Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2003-15759 - Review of Citizenship for Carriers
Prior Citizenship Dockets and Orders:
OST-2002-13089 - Citizenship of DHL
Order 1989-12-41 - Discovery Airways
Order 1993-3-17 - USAir and British Airways
Order 1989-11-8 - North Ameican Airlines
Order 1987-8-43 - In the Matter of Intera Arctic Services
Order 1991-1-41 - Acquisition of Northwest Airlnes by WingsIG Letter to Representative Donald Young Concerning Citizenship of DHL - March 4, 2003
CRS Report for Congress - DHL Airways / Astar Air Cargo Controversy and Legislation in the 108th Congress - December 29, 2003
GAO Report to Senator Trent Lott - Issues Relating to Foreign Investment and Control of US Airlines - October 30, 2003
Airline Competition - Impact of Changing Foreign Investment and Control Limits on US Airlines - GAO Report - December 1992
International Aviation - New Competitive Conditions Require Changes in DOT Strategy - GAO Testimony - May 5, 1994
Foreign Ownership and Control Restrictions in US Airlines - Barriers to Mergers and Restructurings - Christopher Furlan - University of Miami School of Law
Position Paper of the American Bar Assosciation - Air & Space Law Forum
The United States, The European Union and the Ownership and Control of Airlines - Allan Mendelsohn
US Aviation Policy - A Critique by Allan MendelsohnHouse Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement - February 8, 2006 Testimony
Senate Aviation Hearing on Foreign Investmen in US Air Carrires - May 9, 2006 TestimonyRemarks of Jeffrey N. Shane - International Aviation Club - September 12, 2006
|
Review of Data Filed by Certificated or Commuter Air Carriers to Support Continuing Fitness Determinations Involving Citizenship Issues July 25, 2003 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In response to a report by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Department is asking for comments on two issues relating to air carrier continuing fitness determinations involving citizenship issues. First, the Inspector General identified a list of criteria the Department typically uses to determine actual control of an air carrier when evaluating the citizenship of an air carrier during a continuing fitness review. We seek comments on whether there are any other factors or criteria the Department routinely considers in its evaluations that should be added to this list. Second, the Department seeks comments on the need for a regulatory change to the requirements of 14 CFR part 204 applicable to certificated and commuter air carriers proposing to undergo a substantial change in operations, ownership, or management that may impact their U.S. citizenship status. The Inspector General found that the Department's informal process is not well-suited to complex, contentious, and controversial cases involving citizenship determinations and suggested that the Department allow greater transparency and public participation in such matters, including public notice when such a review is initiated and completed, as well as public access to information filed with the Department during such reviews. By: Michael Reynolds
July 30, 2003 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | Draft Version from July 25th In response to a report by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Department is asking for comments on two issues relating to air carrier continuing fitness determinations involving citizenship issues. First, the Inspector General identified a list of criteria the Department typically uses to determine actual control of an air carrier when evaluating the citizenship of an air carrier during a continuing fitness review. We seek comments on whether there are any other factors or criteria the Department routinely considers in its evaluations that should be added to this list. Second, the Department seeks comments on the need for a regulatory change to the requirements of 14 CFR part 204 applicable to certificated and commuter air carriers proposing to undergo a substantial change in operations, ownership, or management that may impact their U.S. citizenship status. The Inspector General found that the Department's informal process is not well-suited to complex, contentious, and controversial cases involving citizenship determinations and suggested that the Department allow greater transparency and public participation in such matters, including public notice when such a review is initiated and completed, as well as public access to information filed with the Department during such reviews. Comments due September 29, 2003 By: Michael Reynolds
July 30, 2003 Correspondence of Barbara Sachau By: Barbara Sachau September 29, 2003 A rigid, formal, adversarial process for conducting continuing fitness and citizenship reviews would not serve the public, air carriers, or the Department well. Indeed, such a process would impede a freer flow of capital, restrict access to financing resources around the world, and limit opportunities for U.S. carriers seeking global customer relationships - in stark contrast to the U.S.-led trend toward increasing global liberalization in aviation and the current Administration's recent proposal to ease restrictions on foreign investment for U.S. airlines. ABX urges the Department to continue using the well-established informal and confidential process for conducting continuing fitness and citizenship reviews. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-3300, rsilverberg@sgbdc.com
September 29, 2003 Comments of Air Line Pilots Association | Word The Department has also asked for comments on the seven factors the Inspector General has identified as typically used to determine actual control of an air carrier. We believe that these factors cover the vast majority of factual circumstances that have appeared in control cases to date. But as the Department noted in its request for comments in this docket, "no single list of factors will be inclusive, due to the changing legal and market circumstances faced by carriers when organizing their corporate structures." The analysis of the control issue "has always necessarily been on a case-by-case basis, as there are myriad potential avenues for control." Wings Holdings Inc. Order 89-9-51. Accordingly, any list serves merely as a compilation of factors that have arisen in previous cases rather than as a template to be applied to future cases. ALPA urges the Department to move forward to amend its regulations to so that the information about substantial changes in ownership that is currently submitted to the Air Carrier Fitness Division is submitted in the public docket and interested persons are afforded a meaningful opportunity to comment on that information. Counsel: Air Line Pilots Association, Russell Bailey, 202-797-4096, russell.bailey@alpa.org
September 29, 2003 The Department should withdraw the ANPRN. The current system of evaluating "control" on a case-by-case basis, and of conducting continuing fitness reviews using informal non-public procedures except in extraordinary situations, has served the public well, and should be left in place. American urges that the Department not attempt to list, in a rulemaking document, the various factors that have been developed in case law to evaluate "control" of a air carrier with respect to the U.S. citizenship requirement of 49 USC 40102 (15). American further urges that the Department continue to use informal procedures for "continuing fitness" reviews under 14 CFR Part 204, while retaining the discretion to order formal docketed procedures where circumstances a warrant. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
September 29, 2003 The informal, undocketed process is fully sufficient in the overwhelming majority of cases. Where the Department tentatively concludes that a carrier is not fit or does not continue to meet the citizenship test, and attempts through informal discussions to correct the problems do not succeed, fairness to that carrier dictates that it be given an opportunity through formal procedures to demonstrate that the Department's tentative conclusions are not correct. For the rare case in which a third party expresses a negative position about a carrier under review, the Department may wish to consider adding a formal element to conclude its review, i.e., an order that publicly states the Department's decision and basis. That additional step would be consistent with the Inspector General's comment that the process would benefit from greater transparency. Other than adding this clear decisional element, ASTAR strongly opposes any further changes to the Department's informal review process. Exhibit A: Correspondence from Norman Mineta Counsel: Lachter Clements, Stephen Lachter, 202-862-4321, lachter@starpower.net
September 29, 2003 The Department's well-settled case-by-case approach to examining U.S. airline citizenship has served the industry and the public interest well for several decades. Delta supports continuation of a flexible decision making process since, as noted by the Department, "every case has its own unique set of circumstances." Id. Because the vast majority of fitness and citizenship determinations are routine, it would be unnecessarily burdensome for the Department to promulgate a new set of formal procedures for citizenship cases. Moreover, the Department has demonstrated its willingness to employ more formal adjudicatory processes - including full-blown public hearings - in rare "complex and contentious" cases. Thus, the Department has the flexibility to resolve citizenship questions through formal proceedings in the rare case that might require an evidentiary process. Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060
September 29, 2003 Comments of Dorothy Robyn and Stephen Gelband | Word The DOT has always been properly concerned with the high barriers to competitive entry into the air transportation system. It must also be equally concerned with the extremely high cost to carriers already in the system to maintain their licenses in the face of politicized opposition from competitors in proceedings such as this. The timetested informal procedures of the Department would have reached a proper conclusion in this case expeditiously, with minimal cost and in full conformity with the law and the public interest. In our opinion, there is no reason to change them now. By: Dorothy Robyn and Stephen Gelband
September 29, 2003 Comments of TEM Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Casino Express Airlines and Murrary Air Having considered the questions posed by the Department and the various alternatives for how the current system might be changed, the Joint Commenters have concluded that the current system of monitoring and determining continuing fitness and citizenship has worked reasonably well in almost every case. There are a great many reasons why throwing open the continuing review process to public scrutiny would be a bad idea, except for very unusual cases. Nevertheless, there are a few things the Department could do that would make its processes somewhat more transparent, and allow avenues for proceedings in those rare cases where public involvement would be warranted. Counsel: Sher Blackwell, Mark Atwood, 202-463-2513
September 29, 2003 United considers that limits on foreign ownership and control represent an anomaly in a so-called "global" and "deregulated" service industry. In our view, limits on foreign investment highlight a great irony in U.S. policy: although the United States is a strong proponent of free trade, U.S. laws and regulations have made the most international service industry the most national while allowing other industries to "go global." The Daimler-Chrysler merger in 1998, for example, changed the U.S. automotive landscape into a global one with the sale and purchase of the country's flag-waving champion of the Buy American movement. United believes the Department's informal review process has proven effective in addressing citizenship concerns and advise against setting in stone factors or criteria to establish control. Consistent with the Bush administration proposal, the Department should ensure that any policy or procedure that it does adopt will encourage, rather than discourage, foreign investment in U.S. carriers. Counsel: United, Michael Whitaker
September 29, 2003 Comments of United Parcel Service UPS firmly believes that the public interest requires that the Department give public notice when it is engaged in a citizenship review, even an informal review, of a U.S. air carrier. The notice could be an abbreviated one, but it should be public. In our experience, the vast majority of fitness or citizenship reviews do not involve issues that are so complex, contentious or controversial as to occasion public participation. Nevertheless, because the issue of ownership and actual control of U.S. air carriers by U.S. citizens is so important to national aviation policy, UPS urges that, on any occasion when the citizenship of a carrier is being reviewed, the Department (1) give public notice of the review, (2) summarize the factual conditions giving rise to the review, and (3) afford any interested party the opportunity to view and comment upon a carrier's supporting documents and materials, including any confidential documents subject to the provisions of DOT Rule 12. Counsel: UPS and David Vaughan, 202-955-9792, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com
October 6, 2003 FedEx Express sees no need to alter the substantive criteria the Department uses to assess citizenship - existing as they do in authoritative case law from both the Department and its predecessor, the Civil Aviation Board. The question of the procedures to be used is more sensitive. The choice should be driven by the Congressional objectives sought to be achieved by the U.S. citizenship requirements presently enshrined in U.S. law. Unless and until Congress changes those statutory citizenship requirements, the Department must implement them by appropriately transparent procedures that achieve a balance between the interest of the carriers and the public. While the issue of citizenship is the center of noisy debate among aviation law pundits, the Department presently has no legal authority, nor any mandate from Congress, to make changes to its implementation of the U.S. citizenship requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(15). In fact, any attempt at defacto changing of the existing citizenship regime, hidden from view by "informal" procedures, will undermine the Department's stated goals for dejure liberalization of global markets for the benefit of U.S. carriers and consumers. By: Fed Ex, Nancy Sparks, 202-756-2461, nsparks@fedex.com
October 10, 2003 Supplemental Comments of ABX Air As a general practice, ABX Air, Inc. would refrain from submitting supplemental comments responding to late-filed and unauthorized comments by a competitor in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, unless requested to do so by the Department. However, ABX is compelled to respond to Federal Express' misstatement of the law and clear congressional intent in an attempt to expand the reach of recent narrowly-tailored legislation. Although initially stating that it "sees no need to alter the substantive criteria the Department uses to assess citizenship - existing as they do in authoritative case law from both the Department and its predecessor", Federal Express later states that "the Department must consider the congressional instruction in Section 27102 and should "embrace" the 50%-revenue standard set forth therein when considering pending and future citizenship reviews. With respect to these two latter points, Federal Express is plainly wrong. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-3300
November 2, 2005 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments - Bookmarked Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - As Published November 7, 2005 The Department is seeking comments on a proposal to clarify policies that may be used during initial and continuing fitness reviews of U.S. carriers when citizenship is at issue. We propose to add a new section to 14 CFR Part 399 that clarifies how the Department will interpret "actual control" of a U.S. air carrier during fitness reviews. This proposal will affect how we interpret the circumstances influencing a determination of "actual control," allowing easier access to foreign capital for U.S. airlines. We are also proposing minor amendments to 14 CFR Part 204 to reference the new section and update existing language in Part 204. The law requires U.S. control of U.S.‑flag airlines. This has not changed. We do not propose to allow "actual control" to shift to foreign hands. We do propose to ensure that the application of an "actual control" standard results in U.S. citizen control being exercised in those areas of airline operations where there currently remains significant governmental involvement or regulation. Moreover, we want to ensure that the test is not applied so broadly so as to unnecessarily inhibit U.S. carriers' access to the global capital market. Comments are due on or before January 6, 2006. By: Michael Reynolds
November 4, 2005 Comments of John Gilmore | Word The objective of the proposed rulemaking is laudable – but permitting greater access for United States airlines to foreign capital, under the present law, can only come through a change in that law by the legislature. Any attempt to circumvent the law will only give rise to greater uncertainty as the ultimate interpretation of the existing law rests with the judicial branch andeven to the layman the terms of the existing law are clear. Until that time the administration should focus its energies on ensuring that foreign airlines are not given preferential access to such sources of foreign capital through the application of existing policies requiring that such foreign airlines be effectively owned and controlled by nationals and not by non nationals. On the other issue on which comments were requested – that of process – it seems inconsistent with the widely held emphasis on open and transparent government that the Department continues to make rulings on major internal changes at United States airlines raising the citizenship issue without at Public Notice that such a case is under review, discussion or negotiation, by the Department with or with respect to a United States airline would seem to be a minimum requirement to meet the test of open and transparent government By: John Gilmore
November 28, 2005 Even if informal proceedings are continued, there should be a public listing of those proceedings. Trying to get information on any informal proceeding, even just a yes or no answer to a question is very difficult, if not impossible, without an inside source. This is not freedom of information. I would prefer to ability to comment on a particular docket so that those comments become known to others as I have found the comments of help in determining if I wish to comment or not on a particular docket. By: Glenn McLain
December 2, 2005 Comments of John Gilmore | Word The NPRM proposes to limit the factors that will be considered by the Department in the determination of whether an airline is or is not under the actual control of citizens of the United States. Put in clearer terms the NPRM proposes to limit the facts that will be considered in making a fact based determination. The department here is treading on dangerous ground. Congress has mandated that air carriers be under the actual control of citizens of the United States – not that certain aspects of the airline be under such control but that the airline itself be under such control – at all times. That determination is a fact based judgment: it must of necessity and as a matter of law be based on an assessment of all the relevant facts in each individual case. By excluding certain factors from consideration in a determination of “control” the Department automatically makes all such determinations subject to legal challenge for the reason that all factors may not have been considered. For the Department to achieve its laudable objective of enabling improved access to foreign capital for US airlines, the Congress will have to make appropriate changes to the existing US Citizen Law – only that will provide the certainty required to enable foreign investors to make such investments with confidence. If the Congress elects not to effect such changes it, the Department and the country will have to live with the consequences and so to its detriment will the ailing US airline industry. The current NPRM should be withdrawn. By: John Gilmore
December 13, 2005 Attached power point presentation that I delivered at the Institute of Economic Affairs' 13th Annual Conference: "The Future of Air Transport," in London, England, on November 29, 2005. Also attached is a complete list of attendees at the conference. By: Paul Gretch
December 14, 2005 Ex-Parte Communication - Actual Control of US Air Carriers - Meeting with Air Transport Association On November 17, 2005, I met with members of the legal staffs of several airlines and their trade association, the Air Transport Association. During one part of the meeting, I discussed the Department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Actual Control of U.S. Air Carriers (Docket OST-2003-15759). I explained how the NPRM is part of numerous efforts by the Office of the Secretary to continue deregulating various economic aspects of the airline industry, in this case investment opportunities. When asked whether this NPRM is part of U.S. discussions with the European Union, I explained that it is not a part of the negotiations and that the NPRM process will continue whether or not an air services agreement is reached with the EU. I did mention that the NPRM has become a part of the backdrop or context of the discussions, particularly from the EU perspective. By: Michael Reynolds
December 15, 2005 Re: Communications on November 15, 2005 with Representatives of the United States and the European Union - Bookmarked On November 15, 2005, at the request of the European Commission, I met with members of the U.S. and European delegations, who were negotiating the text of a U.S.-EU aviation agreement, to give an overview of the Department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Actual Control of U.S. Air Carriers. The briefing occurred during a breakout session from the negotiations. By: Jeffrey Shane
December 19, 2005 Comments of DePaul University College of Law International Aviation Law Institute | Word By: Brian Havel
December 12, 2005 By: Judith Farwell
December 19, 2005 By: Jalil Hakim
December 20, 2005 Comments of Rodney Hollingshead By: Rodney Hollingshead
December 13, 2005 By: Philip Jones
December 20, 2005 By: Donald Poore
December 20, 2005 By: Barbara Raplan
December 20, 2005 By: David W. Rogers, EMB-145 Check Airman
December 19, 2005 Comments of Maximilian Schutze By: Maximilian Schutze
December 19, 2005 By: Otto Schutze
December 12, 2005 By: Thomas Yourke
December 21, 2005 By: Sharon Ellis
December 21, 2005 By: William Fairchild
November 8, 2005 Aviation Deregulation: A Work in Progress “Aviation Deregulation-A Work in Progress” that Jeffrey Shane delivered at the International Aviation Club in Washington, DC, on November 8, 2005. By: Jeffrey Shane
December 8, 2005 Letter Requesting Additional Information Mr. Secretary, this NPRM is a very significant and timely undertaking. In addition to understanding the objectives of that undertaking, we would like to understand better the implications to those non-investor parties that have a direct stake in a policy change. Therefore, we respectfully request that you respond to these questions by the end of this year. By: Don Young and John Mica
December 21, 2005 Ex-Parte Letter to Congressman Don Young Thank you for your letter of December 8, cosigned by Congressman John L. Mica, concerning the U.S. Department of Transportation’s November 7, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket OST-2003- 15759). That NPRM would clarify how the Department, in conducting fitness reviews of U.S. air carriers that are organized as corporations or associations would interpret the statutory requirement that they be under the “actual control of citizens of the United States.” You have asked DOT to provide you with information about the NPRM so that you and your colleagues can better understand its implications. As you are aware, our NPRM is only a proposal at this time. Public comment is due on or before January 6, 2006. The Department intends to provide full consideration to all commenting parties’ views before taking any final action on this proposed rule. Our responses here should be taken in that light. By: Norman Mineta
December 22, 2005 By: Jackie Banks
December 22, 2005 Comments of Greater Orlando Aviation Authority As a long-standing supporter of relaxed international air service agreements and expanding consumer choice, Orlando International Airport writes today in support of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above docketed matter. By: William Jennings
December 22, 2005 By: John Heath
December 23, 2005 By: Bill Sablesak
December 23, 2005 By: Susan Sablesak
December 19, 2005 Comments of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey By: John Galandak, President
December 28, 2005
December 27, 2005 Comments of Multiple Submitters - Form Letters
December 27, 2005 Comments of United Air Lines Pilots - Form Letters
December 29, 2005
December 29, 2005
January 3, 2006 Comments of Airports Council International Europe ACI EUROPE takes note of and agrees broadly with the position of our colleagues in the Association of European Airlines regarding the NPRM. In particular ACI EUROPE would appreciate clarification of the requirements relating to defence, security and safety. Specifically, as to whether a DOT review of a US carrier controlled by non‑US citizens might be subject to greater safety and security scrutiny than would a US carrier owned and controlled by US citizens. Furthermore, ACI EUROPE would welcome clarification as to whether a US carrier controlled by non‑US citizens could choose not to participate In the CRAF programme. By: ACI Europe, John Hume
January 3, 2006 On behalf of the City of Newark, I would like to express my concern over statements being made by the European Union regarding an open skies agreement with the United States. These indicate that European approval hinges on the U.S. relaxing federal laws on foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines. It is my understanding that the federal Department of Transportation recently published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that would do just that. This DOT proposal appears part of a flawed strategy designed merely to satisfy the European Union’s interest in control of U.S. airlines by its citizens, and I strongly urge that this ill-advised proposal be withdrawn, immediately. I support US government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in the proper forum. By: Mayor, Sharpe James
January 5, 2006 Comments of Independent Pilots Association The IPA urges the Department to abandon this attempt to allow foreign interests to exert actual control over the future business decisions and operations of U.S. air carriers essentially for free. IPA believes the Department does not have the authority to make this significant change in interpretation of the federal statute without specific authorization from the Congress of the United States. IPA agrees that a number U.S. air carriers are in desperate need of being able to access global capital markets. IPA further agrees with the Department that “U.S. air carriers should have the broadest access to the global capital markets permitted by law." It is IPA’s view, however, that in order to give U.S. air carriers this global capital market access, U.S. law must be changed. To attempt to change the clear meaning of the federal statute through administrative rulemaking circumvents the process required and directed by the Constitution of the United States, and will not produce the benefits the Department says it is intent on achieving. By: Tom Nicholson, President
January 6, 2006 Comments of Alaska Airlines, Inc. Alaska believes the Department's proposed changes to foreign ownership restrictions should be debated and resolved in Congress, not imposed unilaterally by the Executive Branch pursuant to an administrative rulemaking proceeding. The Department's proposal would fundamentally change long-standing foreign ownership laws and contradict past Congressional mandates on the matter. Such a significant change to aviation policy should not be imposed unilaterally by the Department, but should instead be subject to Congressional review. Counsel: Alaska Airlines, Thomas O'Grady, 202-392-2796, tom.ogrady@alaskaair.com
January 6, 2006 Joint Comments of Atlas Air and Polar Air Cargo - Bookmarked The Department has proposed to adopt a rule containing specific standards for its interpretation of "actual control" of a U.S. air carrier. In essence, the rule is designed to conform DOT practice to the times - by expanding the scope of transactions in which U.S. air carriers may engage and providing certainty about the lawfulness of certain types of foreign investment and cooperative arrangements. Atlas Air, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo, Inc. believe the proposal described in the NPRM is thoughtful, sensible and entirely consistent with existing statutory requirements. If finalized, it will provide U.S. carriers with a means of sourcing financing for expanded domestic and foreign operations while maintaining exclusive U.S. responsibility in the vital areas of corporate governance, safety, security and national defense. As such, it ought to be finalized at the earliest opportunity. Counsel: Atlas - Russell Pommer, 202-822-9121, rpommer@atlasair.com / Polar - Kevin Montgomery, 202-828-1002, kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com
January 6, 2006 bmi's experience is that liberalisation in the aviation sector has brought enormous benefits to the economies of those countries that have embraced it. Internal deregulation by the United States, the European Union and others has brought about a sea change in the industry. But, barriers remain. The DOT policy statement on actual control of U.S, carriers is visionary and is a practical response to the current position of the global aviation industry. bmi urges DOT to move forward with this proposal. Counsel: bmi, Peter McClymont
January 6, 2006 Comments of Continental Airlines - Bookmarked Continental would welcome the opportunity for Congressional review of foreign ownership and control issues as part of a comprehensive review of the citizenship provisions of the aviation statutes and the pros and cons of changing the current statutory provisions. The most important governmental actions to expand investment in U.S. airlines would require reductions in excessive taxes, fees and other charges imposed on airlines by governmental agencies, actions to deal with the extraordinarily high price of fuel and ensuring a modern, effective air traffic control system without burdening airlines to pay more than their fair share. In sharp contrast, however, adoption of the Department's unlawful Foreign Control NPRM would create disincentives for investment, legal uncertainties that would take years to resolve resulting in reversal of the decision to adopt the Foreign Control NPRM, and opportunities for European airlines to exploit control rights in U.S. airlines while keeping London Heathrow, the primary European airport, effectively closed to new entry by independent airlines such as Continental. For these reasons, the Department should withdraw its Foreign Control NPRM and pursue the issues raised in Congress, where they belong. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615, rbkeiner@crowell.com
January 6, 2006 Comments of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked Delta supports the objectives of the NPRM to reduce impediments to and facilitate capital investment opportunities for the U.S. airline industry. The Department’s forward thinking approach is a step in the right direction. However, the NPRM as drafted leaves many unanswered questions about how the proposed new control standard would be implemented. The Department should provide answers to those questions to ensure that the proposal will actually achieve its positive objectives. These questions involve issues of legal certainty, an essential component for any foreign investment transaction, and how the Department will assure the availability to U.S. carriers of reciprocal market and investment access, which are essential elements of free, fair and competitively balanced trade opportunities for U.S. carriers and investors. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com
January 6, 2006 Comment of Federal Express - Bookmarked FedEx Express supports the NPRM as proposed and believes that the Department should act quickly to confirm it. The Policy Statement, premised on reciprocal treatment and supportive of the important Open Skies initiative, will create new opportunities for U.S. airlines, aviation workers and will greatly benefit travelers, shippers, and consumers. The legal basis for the Department's action - to interpret the term "actual control" in a manner that is more predictable for applicants and more focused for regulators - is an appropriate and legally sound one. Counsel: Federal Express, Steven Taylor
January 6, 2006 Comments of The International Air Transport Association - Bookmarked IATA strongly supports the Department’s initiative to dismantle regulatory barriers that restrict U.S. airlines’ access to global financial markets. Within the limits established by applicable legislation, the Department can, and should, dismantle barriers created by overly restrictive, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations of the Actual Control Provisions in the past, and provide the legal certainty that will enable U.S. airlines to gain greater access to global financial markets in the future. Counsel: IATA, Robert McGeorge, 514-874-0202
January 6, 2006 Comments of the National Air Carrier Association NACA agrees with the requirements for U.S. citizens to have actual control over safety, security and CRAF Commitments. While we also agree organizational documents must be examined, we feel that the "actual control" over organizational documents needs to be strengthened with several of the precedent issues noted by the DOT Inspector General in his letter to Congress and listed above. We feel this is necessary because of our significant concerns over what is not included in the guidance. We note that whatever the Department decides to put in its regulations will be much more than "guidance", as is implied in this proposal. It will legally bind the Department and those regulated by it to what is written in the regulation. Thus, we all have a vested interest in accurately interpreting the meaning of "actual control" intended by the Congress and the President in promulgating the recent "actual control" law. We note the recent interest in and concern over this proposal expressed by more than 100 elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We humbly request that the Department not move forward with this proposal until hearings before the appropriate committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate can be completed. We, in turn, will encourage them to hold hearings at their earliest convenience and will ask them to immediately thereafter issue a "Sense of Congress" as to their intended meaning of Public Law on "actual control." Counsel: NACA, Ronald Priddy
January 6, 2006 Comments of United Air Lines - Bookmarked United Air Lines, Inc. submits these Comments in support of the Department's proposal to adopt a Policy Statement clarifying how it may interpret in the future the term "actual control" in determining the citizenship of U.S. air carriers. As explained below, United agrees fully with the Department that such a change in the Department's interpretation is needed to reflect the substantial structural changes that have taken place in global capital markets. The global aviation industry is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Unfortunately, U.S. airlines are not leading this transformation and are at risk of being pushed aside as foreign carriers continue to consolidate, integrate, invest in their fleets and networks, and expand their global presence. One of the key barriers to U.S. carriers' ability to keep pace with this expansion is the artificial limitations the Department has placed on foreign investors' participation in the management of U.S. airlines as a result of its highly restrictive interpretation of the requirement that U.S. air carriers be under the "actual control" of U.S. citizens. The Department's proposal to revise its interpretation of these limits is a positive step. Although such a change will not redress all of the governmental barriers U.S. airlines face in trying to build global businesses responsive to the demands of a global economy, it is an important first step. The Department should, therefore, go forward and adopt the proposed Policy Statement. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6690, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
January 6, 2006 Comments of US Airways - Bookmarked US Airways urges the Department to maintain its long-standing focus on the overriding liberalization goal, namely, ensuring that key global aviation markets and hubs are open legally, practically, and commercially - to U.S. airlines, for the benefit of consumers. Achieving this objective should remain DOT's policy lodestar as it and the industry try to navigate through today's seismic industry shifts and regulatory initiatives. Particularly in this context, the Department should take great care to see that its liberalization undertakings are met with reciprocal liberalization measures that are of practical importance to the struggling U.S. aviation industry - especially carriers like the new US Airways that are poised to embark on a period of international growth. Given the "important, indeed path breaking," nature of the proposed change, the Department should ensure that its actions take full account of the difficult U.S, industry environment. The importance of the proposed change - particularly with its undeniable link to any U.S.-EU deal -merits full deliberation by interested stakeholders. Moreover, while steps to liberalize the foreign ownership rules by means of a policy statement may be the shortest road, it may also be the least certain, as subsequent Administrations would be free to re-interpret the policy with minimal process. And, as pointed out, the importance of the proposed change merits full deliberation by interested stakeholders. This is particularly true given the industry's current circumstances, in which undue haste could have unanticipated consequences or waste a valuable opportunity to obtain important reciprocal benefits for U.S. carriers. Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 703-872-5230, howard_kass@usairways.com
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department TTD is opposed to this NPRM and urges the Department to withdraw this proposal. In short, the NPRM is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, and is being implemented without adequate input from Congress and a full understanding of the impact this change will have on the aviation industry. What is clear is that allowing foreign interests to control U.S. airlines as proposed in this NPRM would weaken U.S. aviation interests and threaten the jobs and rights of U.S. airline employees at the worst possible time. Counsel: TTD, Edward Wytkind, 202-628-9262
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Air Line Pilots Association - Bookmarked Air Line Pilots Association respectfully submits the following comments concerning the Department's proposal to adopt a new policy statement that would permit foreign investors to control all commercial aspects of a U.S. air carrier's business and operations, despite the statutory requirement that U.S. carriers must be "under the actual control of citizens of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 40102(15)(C). As more fully explained below, ALPA opposes this proposed policy statement on several grounds. First, the proposal is squarely in conflict with the statute, because it would permit -indeed, it is expressly designed to permit -- foreign citizens to exercise "actual control" over virtually all elements of a U.S. carrier's basic business strategy and daily operations, which the statute clearly prohibits. Second, the proposed rule would be bad public policy, because it would permit foreign airlines to acquire or exercise control over the fundamental business decisions of U.S. carriers to serve their own economic interests, to the detriment of the U.S. airline industry and its employees. Third, although the proposal purports to require that U.S. citizens retain control over a U.S. carrier's safety policies, it would in fact allow much of the safety responsibility to be in foreign hands, because the safety of an airline depends primarily on discretionary economic decisions that foreign investors would be permitted to control. Fourth, the proposal is at odds with the control provisions of almost all bilateral air services agreements between the U.S. and foreign governments, and would therefore cast doubt on the eligibility of U.S. carriers to provide service under those agreements. Fifth, the asserted justification for the proposal -- i.e., an alleged need for greater foreign investment in U.S. airlines -- has not been proven, and should be thoroughly investigated before any such far-reaching policy change is considered. Counsel: ALPA, Jerry Anker, 202-797-4086, jerry.anker@alpa.org
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Allied Pilots Association The Allied Pilots Association respectfully adopts the Comments submitted by the Air Line Pilots Association in their entirety. APA agrees with ALPA that the proposed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking violates the statutory requirement that U.S. carriers be "under the actual control of citizens of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 40101(15)(C). APA also agrees that the NPRM, if adopted, is bad public policy based on an unsupportable assumption that the domestic airline capital market needs greater foreign investment. The purported reservation of domestic control over safety policies is, as ALPA demonstrates, form over substance given the wide discretion that foreign investors would be permitted over the economic decisions of the airline. APA also agrees with ALPA that the proposal creates myriad legal uncertainties regarding compliance with the control provisions in the existing bilateral air services agreements. For all the reasons set forth in the Comments of ALPA, APA opposes adoption of the proposed change. Counsel: James & Hoffman, Edgar James, 202-496-0500, EJames@jamhoff.com
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association While foreign investment may have a short-term and an initially potential benefit for an otherwise financially ailing airline industry, it is not the complete answer for preserving highly-skilled U.S. airline jobs nor domestic competition. And historically, ownership and control of U.S. airlines has been reserved to U.S. citizens to prevent federal subsidies flowing to foreign citizens or foreign governments. We urge you to withdraw the NPRM and allow for the proper Congressional action on these issues. To circumvent the legislative process on these issues that will have a direct effect on the many thousands of highly-skilled U.S. airline jobs, on the security and safety of the flying public – and our American citizens – would be grossly irresponsible. By: AMFA, O.V. Delle-Femine
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Airline Professionals Association, Local 1224 Teamsters These comments are filed on behalf of the 700 professional flight deck crew members who are members of the Airline Professionals Association, Local 1224, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important rulemaking project. The members of Local 1224 have had some direct exposure to and experience with some of the issues, problems, confusion and uncertainties described in this NPRM. For the reasons described below, we support the changes proposed by this NPRM. We believe that the regulatory changes described in this NPRM can be effected without compromising or otherwise negatively affecting legitimate governmental interests, and at the same time, provide greater flexibility and ability for U.S. carriers to compete more efficiently and effectively in this dynamic and evolving industry. Counsel: Kathleen Yodice
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Airports Council International - North America | Word ACI-NA supports DOT’s proposed change in policy to update its traditional and unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the statutory requirement that U.S. citizens exercise “actual control” of U.S. air carriers, which determines what constitutes unacceptable foreign involvement in U.S. air carriers. We support DOT’s proposed policy to permit foreign participation in various commercial aspects of a U.S. air carrier, provided that the foreign investors are citizens of a country which has an Open Skies agreement with the United States and affords U.S. citizens similar opportunities to participate in its air carriers, and that the statutory numerical requirements are met. We agree with DOT’s proposed interpretation of the statute that if U.S. citizens remain in control of safety, security, national defense and the core organizational documents, then the U.S. air carrier remains in the “actual control” of U.S. citizens. Counsel: ACI-NA, Diane Peterson, 202-861-8085, dpeterson@aci-na.aero
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Asociacion Internacional de Transporte Aereo Latinoamericano AITAL is encouraged by the Department’s proposal to allow for flexibility in the “actual control” of a U.S. carriers by foreign investors on the basis of comity and reciprocity with the homeland of the foreign interest. As the Department is aware, the regulations in place in the majority of AITAL’s members home countries are much less restrictive than those currently applied by United States. This is an important step for aviation industry of the United States that will bring it closer to the globalization reality facing our industry today. Limiting any airlines access to legitimate capital markets creates obstacles to the development of the airline industry. AITAL supports the premise that more flexibility in this area will promote safe, healthy and competitive airlines in the United States. AITAL members support the proposed flexibility advanced by the NPRM, but also urge the Department to go a step further and consider reducing the limitations on foreign ownership that would not be affected by the NPRM. Counsel: AITAL, Alex de Gunten, 786-388-0222
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Association of Flight Attendants AFA-CWA is opposed to this NPRM and urges its withdrawal and supports the comments of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. Simply, we believe that this proposal goes contrary to statute. Furthermore, such a change raises a number of issues that have not been properly addressed and which could lead to negative repercussions not only for US airline employees but also for the entire U.S. aviation system. By: AFA, Patricia Friend
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of British Airways British Airways respectfully urges the Department to withdraw the current NPRM and craft a replacement that discards the organizational documents requirement and all other subjective criteria, clarifies the proposed reciprocity requirement, and liberalizes ownership as well as control restrictions. Although a revised and expanded NPRM would fall short of the benefits resulting from elimination or liberalization of the existing statutory limits, a different NPRM could provide for greater liberalization even within the existing statutory restrictions. Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970
January 4, 2006 Re: Comments of John Davis, Texas House of Representatives I support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in proper forum. I am urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: John Davis
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Hawaiian Airlines Hawaiian believes the rule proposed in the NPRM represents a step forward clarifying the Department's interpretation of "actual control." The Department's goal of creating an objective test for actual control will help remove uncertainty, which itself is a deterrent to foreign investment. This essential step will help ensure the economic viability of US airlines by providing for the unfettered access to worldwide capital markets. The Department's proposal as presented clearly acknowledges the requirements of the statute and insures that US airlines with remain under the "actual control" of US citizens. Concerns that are paramount, control of the entity itself, safety, security, and defense (CRAF) are addressed in the NPRM. These primary considerations insure that US citizens are and remain the ultimate decision makers as to these essential corporate activities. The proposal in the NPRM, however, contains certain ambiguities that should be addressed in the final rule. Hawaiian therefore respectfully requests that the Department, in considering public comments, provide more certainty to potential investors by addressing the issues raised herein, resolving ambiguities in favor of less regulation and the freer flow of capital across borders. Counsel: Hawaiian, David Arakawa
December 22, 2005 Re: Comments of Jon Lindsay, State of Texas Senate The U.S. Congress is the sole governing body established to review, discuss and pass, or veto law regarding ownership of U.S. airlines. As such, elected congressional officials are the only appropriate individuals to consider the implications of such changes to U.S. aviation law. I support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in the proper forum. I am urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: Jon Lindsay
December 19, 2005 Re: Comments of New Jersey Commerce Further to the concern that the NPRM was drafted to satisfy European interests in ownership of US airlines and shields London Heathrow from competitive access, the actions by DOT to dictate legislation and change a long-standing statute circumvent the US Congress. The US Congress is the sole governing body established to review, discuss and pass or veto law regarding ownership of US airlines. As such, elected congressional officials are the only appropriate individuals to consider the implications of such changes to US aviation law. I support US government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to begin discussions on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in the proper forum. I am therefore urging that you please withdraw the NPRM. By: NJC, Virginia Bauer
December 19, 2005 Re: Comments of Ohio Chamber of Commerce We support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in proper forum. We are urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: OCC, Andrew Doehrel
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Virgin Atlantic In assessing the NPRM. Virgin Atlantic asked itself whether, everything else remaining the same, the NPRM would be enough to persuade us to invest in a current or new US airline in which we had previously decided not to invest because of the inability to protect our investment. The answer we have come to, with some regret, is that the NPRM would not be sufficient to more acceptable an investment that previously was too risky. Virgin Atlantic certainly recognises that the proposals are a move in the right direction, and for that the US authorities are to be congratulated. We accept that some of the current restrictions have been removed or eased. But overall, the proposals as they stand would do very little to reduce the risk for foreign investors. The ability of such investors to influence the commercial decision-making process would be substantially circumscribed and as minority shareholders, they would not be in a position to guarantee that their investment was safeguarded. Virgin Atlantic is disappointed with the NPRM. It is a missed opportunity to set a precedent for real reform of the out-dated restrictions that inhibit rational development of the aviation industry. Virgin Atlantic would encourage the DOT to go back to the drawing board. Counsel: Virgin, Barry Humphreys, +44 1293 747 064, barry.humphreys@fly.virgin.com
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of Washington Airports Task Force Board of Directors The Washington Airports Task Force is strongly in favor of allowing foreign citizens to provide needed capital to US airlines and, for this reason, supports the proposals contained in the Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OST-2003-15759. We agree fully with all of the comments on this subject being submitted today by the United States Airports for Better International Air Service, including its urging the Department to provide specific answers in its Final Rules to the many questions which the language of the NPRM leaves open. Independence Air is now in bankruptcy and is terminating its services, partly due to its inability to obtain additional financing - to the detriment of Washington area passengers as well as visitors from other parts of the nation. US financial markets have limited financing available for airlines, and foreign capital has not been available to U.S. carriers because of the Department’s long-standing strict interpretation of the aviation statute’s citizenship provisions. We believe that with appropriate clarifications, the new rules proposed by the Department in its NPRM will allow foreign capital to become available to U.S. airlines in the future, and we support that result in order to prevent future repetitions of the great loss to our community that the termination of Independence Air’s services wilI impose. By: WATFBD, Stephen Gelband
January 6, 2006 Re: Comments of John Whitmire, State of Texas Senate I support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in proper forum. I am urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: John Whitmire
December 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Hubert Vo, Texas State Representative I support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in the proper forum. I am urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: Hubert Vo
January 10, 2006 Comments of The Air Carrier Association of America ACAA urges the Department to move forward with policies that will expand international relationships and ownership while providing all domestic carriers with the ability to increase domestic markets. The end result will provide true economic benefits and enable the US industry to continue to expand. Counsel: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420, efaberman@acaa1.com
January 5, 2006 Re: Comments of The Association of European Airlines The AEA believes it would be important to know whether a US air carrier in which foreign nationals participated under the new policy would be able to exercise traffic rights to third countries negotiated by the United States in its bilateral air services agreements. The AEA assumes that once an air carrier has been determined to be a US citizen, the US will treat that carrier as it would any other US carrier. It would be helpful if the final rule could include an explicit statement to that effect. By: AEA, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus
January 9, 2006 Comments of The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) US air transport workers deserve meaningful efforts that restore and maintain their jobs in this industry. Effectively enabling foreign entities to control US carriers does not achieve this task. On the contrary, it could make matters worse for US air transport workers who have already sacrificed so much. This is unacceptable. In view of the aforementioned, the IAM urges the DOT to not implement these objectionable proposed rule modifications. By: IAM, Owen Hernstadt
December 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Bill Callegari, Texas State Representative I support U.S. government efforts to liberalize international travel, and to start a discussion on foreign ownership and control, but only when the liberalization occurs on a fair and equitable level, and when the discussion takes place in the proper forum. I am urging that you withdraw the NPRM. By: Bill Callegari
January 18, 2006 Comments of The Boeing Company We strongly support the proposed rule change in this docket. Boeing's product strategy is to provide the most efficient airplanes that allow passengers to fly directly to their destinations. Boeing supports changes in the regulatory and economic environment that will increase point-to-point frequencies across the Atlantic. The new transatlantic regulatory framework for aviation, coupled with the rule proposed in this docket, is in agreement with Boeing's view of what is being demanded by the traveling and shipping public around the world. We strongly urge the Department to finalize this rule in its current form. By: Boeing, Jean Pritchard
On File at Federal Register May 3, 2006 Supplemental NPRM as Copied at the Federal Register | SNPRM - Bookmarked The Department is seeking additional comments on our proposal to clarify policies that it may use to evaluate air carriers' citizenship during initial and continuing fitness reviews. Our proposal would affect how we determine "actual control" of the carrier in situations where the foreign investor's home country has an open skies air services agreement with the United States, and permits reciprocal investment opportunities in its own national air carriers for U.S. investors. We continue to believe that our proposed policy would remove unnecessary restrictions on U.S. air carriers' access to the global capital market without compromising the statutory requirement that U.S. citizens remain in actual control of such carriers. We are issuing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking because, after reviewing comments submitted on the NPRM and in consultation with other Executive Branch agencies, we have decided to strengthen the proposal in several areas. We have revised the proposed rule further to ensure that U.S. citizens will have actual control of the air carrier. We are also mindful of the strong interest in this proposal expressed by members of Congress. This SNPRM will furnish Congress the opportunity to review the proposal in its refined form, and to undertake a more informed assessment of its likely consequences. Our NPRM proposal would allow for delegation to foreign investors of decision-making authority regarding commercial issues, but in the areas of organizational documents, safety, security, and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program the NPRM would not permit these delegations. In a key refinement of our original proposal, we now propose in this SNPRM to require that any such delegation of authority to foreign interests by the U.S. citizen majority owners be revocable. We are proposing this change to ensure that, notwithstanding their ability to delegate decision-making authority over certain commercial matters to foreign investor interests, the U.S. voting shareholders of a U.S. airline will retain actual control of the airline. We originally proposed to reserve exclusively to U.S. citizens decisions relating to organizational documents, safety, security, and CRAF. In another refinement, in keeping with suggestions received from the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense as well as the Federal Aviation Administration, we are now proposing to broaden the scope of the decision-making that must remain under the actual control of U.S. citizens. The aspects of control of safety and security decisions would no longer be limited to those implementing FAA and TSA safety and security regulations, but would cover safety and security decisions generally. Similarly, the proposed control of CRAF decisions would be expanded to cover all national defense airlift commitments. Our proposed expansion of the coverage of these three areas will ensure that all critical elements of a carrier's decision-making that could impact safety, security, and national defense airlift are fully covered, and that our review of a carrier's compliance with these requirements will not be unduly narrow. We tentatively conclude that, as modified, this proposal will eliminate unnecessary and anachronistic limitations on the ability of eligible foreign minority investors to participate in the commercial decision-making at a U.S. airline in which they have made an otherwise statutorily-permitted investment. At the same time, it should eliminate any doubt that the voting stockholders (75 percent of whom are U.S. citizens) and the board of directors (two-thirds of whom are U.S. citizens) will retain full control over decisions regarding safety, security, and contributions to our national defense airlift capability, and that those U.S. citizens also retain "actual control" of the carrier as a whole as required by statute. By: Michael Reynolds
On File at Federal Register May 3, 2006 Supplemental NPRM as Published at the Federal Register - Bookmarked | HTML We are issuing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking because, after reviewing comments submitted on the NPRM and in consultation with other Executive Branch agencies, we have decided to strengthen the proposal in several areas. We have revised the proposed rule further to ensure that U.S. citizens will have actual control of the air carrier. We are also mindful of the strong interest in this proposal expressed by members of Congress. This SNPRM will furnish Congress the opportunity to review the proposal in its refined form, and to undertake a more informed assessment of its likely consequences. By: Michael Reynolds
April 7, 2006 Open Skies? Big Deal! - Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Report - Bookmarked EU-US Open Skies could become effective as soon as October but we doubt it will have a big impact on the competitive landscape, even at Heathrow. We leave our BA forecasts unchanged and believe its open skies discount is unjustified. OS could, however, spark a fresh round of M&A activity: Air France and Lufthansa are the most likely buyers and Alitalia, SAS, Iberia and Austrian the clearest targets. By: Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
May 9, 2006 Statement of Jeffrey Shane Before Subcommittee on Aviation By: Jeffrey Shane
June 23, 2006 On May 10-11, 2006, delegations representing the United States and the European Community and its Member States met in Brussels, Belgium, to take stock of developments in both parties affecting the efforts to put into effect a comprehensive U.S.-EU Civil Aviation Agreement. We explained that the SNPRM’s proposal was an interpretation of the Statute that would permit the delegation by U.S. interests to foreign investors of control over purely commercial decisions, provided that control over safety, security, commitments to the Department of Defense and core corporate documents remained in the hands of U.S. citizens. The SNPRM tentatively proposed to clarify and strengthen the required U.S. control in those areas. In response to questions from the European delegation, we indicated that the approach to the issue of potential foreign investor influence was essentially the same in the NPRM and the SNPRM, but that, after evaluating the comments to the NPRM, refinements had been made to better reflect the rulemaking’s original objectives. The DOT interpretation moves away from the “no semblance of foreign control” test used in the past to permit the delegation of commercial decisions, provided that safety, security, DOD commitments and core documents are in U.S. hands. There would be no change to the statutory requirements that no more than 25% of voting stock be in non-U.S. hands, and that the President and 2/3 of the Board of Directors and other managing officers be U.S. citizens. Further, DOT has tentatively found that it is both possible and appropriate to draw a line between the areas that must be exclusively under U.S. control and commercial decisions that may be delegated - that one area need not swallow the other. The European delegation asked what the implications of the rule would be for alliances and anti-trust immunity. The U.S. delegation answered that the enforcement of competition policy is a matter separate from issues of control, and that an agreement must also be lawful from a competition standpoint - that competition issues could arise in some cases. By: Paul Gretch
July 5, 2006 Comments of AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department If the DOT wants to make changes to airline foreign ownership and control rules, it should go through Congress, carefully explain what those changes are, why they are needed and then let the legislative branch work its will. With this NPRM, the DOT has overstepped its authority and done so in a manner that will weaken the US aviation industry, its workers and threaten national security. It is time for the DOT to step back from this misguided proposal and announce that it will withdraw its proposal to allow foreign interests to control US airlines. By: AFL-CIO, Edward Wytkind
July 5, 2006 Comments of the Air Line Pilots Association - Bookmarked Although the SNPRM further explains, and proposes to modify in certain respects, the Department's rulemaking proposal, the essence of the proposal remains unchanged. Both in its original form and as revised in the SNPRM, the proposed rule would "interpret" the statutory requirement that U.S. air carriers must be under the "actual control" of U.S. citizens in such a way as to permit foreign citizens to exercise control over any or all commercial aspects of that airlines operations -- such as the markets to be served, the rates to be charged, the type of equipment to be acquired and used, the flight schedules, etc. ALPA continues to oppose this proposal on both legal and policy grounds. Although the SNPRM does respond in certain respects to some of the issues that ALPA raised in its earlier comments, none of the modifications or explanations contained in the SNPRM remove ALPA's fundamental objections to the proposal. We therefore adhere to the position stated in our original comments, that the Department's proposal is both contrary to the statute and contrary to the public interest. By: ALPA, Jerry Anker, 202-797-4086, jerry.anker@alpa.org
July 5, 2006 Comments of Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association AMFA remains opposed to DOT's rule change. The United States Congress, in it role of advice and consent, must act as the ultimate broker of such a policy shift, a role DOT is attempting to circumvent. By: AMFA
July 4, 2006 Comments of Airports Council International-Europe ACI EUROPE notes with satisfaction that this SNPRM expressly confirms the objective sought by DOT to apply existing US Statutory requirements on the actual control of US air carriers in a way that would expand the opportunities for foreign citizens to invest ana participate in the management of US air carriers, so as to enhance US carriers access to global capital markets. ACI EUROPE also notes that the SNPRM provides greater clarity compared withe the original NPRM in a number of areas which are of great importance for potential foreign investors. ACI EUROPE is concerned by the fact that the SNPRM has Introduced new elements which nave increased the uncertainty faced by foreign investors. ACI EUROPE believes that the SNPRM does nor provide the clarity and certainty that would allow the contemplated policy change to act as an efficient and effective Incentive to foster foreign investment in US air carriers. unequivocal terms and conditions about planned investments and the ability to protect such investments are a prerequisite for investors worldwide and ultimately condition their final decision. By: ACI-Europe
July 5, 2006 Comments of Airports Council International-North America | Word We strongly recommend that DOT explicitly indicate in its final order that it will accept the kind of provisions on minority shareholder rights and termination conditions, protections and penalties normally found in commercial arrangements. ACI-NA urges DOT to finalize its proposed policy change with the suggested clarifications in order to start the process of moving from its detrimental interpretation that there be “no semblance” of foreign control of U.S. air carriers to allowing U.S. air carriers the access to global capital already enjoyed by many other U.S. companies and to promote the related liberalization and new and competitive air services. By: ACI-NA, Diane Peterson, 202-861-8085, dpeterson@aci-na.aero
July 4, 2006 Comments of the Association of European Airlines AEA takes the objective as outlined in the NPRM to revise the US administrative provisions on “actual control of US carriers” as a positive step forward in that direction. However the SNPRM introduces new elements that affect the quality of the draft final rule. The greater the degree of ambiguity and uncertainty in the final rule, the lower the incentive to invest will be. Therefore, the final rule should be aimed at meeting industry needs for new sources of investment and although the SNPRM states that no “template” is possible and that each case will continue to be examined on its own unique merits, this objective should be further pursued. Following a close examination of the SNPRM, a number of new questions arise from the proposal, which as it stands, would discourage DOT’s stated objective of facilitating foreign investment in a US carrier. By: AEA, Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus
July 5, 2006 The Department’s May 5, 2006, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a step backwards. The SNPRM creates new confusion and ambiguity. To the extent the SNPRM provides answers, those suggest more restrictive, not more liberal, policies would apply. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that finalization of the SNPRM would facilitate access to foreign capital. The more discretion reserved to the Department, the less certainty provided to investors. If the Department hopes to facilitate significant foreign investment, it should propose new legislation or, at the very least, promulgate new regulations, providing far more specificity, clarity, and certainty than the proposed policy statement. Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970
July 5, 2006 Comments of British Midland International It is bmi's conclusion that DOT's proposed policy thrust remains clear. bmi has suggested further refinements for the final rule to make the proposal unambiguous and attractive to potential investors. We urge DOT to publish a final rule as soon as possible. Counsel: bmi, Peter McClymont
July 5, 2006 Comments of Continental Airlines - Bookmarked The Department's May 5, 2006, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 71 Fed. Reg. 26425 is just as unlawful, poorly conceived and unworkable as the Department's November 2005 proposal. The Department's insistence on adopting a proposal turning the requirement for "actual control" by U.S. citizens of all activities of U.S. airlines all the time into permission for "actual control" of virtually all aspects of U.S. airlines by foreigners without a statutory change has alienated Congress, the European airlines the Department seeks to appease, airline employees and U.S. airlines. Although the Department claims it decided, after reviewing comments on its initial proposal and consulting with other Executive Branch agencies, "to strengthen the proposal in several areas," the Department in fact barely changed the proposed policy statement at all. As a result, the Foreign Control SNPRM fails to resolve any of the numerous significant objections raised in comments on the Foreign Control NPRM and by Congress. The Department's proposed policy statement itself remains hopelessly vague. Since the proposed policy statement provides neither clarity nor transparency and rejects the only mechanisms proposed that would ensure adequate participation by interested stakeholders in the process for evaluating foreign control of individual U.S. airlines, the supplemental proposal is just as unlawful as the original proposal and just as certain to be rejected by Congress and the courts. The proposal should be withdrawn in light of the obvious flaws in the Department's Foreign Control NPRM and SNPRM, the likelihood that Congress will not permit its adoption or implementation (and that a future Congress or Administration would reverse the policy), the fact that courts would overturn the proposed rule if Congress did not, the strong potential for litigation and other disputes if the rule became effective, and the fact that the very foreign investment the Department claims to be seeking would be discouraged by the Department's proposal. Pursuit of a U.S.-EU air services agreement based on the Department's unlawful proposal would be irrational without resolving the critical issue of securing economically-viable, competitive slots and facilities at London Heathrow for Continental and other U.S. airlines that have been excluded from operating flights at Heathrow while the dominant carriers at Heathrow cornered the market for slots at critical times for transatlantic flights and secured all the competitive facilities at Heathrow. Rather than pursuing a rulemaking proposal fraught with danger and an EU-U.S. agreement that fails to protect U.S. interests adequately, the Department should return to the drawing board on both fronts: opening a dialogue with Congress on acceptable means for encouraging foreign investment in U.S. airlines and making it perfectly clear to the EU that, absent competitive and commercially viable access at Heathrow for additional U.S. airlines, a multilateral agreement simply cannot be agreed upon. Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615, rbkeiner@crowell.com
July 5, 2006 Comments of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked Although Delta supports the Department’s proposed new Policy Statement, Delta believes that one area of the SNPRM, relating to the issue of revocation of the delegation of authority to a foreigner, warrants clarification in order to ensure that the Department’s new policy statement achieves its expected benefits, including execution of an U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement. Delta believes that such a clarification will respond to concerns voiced by certain U.S. and EU constituencies, facilitate a positive response to the Department’s proposal by the EU Member States, and accelerate the achievement of a new U.S.-EU Agreement. The Department should eliminate the “revocation” requirement and emphasize the select points discussed above to mitigate potential concerns about the new standard. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com
July 3, 2006 Comments of DePaul University College of Law - International Aviation Law Institute After reviewing the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking recently published by the United States Department of Transportation it is apparent that, while useful clarifications and modifications have been inserted, one of the contemplated interpretive changes in particular is unlikely to “strengthen” the original proposed rule as the DOT suggests. The proposal to require that “any…delegation of [decision-making] authority [regarding commercial issues] to foreign interests by the U.S. citizen majority owners be revocable” is problematic. This interpretation, if followed, could potentially deter strategic investments in U.S. airlines by foreign investors and sidetrack European Union approval of the draft U.S./EU air transport agreement. However, the Institute fully supports the DOT’s broadening of the scope of decision-making authority that must remain under the “actual control” of U.S. citizens in the areas of safety, security, and national defense airlift commitments. The Institute, as argued in our previous submission, believes that only a comprehensive elimination of foreign control limitations will truly liberate the marketplace. But the DOT’s approach remains a solid incremental step within the constraints imposed by the current law. By: DePaul University
July 5, 2006 Comments of Federal Express Corporation - Bookmarked FedEx wholeheartedly supports the Department's proposed policy statement. The proposal abides by Congress' instruction that actual control over a US airline remain in US hands, while reversing an unneccessarily restrictive and outdated agency interpretation under which foreign investors could not have even a shadow of substantial influence in the company in which they have invested. The proposal offers real value by allowing foreign investors greater participation in the commercial management of US airlines, and US airlines access to greater pools of capital. Counsel: FedEx, Nancy Sparks, 202-756-2461, nssparks@fedex.com
July 5, 2006 While Hawaiian would like to see a more far reaching change to the restrictions on foreign ownership in U.S. airlines than proposed in the SNPRM, we support the efforts of DOT to reduce the regulatory uncertainty that has become the reality for those having to deal with the legislated restrictions on the free flow of capital imposed on U.S. airlines. Our comments on this SNPRM deal exclusively with the proposition that DOT seek to further clarify and de-mystify the application of existing U.S. law in this area. With the issuance of the SNPRM DOT has reaffirmed its intent to improve U.S. airlines’ access to capital by modifying the complex and difficult to administer “no semblance of control” test and replacing it with one more faithful to the “actual control” requirement of the statute. Upon receiving and analyzing the comments to the SNPRM, DOT proposes to issue a final rule that will streamline the process of regulating foreign investment in U.S. air carriers. Hawaiian supports DOT’s efforts as set forth in the SNPRM because it has the potential to (1) improve the U.S. airline industry’s access to capital, and (2) reduce the regulatory burden associated with DOT’s current subjective process for conducting citizenship reviews during fitness determinations. Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill
July 5, 2006 Comments of the Independent Pilots Association IPA argues today, as it argued in its earlier filing in this docket, for the Department to abandon this rulemaking effort and pursue a correct and legally appropriate path for attracting needed strategic investment capital to U.S. carriers and promoting free international aviation markets. This can be accomplished by DOT initiating the process for a change in U.S. law. A change in U.S. aviation ownership and control law would encourage significant strategic investment in U.S. carriers; it would promote liberalization of air services globally; and, the open, deliberative process required for a change in law would ensure that the interests of all U.S. airline industry stakeholders — including U.S. air carrier employees — would be taken into full account. This rulemaking, even as revised under the supplemental notice, will accomplish none of those objectives. Counsel: IPA, Tom Nicholson, 800-285-4472, tnicholson@ipapilot.org
July 5, 2006 Comments of The International Air Transport Association IATA understands the Department’s concern that a final rule with exclusive examples of acceptable or unacceptable control might limit its discretion to review and approve specific foreign investment in U.S. carriers in the future. However, given the importance of U.S. airline access to foreign capital and DOT’s stated goal to remove unnecessary barriers in this regard, the final rule should include as many examples and as much definition as possible of control provisions that will either be accepted or rejected by DOT officials going forward. The Department can maintain its discretion and ensure that it remains within the boundaries set by applicable statutes, by stating in the final rule that: (a) its list of provisions commonly demanded by global financial markets to stimulate investments by minority investors that ordinarily will not shift control to foreign citizens is not exclusive; and (b) it retains the right to construe all applicable provisions of relevant investment documents as a whole and on a case-by-case basis. IATA repeats its firm support for the Department’s initiative to dismantle regulatory barriers that restrict U.S. airlines’ access to the global capital market. The Department can, and should, dismantle barriers created by overly restrictive, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations of the Actual Control provisions in the past, and provide the Iegal certainty that will enable U.S. airlines to gain greater access to the global capital market in the future. Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin, 202-293-9292
July 5, 2006 Comments of United Air Lines - Bookmarked United submits these Comments in support of the revised Policy Statement the Department has set out in its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As United explained in its January 6, 2006, Comments supporting the Department's initial proposal, such a change in policy is a small - albeit important - step forward in the U.S. government's long-standing effort to transform the aviation industry from a highly-regulated, government-directed sector of the economy into an openly competitive global industry guided by market forces. United has been a strong and consistent supporter of the Department's efforts to eliminate outdated governmental restrictions that discourage global expansion of the U.S. airline industry. As the SNPRM reflects, the Department has given careful consideration to the numerous comments it received in response to the NPRM. The Department has also engaged Congress in an extended dialogue to address any questions or concerns over the Policy Statement. This consensus building, coupled with the Department's well-established statutory authority to adopt the new Policy Statement, should allay concerns about the vulnerability of the Policy Statement to legal challenges by disgruntled parties with ulterior motives. The Department should, therefore, move forward expeditiously and adopt the proposed Policy Statement set out in the SNPRM. Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz
July 5, 2006 Comments of United Parcel Service In the aviation sector, where we operate the ninth largest airline in the world, we have strongly supported and benefited from the U.S. Government Open Skies Policy and will continue to do so in the future. UPS sees the proposed U.S.-European Union Open Skies Agreement as a stepping stone toward a worldwide open market regime for international aviation. For our company, as for all major U.S. industries, economic globalization is not an option - it is a fact of life. Over the longer term, we hope such an agreement can provide a framework both for reducing business impediments and helping address potential regulatory threats to our European business activities, such as night flight restrictions. In considering the U.S.-E.U. agreement and the related DOT proposal, full account must be .taken of their positive implications for moving forward with the long-standing and bipartisan U.S. interest in achieving truly free and fair international trade in aviation. This is an important goal made even more essential by the fact of economic globalization. Short-lived commercial concerns of the type raised by some airlines in recent Congressional hearings should not divert attention from that goal. Counsel: UPS and Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202-342-8451, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com
