nolater than May 31, 1995.ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent tothe Docket Clerk, Docket 50315,Department of Transportation, 400 7thStreet SW., Plaza 401, Washington, DC20590. To facilitate consideration of thecomments, we ask commenters to fileeight copies of each comment. Weencourage commenters who wish to doso also to submit comments to theDepartment through the Internet; ourInternet address isdotldockets@postmaster.dot.gov.1However, at this time the Departmentconsiders only the paper copies filedwith the Docket Clerk to be the officialcomments. Comments will be availablefor inspection at this address from 9:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday. Commenters who wish theDepartment to acknowledge the receiptof their comments should include astamped, self-addressed postcard withtheir comments. The Docket Clerk willdate-stamp the postcard and mail it backto the commenter.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James H. New, II, Office of Planning andSpecial Projects, Office of the Secretary,U.S. Department of Transportation, 4007th Street SW., Room 9215A,Washington, DC 20590, (202) 3664868.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisstudy, which is mandated by 49 U.S.C.41311, requires the consideration of,among other things, the safety andcompetitive implications of gambling oncommercial aircraft. Before this study is

Superintendent of Documents2010-07-19T11:52:10-0400US GPO, Washington, DC 20401Superintendent of DocumentsGPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO