[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5780-5787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-972]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 212

[Docket No. OST-2002-11741]
RIN 2105-AD38


Charter Rules for Foreign Direct Air Carriers

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department is amending its charter regulations by adding 
definitions of sixth- and seventh-freedom charters to the definitions 
section of 14 CFR Part 212, and by requiring foreign air carrier 
applicants for charter authority to provide updated reciprocity 
statements and operational data relative to its homeland-U.S. services.

DATES: The rule shall become effective April 4, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hedberg, Office of International 
Aviation (X-40), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-7783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 21, 2005, the Department of Transportation issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [70 FR 3158, January 21, 2005] 
which proposed to (1) Clarify the definition of ``fifth freedom 
charter'' by adding definitions of ``sixth- and seventh-freedom 
charters'' in Sec.  212.2; (2) modify OST Form 4540 (Foreign Air 
Carrier Application for Statement of Authorization) by requiring 
updated reciprocity statements by foreign air carriers seeking a 
statement of

[[Page 5781]]

authorization under Part 212; and (3) require foreign air carrier 
applicants for a statement of authorization under Part 212 to include 
historical data relative to the applicant's U.S.-home country 
operations.
    The proposed definitional amendments to Part 212 would clarify that 
sixth-freedom charter means a charter flight carrying traffic that 
originates and terminates in a country other than the country of the 
foreign air carrier's home country, provided the flight operates via 
the home country of the foreign air carrier; and that seventh-freedom 
charter means a charter flight carrying traffic that originates and 
terminates in a country other than the foreign air carrier's home 
country, where the flight does not have a prior, intermediate, or 
subsequent stop in the foreign air carrier's home country.
    The proposed revision of OST Form 4540 would require that at the 
time of application for fifth-freedom charter authorization, the 
applicant foreign air carrier must present certification from its 
homeland government (or cite certification previously submitted to the 
Department that is dated within the previous 90-day period), that 
indicates that the carrier's homeland grants to U.S. carriers a 
privilege similar to that requested by the applicant. The revision 
would also require applicant carriers to indicate on the application 
the number of third- and fourth-freedom flights the carrier has 
operated in the previous twelve-month period.
    Our issuance of the NPRM was taken in response to a petition for 
rulemaking filed by the National Air Carrier Association (NACA) on 
behalf of its member carriers. In the NPRM, after considering comments 
filed by interested parties in response to NACA's petition, the 
Department proposed to make some, but not all, of the changes sought by 
NACA. In its comments concerning the NPRM, NACA stated that ``We are 
grateful to the Department for the grant of NACA's petition. While the 
Department clarifies that it is not granting all of the changes 
requested in NACA's petition, the changes satisfy several of the more 
important concerns that NACA expressed in its petition.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NACA comments of March 22, 2005, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We address each of our proposed regulatory changes, in turn, below.

Proposed Modification to the Definitions in 14 CFR 212.2

Summary of Comments

    Most of the commenters supported, did not object to, or were silent 
on our proposed definitional changes. Only two comments to the NPRM 
explicitly opposed the changes. The supporters said that the new 
definitions would serve to better delineate between different types of 
services, fifth-, sixth- and seventh-freedom, in both the scheduled and 
charter areas. NACA and AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department (AFL-
CIO TTD), although supporting the proposed new definitions for sixth- 
and seventh-freedom charters, would have us go further by having us 
define fifth-freedom charter so that it no longer encompasses flights 
that do not have any stops in the foreign air carrier's homeland. The 
opponents, First Choice Airways and GWV Travel (GWV), assert that the 
new definitions go beyond the officially recognized ICAO ``freedoms of 
the air,'' are not required, and could cause confusion, including in 
the case of bilateral agreements that rely on the existing meaning of 
fifth-freedom.

DOT Decision on 14 CFR 212.2

    We will finalize the changes to 14 CFR 212.2, as proposed. We find 
that the new definitions are an accurate reflection of the meaning of 
the terms presented, and should serve to better delineate the different 
forms of service involved without causing confusion. We further find 
that this action is consistent with Section 820 of the Vision 100--
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, which conveyed the sense of 
Congress that the Department should formally define fifth-, sixth-, and 
seventh-freedom consistently for both scheduled and charter passenger 
traffic. We do not find that the commenters have presented persuasive 
arguments that our new definitions will generate confusion. In this 
regard, we find the general lack of opposition on the part of most 
commenters--many of whom will be using or be affected by the new 
definitions--to be significant. We will not, however, further amend 
this section to make changes to the definition of fifth-freedom 
charters as NACA and AFL-CIO TTD have suggested. While both commenters 
noted a degree of overlap in the definitions, we saw nothing in the 
comments received from other interested parties to indicate that they 
anticipated problems in applying or complying with the new definitions 
as proposed. In our NPRM we stated that we were proposing to amend our 
charter definitions because ``even a limited degree of confusion is 
best avoided.'' 70 FR 3158, 3163. We believed that specifically 
delineating the meaning of sixth- and seventh-freedom charters while 
not altering the long-established and widely-recognized definition of 
fifth-freedom charters was the best means to minimize confusion. Taking 
into account all the comments filed in response to our NPRM, we are 
persuaded to finalize our definitions as proposed. We are confident 
that the definitional changes that we are making should be adequate to 
address our public interest objectives in this rulemaking proceeding.

Proposed Modifications to OST Form 4540

Evidence of Reciprocity

Summary of Comments
    NACA, Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA), AFL-
CIO TTD, one U.S. indirect carrier (Apple Companies), and one U.S. 
direct air carrier (Amerijet) filed comments generally supporting our 
proposed change on evidence of reciprocity. They believe that the 
Department's existing practice requires a finding of reciprocity and 
that the proposed revision only serves to formalize that existing 
practice. AFL-CIO TTD states that the requirement will provide a key 
decisional element to the record at the time of application.
    ACI-NA specifies that it does not object to the Department's 
requirement of a reciprocity statement so long as it is not burdensome 
to carriers. First Choice Airways, for its part, states that while it 
is not opposed to an initial reciprocity certification, once a 
determination of reciprocity is made it should remain valid until 
challenged. While NACA supports our proposed change, it nevertheless 
suggests that our proposed 90-day recertification requirement be 
extended to require recertification every six months.
    Air Transportation Association of America (ATA), one U.S. carrier 
(Atlas), three U.S. indirect carriers (GWV, Vacation Express, and TNT 
Vacations), and seven foreign direct carriers (Antonov Design Bureau 
(Antonov), Air Atlanta Icelandic, Condor Flugdienst (Condor), Grupo 
TACA, Skyservice Airlines, and Thomas Cook UK) filed comments in 
opposition. ATA suggests that no reciprocity statement be required 
unless a U.S. carrier lodges a challenge.
    ATA, Atlas, and some foreign direct air carriers expressed their 
preference for maintaining the current system in which reciprocity is 
determined by the Department and aided by U.S. carrier objections on 
the record (when they feel that reciprocity is lacking) because they 
are aware of no problems that have arisen in relation to fifth-freedom 
charter operations. Some U.S. indirect carriers comment that 
instituting an official reciprocity requirement might

[[Page 5782]]

lead foreign governments to impose like requirements on U.S. carriers, 
thus redounding to the detriment of liberalized U.S. aviation policies. 
Some U.S. indirect carriers and foreign direct carriers state that a 
reciprocity certification requirement could become burdensome and in 
some cases even be unobtainable, especially given the short-notice 
nature of many fifth-freedom charter applications, thus chilling 
business, preventing market entry, and limiting competitive choices.
    Many foreign direct carriers believe that the reciprocity 
verification requirement does not serve any useful purpose and is 
inconsistent with the Department's open-skies policy. Grupo TACA 
asserts that obtaining such certification is unnecessary given the 
small numbers of charters conducted by foreign carriers relative to the 
volume of charters provided by U.S. carriers in foreign markets. Yet 
others suggest that it will be difficult to obtain such a statement 
from foreign officials, especially in markets where the U.S. presence 
is minimal. Another feels that the Department has provided insufficient 
guidance as to what type of certification is necessary. One foreign 
direct carrier suggested that it be permitted to cite the certification 
provided by a foreign government to another carrier for these purposes.
DOT Decision on Evidence of Reciprocity
    We will finalize our requirement that applicants provide 
certification of reciprocity. Our NPRM states unequivocally that 
``reciprocity on the part of the applicant's home country is the 
primary criterion for approval of the type of charter requests involved 
here.'' 70 FR 3158, 3162. In this, the NPRM was simply repeating 
longstanding Department policy and practice. Clearly, in evaluating the 
primary criterion for reaching a decision, the public interest calls 
for our having access to meaningful, reliable evidence.
    Given the short-notice nature of many of the requests for these 
types of services, we have found that we simply could not be assured 
that potentially interested parties, or we ourselves, might have the 
wherewithal in the limited time available to verify that an applicant's 
assertion of reciprocity was justified in the specific circumstances 
presented. While input from aggrieved U.S. carriers or our own 
knowledge of a particular bilateral relationship can, of course, be 
informative--indeed in some instances fully dispositive, cases may well 
arise where the best available source of information on reciprocity 
will be the applicant itself.
    While we have every confidence that the applicants provide 
information on Form 4540 to the best of their ability and knowledge and 
in good faith, the fact remains that the presence or lack of 
reciprocity is a matter resting within the control not of the applicant 
itself, but of its government. The applicant is at best a ``second-
hand'' provider of such information. Our proposed rule provides a means 
for ensuring that the first-hand source for information on this 
essential element of our decisional process exist in the record to 
speak for itself.
    We are confident that in situations where reciprocity truly is not 
an issue, concerned governments will be able to work with their 
carriers to ensure that a streamlined process exists for getting the 
necessary statements to us in a way that should cause little if any 
additional burden or delay. Indeed, the nature of the exercise, by 
introducing into the record more probative evidence on this central 
issue, could serve to expedite the decisional process.
    Saying this, we have reflected on whether we need to see the 
reciprocity affirmations ``refreshed'' every 90 days. We believe that 
the commenters provided adequate evidence to persuade us to extend the 
length of validity of a reciprocity certification from 90 days to six 
months. We have concluded that changing to a six-month period should 
still provide sufficiently current information for the purposes 
presented, while addressing the concerns of some of the commenters who 
asserted that our 90-day requirement was exceedingly burdensome. Of 
course, as we stated in the NPRM, if intervening events give reason to 
doubt the continuing validity of a particular verification, we will 
expect applicants to seek a new verification, even if their subsequent 
request is submitted within six months of a previous verification.

Reporting of Third- and Fourth-Freedom Statistics

Summary of Comments
    NACA, ACI-NA, one U.S. direct carrier (Amerijet), and one U.S. 
indirect carrier (Apple Companies) submitted comments generally 
supporting our proposed change. These commenters acknowledge that 
carriers currently provide information to the Department regarding 
third- and fourth-freedom operations in the form of T-100 data, but 
note that the data are not readily accessible due to the delay in T-100 
data availability. NACA asserts that access to timely data can help 
carriers and the Department in evaluating applications for fifth-, 
sixth-, and seventh-freedom charter operations and can speed the 
approval process.
    ACI-NA specifies that it has no problem with the proposed reporting 
requirement so long as it does not prove burdensome to carriers. 
Antonov states that it ``does not object in principle to providing this 
information.'' It is concerned, however, that considering the unique 
nature of outsized cargo services, information regarding third- and 
fourth-freedom charter flight information may provide an inadequate 
record for the Department to make a public interest determination 
regarding a carrier's ``undue reliance'' on fifth-, sixth-, or seventh-
freedom operations.
    ATA, three U.S. indirect carriers (GWV, Vacation Express, and TNT 
Vacations), and three foreign direct carriers (Air Atlanta Icelandic, 
Grupo TACA and Skyservice Airlines) submitted comments in opposition. 
They believe that the data we are requesting are already collected by 
the Department in the form of T-100 data, and thus our amendment to 
Form 4540 is unnecessary and redundant. They comment that the reporting 
requirement imposes expense and delay on carriers without providing any 
added benefit. Vacation Express and TNT Vacations also suggest that the 
reporting requirement could have a chilling effect, discouraging 
carriers from applying and then likely limiting the services available 
to the public. Grupo TACA asserts that the additional reporting 
required by this revision to Form 4540 is unnecessary, considering the 
relative dominance of U.S. charters operating in the U.S.-Central 
American market, and given that nearly all its members are domiciled in 
open-skies countries.
DOT Decision on Reporting of Third- and Fourth-Freedom Operations
    In our NPRM, we specifically said that, in addition to reciprocity, 
the Department ``also examines other factors that may be relevant in 
specific cases (for example, the extent of the applicant's reliance on 
fifth-freedom operations in relation to its third- and fourth-freedom 
services).'' 70 FR 3158, 3162. In this regard, we proposed to amend OST 
Form 4540 so that applicants would specify the number of third- and 
fourth-freedom flights they have provided over the preceding calendar 
year. We expressly called upon applicants to present the information 
with sufficient clarity ``for any commenting parties and the Department 
to readily evaluate the proposed services against the historical 
data.'' Id., at 3163.
    As our NPRM indicated, the issue of excessive reliance on fifth-, 
sixth- and

[[Page 5783]]

seventh-freedom operations vis-[agrave]-vis third- and fourth-freedom 
operations remains an element of our public interest analysis for 
applications of this type. As such, interested parties are entitled to 
have information that would enable them to offer meaningful comments on 
the record in this issue, and we ourselves would want to have data that 
permit us to give this issue appropriate consideration in our 
decisional process.
    We find that the reporting requirement we proposed should achieve 
those objectives. While we recognize, as some of the commenters point 
out, that T-100 data might cover some of the same terrain, they are no 
substitute. The T-100 program was never designed to provide a readily 
accessible data base for undue reliance evaluations in the context of 
the often short-notice, quick turnaround filings that characterize our 
charter approval process. It is entirely reasonable to expect that the 
data we are requesting should be in the applicant's possession and that 
the applicant should be in a position readily to provide it. Given the 
role that such data might play in our public interest determination, 
and the absence of equivalent alternatives in the circumstances 
presented, on balance, we conclude that whatever burden may be entailed 
by this new requirement is clearly outweighed by the public benefits 
produced. We are not persuaded that this result will engender any form 
of chilling effect. The data at issue are data that carriers are 
already required to collect and transmit to us. Furthermore, our 
standards (including our standards as to undue reliance) are not 
changing; nor is the way in which we intend to apply these standards. 
Our amendment is essentially an administrative measure designed to 
promote an enhanced record and more efficient decision-making.

Other Issues

    In addition to commenting on the specific aspects of our proposed 
rule, several commenters also offered other comments, either 
questioning aspects of our overall approach or requesting that we go 
even further in our proposed remedies.
    For example, Antonov objected to the Form 4540 changes applying to 
cargo charters as well as passenger charters. Antonov asserts that 
there are significant commercial and aeropolitical differences between 
cargo and passenger flights and that ``it would harm U.S. and foreign 
carrier interests alike if the freely functioning global cargo charter 
market were suddenly subject to more burdensome and more restrictive 
new administrative flight requirements by the United States.* * * \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Antonov comments of March 22, 2005, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have decided not to create a different Form 4540 regime for 
cargo charters. As we said above, the materials we are seeking are 
either within the possession of the applicant foreign carrier or are 
materials that they should be able to arrange readily for the homeland 
governments to provide. Therefore, we are unpersuaded that our changes 
will create an unworkable or unfair burden. We emphasize that we are 
not changing our applicable decisional standards or the nature of the 
findings we would need to make to support those decisions. Our changes 
go entirely to ensuring that those findings rest on a firmer 
evidentiary foundation. We regard this as entirely consistent with the 
public interest.
    NACA and Atlas would have us modify the rule to require 
significantly more detailed evidence from the foreign carrier applicant 
describing the cargo to be carried, bulk versus outsized. They are 
concerned that we are approving flights because of their asserted 
outsized cargo, when in fact the outsized cargo may actually represent 
only a portion of the actual cargo carried. Furthermore, Atlas states 
that given the typical short-notice nature of many fifth-freedom cargo 
charter requests, interested parties cannot file meaningful, timely 
responses unless that application includes more detailed information 
about the cargo to be carried.
    Antonov opposes this proposed change. It states that such a change 
would mean that applications could only be filed at the very last 
minute when packing lists were finalized and that even then numerous 
changes could still occur because shippers and charterers generally 
operate on the understanding that they are contracting for the entire 
aircraft and use this flexibility to make packing list changes right up 
to the time of departure. Antonov states that a cargo-specific approval 
requirement accordingly would be burdensome: Cumbersome for applicants, 
U.S. cargo carriers (who would need to be polled regarding the 
changes), and the Department. Antonov also comments that it would 
greatly impede the flow of commerce and cause costly delays to time-
sensitive shipments.
    We will not adopt the modification proposed by NACA and Atlas. 
Unlike our other proposed changes, which we see as involving materials 
readily available or obtainable in ways that we are not persuaded would 
interfere with our existing regulatory approach, we are unconvinced 
that the proposed NACA and Atlas change could be achieved without 
introducing the type of regulatory burden and delay we would wish to 
avoid.
    We reach a similar result with regard to the comments of Amerijet. 
Amerijet raises a procedural due process issue over the awarding of 
seventh-freedom cargo rights through bilateral negotiations and also 
raises policy questions relating to our approach on awarding fifth-, 
sixth-, and seventh-freedom charters. We regard these issues as well 
beyond the scope of the specifically focused regulatory procedural 
measures we announced in our NPRM--which Amerijet expressly ``welcomes 
and supports.'' \3\ Consequently, we will not pursue them here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Amerijet comments of March 22, 2005, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional comment beyond the scope of our contemplated changes 
is the ACI-NA recommendation that we consider amending our rules to 
cite the value of a proposed international charter to U.S. airports and 
their local economies as one of the public interest factors to be 
considered when we receive foreign carrier charter applications. We 
note this as essentially a suggestion offered for our future 
consideration.
    Finally, we note that commenters, such as TACA, wondered whether 
some of our proposed changes should even apply to them given prevailing 
open-skies regimes, and perhaps, also, bilateral seventh-freedom 
charter rights. We are certainly not seeking by this rule to impose 
filing requirements when none would be necessary from a public interest 
standpoint. Parties who believe there are clearly delineated bilateral 
rights, and that, therefore, they should not need to seek prior 
approval at all for certain charter operations are free to make 
appropriate requests for waivers or for adjustments to their underlying 
operating authority.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the 
Department to assess both the costs and the benefits of a regulatory 
change. We are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we 
make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended 
regulation justify the costs.
    This rule is a significant regulation under Executive Order 12866 
and DOT's Regulatory Policies and procedures

[[Page 5784]]

because of public interest. The NPRM was reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Our assessment of 
this rulemaking indicates that its economic impact is minimal because 
the rule will impose only minimal incremental new costs on applicant 
carriers, and codifies, in part, existing practice. The rule clarifies, 
by definition, the types of charters being conducted; requires that 
applicant foreign carriers cite certification from the carrier's 
homeland government stating that it affords reciprocity to U.S. fifth-
freedom charters; and, requires that foreign air carriers accurately 
represent the number of third- and fourth-freedom flights conducted in 
the previous twelve-month period.
    The definitional changes will not affect the manner in which 
foreign air carriers conduct business; nor will it affect our decision-
making process. Reciprocity is a public interest criterion already 
considered in evaluating fifth-, sixth- and seventh-freedom charter 
applications. The required certification will be required only once 
every six months. The data regarding third- and fourth-freedom flights 
we now require should be in the applicant's possession and the 
applicant should be in a position readily to provide it at the time of 
application.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    The Department has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance 
with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and 
has determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant consultation with State and local officials. The Department 
anticipates that any action taken will not preempt a State law or State 
regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State 
government functions.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because 
this rule does not subject U.S. carriers to new procedures or reporting 
requirements, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of U.S. small 
businesses.
    The Department notes, however, that this rule imposes a minimal 
additional paperwork burden on foreign air carriers, that may or may 
not maintain offices in the U.S., because they must report data 
regarding the number of third- and fourth-freedom flights provided in 
the most recent twelve-month period. Although the affected carriers 
must record this information for other reporting requirements on a 
monthly basis, the significant time delay in collecting, analyzing, and 
publicly issuing these data significantly reduces the value of the data 
for purposes of evaluating fifth-freedom charter applications. With 
minimal burden, the affected carriers can provide a record of the 
number of flights provided within the last twelve-month period by 
adding the numbers reported to the Department for each of the previous 
twelve months, and recording the sum on application OST Form 4540, thus 
providing all interested parties with current, detailed information 
vital to proper evaluation of applications. Furthermore, this reporting 
requirement will have no net effect on the way in which foreign air 
carriers conduct business or on the manner in which the Department 
evaluates the merits of fifth-freedom charter applications.

Regulation Identifier (RIN)

    A regulation identifier (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action 
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 
Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and 
October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document 
can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The changes proposed would not impose any unfunded mandates for the 
purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, 
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, 
or require through regulations. This rule contains information 
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
the Department will submit this requirement to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB for review, and 
reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection.
    OST Form 4540 is a required Application for Statement of 
Authorization for foreign air carriers to file with the Department 
prior to engaging in certain charter operations to and from the United 
States. The Department grants or denies the authorization to the 
foreign air carrier. Foreign air carriers file this form as often as 
necessary whenever they wish to perform charter flights for which prior 
Department approval is required by Part 212. This form is required for 
all foreign air carriers seeking Department authority to conduct 
certain types of charter flights, and does not require a significant 
amount of time to complete, and is not burdensome to complete.
    OMB Number: 2106-0035.
    Title: 14 CFR Part 212--Charter Rules for U.S. and Foreign Direct 
Air Carriers.
    Burden hours: 1000.
    Affected public: Business or other for-profit.
    Cost: $400,000.00.
    Description of Paperwork: The proposed changes to the rulemaking 
and the form are intended to improve the Department's ability to assess 
the merits of applications filed under Part 212, and will ensure that 
the Department has the most current information on the state of 
reciprocity for each foreign carrier applicant for charter authority 
filed under Part 212. These proposed changes will also enhance the 
Department's decision-making process without imposing an undue burden 
on applicants or affecting the public benefits that the Department's 
rules now provide. The collection of historical data relative to the 
applicant's U.S.-home country operations will allow the Department to 
satisfy any concerns it might have as to the applicant's reliance on 
fifth-, sixth- and seventh-freedom operations.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 212

    Air carriers, air transportation, charter flights, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.


0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends Part 
212 as follows:

PART 212--CHARTER RULES FOR U.S. AND FOREIGN DIRECT AIR CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 212 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40109, 40113, 41101, 41103, 
41504, 41702, 41708, 41712, 46101.

0
2. Amend Sec.  212.2 by adding, in alphabetical order among the 
existing definitions, a definition of ``Seventh freedom charter'' and a 
definition of ``Sixth freedom charter.''


Sec.  212.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 5785]]

    Seventh-freedom charter means a charter flight carrying traffic 
that originates and terminates in a country other than the foreign air 
carrier's home country, where the flight does not have a prior, 
intermediate, or subsequent stop in the foreign air carrier's home 
country.
* * * * *
    Sixth-freedom charter means a charter flight carrying traffic that 
originates and terminates in a country other than the country of the 
foreign air carrier's home country, provided the flight operates via 
the home country of the foreign air carrier.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  212.9, revise paragraph (b) (1) to read as follows:


Sec.  212.9  Prior authorization requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Fifth-, sixth- and/or seventh-freedom charter flights to or 
from the United States;
* * * * *

    Issued this 27th day of January, 2006 in Washington, DC.
Michael W. Reynolds,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

    The following OST Form 4540 will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P

[[Page 5786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03FE06.055


[[Page 5787]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03FE06.056

[FR Doc. 06-972 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-C