June 30, 2006 Comments of the United States Airports for Better International Air Service USA-BIAS members are concerned about the concept introduced in the SNPRM that U.S.-citizen shareholders and board members must retain the ability to revoke their delegation of commercial management duties to foreign-citizen investors—in areas other than the sensitive ones of safety, security and national defense functions. Our concern is that unless clarified the revocation provision could be read to significantly weaken the incentives and ability of non-U.S. citizens to invest in U.S. airlines and as a result the proposed interpretation may not be acceptable to the EU thus impacting bringing the U.S.-EU agreement to fruition. We believe, however, that these concerns can be Our U.S. communities believe that enabling the implementation of the Open Aviation Area agreement with the European Union is of the highest priority, and we urge the Department to permit the broadest interpretation of control possible consistent with the statute, so that the EC and the EU Transport Ministers Council will be able to sign the existing draft agreement. By: USA-BIAS
July 5, 2006 Comments of US Airways Group - Bookmarked US Airways strongly opposes implementation of a rule or agreement in a way that affords UK interests the privileges that inure to "true" Open Skies partners of the United States - until and unless US Airways is assured of commercially meaningful access to Europe's most important airport, London Heathrow. Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass
July 5, 2006 Comments of Virgin Atlantic Airways While the revised proposal purportedly preserves the objectives of the initial proposal, the way in which DOT has modified the proposal serves only to reinforce Virgin Atlantic’s initial conclusion that the proposal is deeply flawed, and offers less to prospective investors than DOT might believe. While Virgin Atlantic welcomes the intention of DOT to move away from the narrow definition of “actual control” that has previously been used, Virgin Atlantic believes that the proposed changes will be insufficient in themselves to persuade a foreign company to invest in a US airline. In fact, certain of the modifications to the original proposal have made the NPRM less, rather than more, attractive to prospective investors. While Virgin Atlantic strongly supports the full liberalisation of all global air transport markets, it believes that the SNPRM cannot and will not be used as a meaningful vehicle for the relaxation of cross-border ownership restrictions. Virgin Atlantic wishes to emphasise that its concern about the viability of the NPRM is not indicative of its overall support for air service liberalisation. In fact, Virgin Atlantic would urge negotiators from the US and EU to take steps that are more far-reaching than those being contemplated. Virgin Atlantic has strongly supported the creation of an Open Aviation Area between the EU and the US, which would remove all restrictions on ownership and control of airlines established within the OAA by nationals of any Party to the agreement. In Virgin Atlantic’s view, the current proposal does not go far enough, and should not be accepted as a “solution” to barriers to entry into the air transport market. Counsel: Virgin, Barry Humphreys, barry.humphreys@fly.virgin.com
June 30, 2006 Comments of the Washington Airports Task Force In our view, the SNPRM cannot be considered in isolation from the “Open Skies Plus” agreement that was negotiated last year with the European Union because the E.U. has clearly indicated it cannot go forward with such an agreement unless existing U.S. requirements that restrict ownership and control of U.S. carriers are liberalized, which is precisely what the SNPRM seeks to accomplish. An “Open Skies Plus” agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. is extremely important to us because it will, when implemented, be of profound benefit to many growing, as well as established, international gateways in the United States -- of which Washington Dulles International Airport is one. This country’s Open Skies policy positioned our airlines to lead the formation of international alliances in the early 1990’s. The proposed U.S.-E.U. agreement would help our airlines and U.S. capital sustain that leadership. Without the U.S.-E.U. agreement, the major European carriers will be positioned to lead the world’s air transport industry. When we see the error of our ways we will then be left to negotiate our way back from a position of disadvantage. The world will not stand still and wait for us. The Washington Airports Task Force, thus, strongly urges the Department to make final the rules proposed in the SNPRM so that the fruits of the U.S.-E.U. agreement can become available to our communities and air carriers as quickly as possible. By: WATF, Leo Schefer
July 17, 2006 DOT Letter to Texas Senator John Cornyn We appreciate your interest in the Department's rulemaking. Under current U.S. law, foreign investors can hold up to 25 percent of the voting stock of a U.S. airline. Our proposed rule does not alter that foreign investment limit. If made final, however, our proposal would permit foreign investors to play a more active role in certain commercial decisions at U.S. airlines, but only if the foreign investors come from countries that have signed an open-skies agreement with the U.S. and provide to U.S. investors reciprocal investment opportunities in their airlines. The proposed rule would not allow for foreign investor participation in any decisions involving safety, security, or the airline's participation in U.S. defense airlift programs. Because this is an active proceeding, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss its merits. However, I can assure you that all comments will be considered before any final action is taken on this proposed rule. By: Michael Reynolds
Ex-Parte Letters to:
We appreciate your interest in the Department’s rulemaking. Under current U.S. law, foreign investors can hold up to 25 percent of the voting stock of a U.S. airline. Our proposed rule does not alter that foreign investment limit. If made final, however, our proposal would permit foreign investors to play a more active role in certain commercial decisions at U.S. airlines, but only if the foreign investors come from countries that have signed an open-skies agreement with the U.S. and provide to U.S. investors reciprocal investment opportunities in their airlines. The proposed rule would not allow for foreign investor participation in any decisions involving safety, security, or the airline’s participation in U.S. defense airlift programs. Because this is an active proceeding, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss its merits. However, I can assure you that all comments will be considered before any final action is taken on this proposed rule. By: Michael Reynolds
December 5, 2006 Withdrawal of Certain Proposed Amendments - Bookmarked | On File at Federal Register December 5, 2006 | Published in Federal Register December 8, 2006 Current law requires that U.S. citizens actually control each U.S. air carrier, that U.S. citizens own or control at least 75 percent of the shareholders' voting interest, and that the president and two-thirds of the directors and the managing officers must be U.S. citizens. The Department interprets this law in conducting initial and continuing fitness reviews of U.S. air carriers. We are withdrawing a proposal to modify by regulation the standards we apply in those cases where "actual control" by U.S. citizens is at issue. The proposal being withdrawn would have narrowed the scope of our inquiry in such cases to those core matters affecting compliance with U.S. requirements affecting safety, security, national defense and corporate governance. These rationalized standards for deciding whether U.S. citizens maintained "actual control" of a carrier would have applied only to proposed transactions involving investors whose countries have an open-skies air services agreement with the United States and offer reciprocal investment opportunities to U.S. citizens. Our interpretation of other aspects of the statutory citizenship requirement would have been unchanged. Although we are withdrawing the current proposal, we will continue to consider other ways to rationalize and simplify our domestic investment regime. The need for greater certainty and transparency in our requirements and administrative process has become very apparent. Indeed, public comment in this docket has only served to confirm the Department's growing concern that the current regime is so unduly complex and burdensome that it needlessly inhibits the movement of capital that otherwise would flow into the U.S. airline industry and thus interferes with the legitimate needs of U.S. carriers to attract strategic investors from overseas markets. The Department notes that most of the American economy has progressed well beyond the antiquated notions that continue to apply to the airline industry because of our administrative interpretations of the current statute. In a modem, global industry such as aviation, we believe that the United States should not shut its doors to foreign investment by perpetuating archaic and time-consuming administrative practices that serve neither a statutory purpose nor an identifiable policy interest of the United States. By: Andrew Steinberg
December 18, 2006 In your letter, you urge the Department to withdraw its proposal, stating your view that the American public has strong doubts about the proposal and any change to foreign ownership law should be accomplislied by open and vigorous congressional scrutiny and debate rather than through rulemaking by the Executive Branch. As you know, on December 5 the Department issued a notice withdrawing our proposed rule (copy enclosed), After reviewing the comments of interested parties, including those provided by members of Congress, it was apparent that this important issue would benefit from the opportunity for additional public discussion. Although we have withdrawn our proposal, we still believe that there are significant benefits to be realized by liberalizing foreign investment opportunities in U.S air carriers. With this view, we look forward to working with Congress, labor, and the airline industry to address this issue, which is critical to strengthening the ability of U.S. air carriers to compete in the global aviation market. By: Mary Peters
April 9, 2007 Executive Order 12866 and Congressional Review Requirements The requirements of section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 have been met. The document has been submitted to C-50 for transmission to Congress and GAO. By: Special Counsel, Robert S. Goldner
April 16, 2007 Re: Executive Order 12866 - Document Submitted to Congress and GAO By: Robert Gouldner
On File at Federal Register April 20, 2007 The Department is adopting its proposed editorial changes to its rules on Data to Support Fitness Determinations, 14 CFR 204, and has determined to maintain its existing procedures for conducting reviews of the continuing fitness of air carriers. These actions complete this rulemaking. The Department had earlier withdrawn a proposal made in this rulemaking to modify the Department's standards for determining whether carriers remain under the actual control of US citizens. The rule is effective May 23, 2007. By: Andrew Steinberg |
||
Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar