DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Chapter II

\[Docket No. OST-96-993\]

RIN 2105-AC36

*62 FR 19473, April 22, 1997*

**Ticketless Travel: Passenger Notices**

**AGENCY:** Office of the Secretary, DOT.

**ACTION:** Statement of compliance policy.

**SUMMARY:** The Department is issuing a statement of compliance policy
that states that the ticket notices required by various DOT rules must
be given (or be made readily available) to "ticketless" airline
passengers no later than the time that they check in at the airport for
the first flight in their itinerary.

**EFFECTIVE DATE:** This statement of compliance policy takes effect May
22, 1997.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Tim Kelly, Aviation Consumer
Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW, Room 4107, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5952.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**

*Background*

Various DOT regulations require U.S. and foreign air carriers to provide
consumer notices on or with passenger tickets. These notices provide
information about protections afforded by federal regulations,
limitations on carrier liability, and contract terms that passengers may
not otherwise be aware of. These ticket notice requirements are listed
below.

  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
  **Subject**                                    **Source (14 CFR)**

  Oversales                                      §250.11

  Domestic baggage liability                     §254.5

  International baggage liability                §221.176

  Domestic contract of carriage terms            §253.5

  Terms of electronic tariff (international)     §221.177(b)

  Refund penalties (domestic)                    §253.7

  Fare increases (international)                 §221.174

  Death/injury liability limits (international)  §221.175
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------

Over the past few years, a number of airlines have introduced
"ticketless travel," also known as "electronic ticketing." Under this
concept a passenger calls the airline, makes a reservation and purchases
the transportation during the call, typically by credit card. Electronic
tickets can also be purchased from travel agencies in many cases. No
"ticket," as that document has traditionally been configured, is issued.
Instead, the passenger is orally given a confirmation number and/or is
sent a written itinerary. Upon checking in at the airport the passenger
simply provides his or her name, furnishes identification, and is given
a boarding pass or other document that is used to gain access to the
aircraft.

The Department of Transportation supports the development of ticketless
travel. The process has the potential to reduce carrier and agent costs,
and thereby costs to consumers, and to make air transportation easier to
purchase. At the same time, the Department has been concerned that
necessary information in the ticket notices described above be provided
to passengers in a ticketless environment. Consequently, on January 19,
1996, we published in the Federal Register a Request for Comments on the
issue of passenger notices for ticketless transactions (61 FR 1309).

*Comments*

We received 28 comments in response to the Federal Register notice.
Three were from industry associations: the Air Transport Association of
America (ATA), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and
the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). Eleven comments were from
air carriers: United Air Lines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines,
Trans World Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Alaska
Airlines, ValuJet Airlines, Western Pacific Airlines, Vanguard Airlines,
and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. We also received comments from four travel
agencies (Costa Azul Tours and Travel, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Meston
Travel Center, and Vista Travel Service), four other organizations
(*Best Fares* magazine, Airclaims, Ltd., QuickTix, and Stone & Webster
Management Consultants), five individuals (Mr. Philip Sheridan, Mr.
Laurence Hecker, Mr. Andrew Pickens, Mr. Peter Lyck, and Mr. Benjamin
Dornic), and from Mr. Jeremy Silverman and Mr. Gregory Gerdes on behalf
of their law school class.

In general the industry commenters did not object to providing the
notices that are currently required to be provided on or with tickets.
However, they urged the Department not to prescribe the manner in which
those notices are to be provided, e.g. the method or the time that they
are furnished to electronically ticketed passengers. The travel agent
commenters said that notice should be the responsibility of the
airlines, and that travel agencies should not be expected to bear the
cost. Most of the individual commenters said that electronically
ticketed passengers should receive written confirmation of their
reservation and fare in case there is a subsequent computer error.

ATA said that it anticipates that the consumer protection notices that
the Department's regulations require today will continue to be provided.
ATA, IATA, ASTA, most of the air carrier commenters, and Airclaims, Ltd.
said that consumer notices of the type provided with tickets should
continue to be provided, but they oppose regulation of the method or
time by which carriers must communicate those notices to ticketless
passengers. This will allow distribution systems to be more flexible and
therefore more responsive to the needs of passengers, according to ATA.
It will also generate significant efficiencies, which ATA said is
important in the industry's continuing efforts to provide economical air
transportation. Many of these commenters said that regulating how and
when the notices are to be delivered would impose costs without
commensurate benefits, and could impede emerging technology.

IATA said that it strongly supports electronic ticketing, and that it
was still developing standards for international and interline
electronic ticketing. Although they opposed detailed rules, IATA and
ASTA suggested that DOT should provide general guidelines for acceptable
times and methods for providing consumer notices.

Southwest said that 40% of its passengers are now ticketed
electronically. The carrier said that it mails or faxes the consumer
notices in question to its electronically ticketed passengers, but that
it may want to modify this procedure in the future in response to
consumer demand, new technology, or competition. Several of the carriers
said that there are many ways to get adequate notices to passengers
besides mailing them: for example, an annual mailing to frequent flyers,
a receipt provided at the airport or travel agency, orally at the time
of the reservation, on signs or handouts at the airport, a fax-back
service that will fax notices to passengers who call a special number,
or a notice screen for bookings that consumers make via the internet or
other online services.

ValuJet, a fully ticketless carrier, states that it currently provides
effective, oral notice concerning the customer's itinerary at the time
of the sale, as well as written notice when its customers board. It
contends that having to provide written notices at the time of purchase
would increase the cost of ticketless travel without commensurate
benefit.

Like ValuJet, Western Pacific and Vanguard are totally ticketless
carriers. They both said that they have procedures for providing what
they consider to be complete and timely notice to passengers. Like
ValuJet, these two airlines provide oral notice at the time of purchase
about important fare conditions, but do not provide any of the DOT
notices at the time of purchase, orally or in writing, except to note
that fares are non-refundable. All three carriers provide certain
written notices upon check-in, although these do not necessarily include
all of the DOT-mandated ticket notices or all of the required text from
these notices. These three carriers also state that they will mail or
fax written notices on request at any time.

ASTA said that notice of the reservation and fare will be provided to
clients "when practical." ASTA suggests that general guidelines be
issued for delivery of other consumer notices, but that details on when
to provide the notices be left to the carrier or travel agency. If the
Department identifies deficiencies, it can then impose a more detailed
standard. For the moment, ASTA suggests that all of the consumer notices
be posted at airports, where passengers are more likely to see them than
in the fine print on tickets, which ASTA contends most passengers don't
read.

Several carriers and one travel agency chain advocated the concept of a
voicemail or "audio-text" system in which passengers could be provided
the choice of listening to recorded consumer notices at the end of a
reservation call, or at any other time. ValuJet estimated that such a
system could deliver a standard oral briefing by telephone for as little
as 25 cents per call.

Western Pacific described a menu-driven ("press 1 for baggage
information, 2 for oversales information . . .") voice system that it is
studying to deliver all DOT standard notices, as well as other
information. The carrier says this system would provide the notices in a
timelier fashion than notices that arrive in the mail several days after
a telephone purchase; Western Pacific said this would be particularly
useful in the case of bookings made within a few days of departure.
(Western Pacific said that 20% of its bookings are made within three
days of departure; Vanguard said its figure is 10% to 15%.)

TWA said that carriers should not be required to provide notices to an
electronically ticketed passenger who does not request a written
confirmation, or who is offered the consumer notices but declines. TWA
and Continental described ATM-like machines that issue boarding passes
at airports, and can require passengers to choose whether or not to
receive the terms and conditions of travel and other notices. They said
that carriers should have the flexibility to deliver notices by means
such as this.

Generally, the individual travel agency commenters stated that notice
should be the responsibility of the airlines and that it could be
provided during check-in. Mr. Tom Parsons of *Best Fares* magazine,
however, said that "inspecting a contract at the airport gate is like
reading the warranty on your new car after you buy it." Mr. Parsons said
that the notices could be provided through the computer reservations
systems; Airclaims, Ltd. suggested handouts at the point of sale.
Neither of these proposals, however, indicate how the notices would be
provided to persons who book by phone.

Meston Travel said that it gives its ticketless clients a written
confirmation of the reservation and fare and copies of consumer notices
at the time of purchase. Vista Travel said that the cost savings of
electronic ticketing have accrued to the airlines but not to travel
agencies; Vista believes that the costs of any new notice requirements
should be part of the cost of the transportation, and should not have to
be borne separately by travel agencies. Vista did say that passengers
should be provided documentation of their reservation and fare before
they arrive at the airport, or they will be at the mercy of the carrier
in the event of a computer error. Carlson Wagonlit pointed out that many
carriers rely on advertising to defray the cost of ticket jackets, and
that this could help support the cost of any notices that must be
delivered to electronically ticketed passengers at the time of purchase.

In the Request for Comments, the Department sought comment on air
transportation purchases that take place via "smart cards" or online
computer services. ATA said that these types of electronic tickets
present no special issues. ATA asserts, as it does with regard to other
forms of electronic ticketing, that the carrier should be free to
determine the means of providing consumer notices. This could include
providing notices when a passenger signs an initial smart card form, or
electronic transmission of notices when transportation is purchased
online. ASTA echoed this idea, and said the notices could be provided
one time to regular clients similar to a "signature on file" agreement
for credit card purchases.

IATA supported the concept of allowing carriers to provide notices to
users of smart cards at the time they enter into the agreement for the
card, although IATA said that alternatively the notices could be
generated each time the card is used. Delta said that it uses smart
cards on its east coast Shuttle. The carrier said that it provides
DOT-required notices at the time a smart card is issued, and also makes
them available at each smart card machine. IATA, several carriers and
Airclaims, Ltd. suggested that members of frequent-flyer programs could
be given the notices when they join the program, or annually. TWA
asserted that 33% to 50% of all passengers (depending on the carrier)
are members of a frequent-flyer program. United said that one-time or
annual notices to frequent flyers combined with other programs to ensure
reasonable notice to other customers would save costs without having an
adverse impact on the traveling public.

The Department requested comment on whether a passenger should be able
to have an independent record of his or her reservation status. ATA said
that electronic ticketing does not create any additional likelihood that
a passenger's record will be unlocatable. Continental and Western
Pacific said that the confirmation number that is given to every
electronically ticketed passenger is the passenger's evidence of his or
her reservation. TWA said that the Department's concern over no-record
passengers is understandable in a historical context, but that over the
past decade there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and
that no-record passengers are no longer a significant problem. The
totally ticketless carriers that commented (ValuJet, Western Pacific and
Vanguard) all said that they do not engage in deliberate overbooking and
as a result have few oversales. IATA said that current scenarios
contemplate some sort of confirmation being sent to passengers who book
sufficiently in advance and that this is likely to contain confirmation
of the reservation. However, IATA said, this should not be required by
regulation.

The Department requested comment on how carriers deal with fare disputes
with passengers, particularly those who purchase tickets by phone. Both
ATA and IATA simply asserted that this has not been a problem. The
passenger's fare "will be included on passenger receipts," ATA said.
Western Pacific said that it experiences about the same rate of fare
disputes as paper-ticket carriers. It believes most of these disputes
arise from the customer's failure to listen carefully to the fare
restrictions information or the reservation recap. Vanguard said that it
has encountered virtually no fare disputes.

However, a comment filed on behalf of a law school class by Jeremy
Silverman and Gregory Gerdes said that several of the members of the
class had had disputes over fares and reservations with ticketless
carriers. They stated that carriers should provide written confirmation
of the reservation and the fare to electronically ticketed passengers,
and that this notice should be provided on a timely basis. They also
noted the potential for problems in applying an unused electronic ticket
to another flight (with payment of the appropriate penalty) after the
departure date of the original flight; if the computer does not reflect
the fact that the passenger did not use the transportation, the
passenger does not have an unused flight coupon to prove this fact.

Mr. Laurence Heckler also expressed concern over reservation, payment,
and fare disputes and urged that carriers provide timely written
confirmation of these matters. Stone & Webster Management Consultants
stated that electronically ticketed passengers should receive a
confirmation of the fare and reservation and the DOT consumer notices
shortly after purchase. Costa Azul Travel said that it receives many
complaints about ticketless travel, although it didn't describe them.

On the other hand, Mr. Andrew Pickens asserted that the notices on paper
tickets are unread and unnecessary. Mr. Philip Sheridan said that he has
been using ticketless travel for six months on United and Southwest with
no problems, and that the combination of the boarding pass and his
monthly credit card statement are all the documentation he needs.

The Department sought comment on the costs of various notice
alternatives. Most of the comments on this point focused on the costs of
providing written notice at (or shortly after) the time of purchase.
According to ATA, the average current postage cost of mailing notices to
electronically ticketed passengers is 40 cents per passenger, but this
does not include other handling costs. 50 million electronic ticket
transactions per year would yield a mailing cost of \$20 million, ATA
said, while 150 million such transactions would cost \$60 million.

ASTA asserted that having to provide notices can be a significant cost
factor (although it provided no figures). It highlighted the burden on
agencies by citing the thin profit margins in the travel agency business
resulting from changes in the commission structure and airline
initiatives to sell directly to passengers.

IATA provided no cost estimates, but said that distribution costs would
be affected by the number and length of the notices. IATA said that the
benefits of a DOT standard for consumer notices for electronically
ticketed passengers would be legal certainty, consistency and
uniformity, particularly in the international environment. Potential
negatives would be extra costs, and any inconsistency between the
required methods of distribution and the electronic ticketing process.

ValuJet said that the cost of providing written notices at the time of
purchase, particularly passenger-specific itinerary information, would
be "staggering" in ValuJet's case. ValuJet and Western Pacific both said
that major airlines have significant back-office ticketing systems that
can be redirected at little incremental cost to print and distribute
written itineraries and notices to ticketless passengers. ValuJet said
that it would have to build such an infrastructure. It estimates that
postage to mail its notices would be \$88,000 per month, and additional
distribution costs could be from \$1 million to \$2.33 million per
month, which would be 17% to 42% of the carrier's 1995 net income.
Western Pacific estimated that mailing or faxing itineraries and DOT
notices within three days of purchase would cost approximately \$50,000
per month at present traffic levels. Vanguard estimated that providing
hard-copy notices at the time of sale would add \$1 to the cost of each
of its transactions, or \$2 million per year.

*Discussion*

We have decided as a matter of compliance policy not to pursue remedial
or punitive action if air carriers give, or make readily available, to
electronically ticketed passengers the written notices required by the
existing DOT ticket-notice rules no later than the time that the
passengers appear at the airport for the first flight in their
itinerary. We believe that this approach strikes the most reasonable
balance at this time between ensuring that important information reaches
consumers before they travel without inhibiting the development of
electronic ticketing and imposing additional costs that might stifle
industry innovations and result in higher prices for consumers. It also
puts all carriers on the same footing with respect to ticketless
notices; as a result of past DOT requests, many airlines currently mail
or fax consumer notices to ticketless customers at the time of purchase,
but some carriers do not.

Most of the industry commenters in this proceeding objected to the
prospect of specifically being required to provide notices at the time
of the purchase. The policy that we are implementing will not do so, and
thus will avoid imposing the costs of having to mail or otherwise
deliver written notices to ticketless passengers before the date of the
flight. We are particularly concerned about avoiding unnecessary costs
for totally-ticketless carriers, many of which are low-fare, new-entrant
airlines. As noted by ValuJet, the burden of a requirement to provide
written notices in advance of the flight would fall disproportionately
on totally-ticketless carriers since they do not have the
paper-ticket/mailing infrastructure of most larger airlines. As a
result, we could envision higher prices for consumers without
commensurate consumer benefits. The approach that we are taking will
also address the concerns expressed by travel agents; no travel agency
will be required to provide the current notices required with tickets to
ticketless passengers.

Ticketless travel is a dynamic and evolving element in the marketing of
air transportation. The Department will continue to monitor developments
in this field, and should consumer problems related to inadequate
passenger notice arise, we may propose additional requirements in the
future. We strongly encourage airlines and travel agencies to work to
avoid such problems, not only by making the DOT ticket notices available
to ticketless passengers at the airport as required here but also by
distributing them in other ways, including those suggested in the
comments in this proceeding. For example, these notices could be
included with newsletters or booklets of terms and conditions mailed to
members of a carrier's frequent-flyer program or holders of the
airline's affinity credit card or smart card, posted in online booking
services and on the carrier's World Wide Web site, included in the
carrier's printed timetables, or handed to passengers who purchase
electronic tickets in person (e.g. at an airline's airport or city
ticket office or at a travel agency). Airlines may also wish to consider
making the notices available in recorded form on their reservations
telephone lines (e.g., "press 3 to hear important consumer information")
or establishing a fax-back service, where a consumer could call a
certain phone number and have the notices faxed to him or her. We also
encourage travel agencies to provide the notices during face-to-face
transactions, or when the agency would be mailing other documents in any
event. These various distribution methods would allow a passenger to be
provided the notices as far in advance as possible before the date of
the flight, and in many cases before purchasing the transportation.
However, none of them entails the cost of an individual mailing to each
purchaser.

ASTA stated in its comments that the current notices in use by the
airlines on regular ticketed transactions do not conveniently fit on a
single sheet of paper while leaving room for other important information
that consumers routinely want to have in writing. We would point out
that much of the contractual language in notices on some carriers'
conventional tickets is not required by DOT, but is placed there by the
carrier for its own purposes. As we noted in our Request for Comments,
all of the DOT notices would fit on the front and back of an 8½ x 11
sheet of paper, and if the international notices are not provided to
domestic passengers the domestic notices would fit on one side of such a
sheet. A sample of a domestic notice may be found at
http://www.dot.gov/general/rules/aviation.html.

ASTA and other commenters also suggested that airport signs may be a
superior method for providing notice to ticketless passengers. While we
are reluctant to rely solely on airport signs as a means of passenger
notice, we have decided to hold in abeyance a proposal that we published
in the Federal Register on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27818) to eliminate the
required sign concerning oversales. We will publish a separate notice in
the Federal Register to accomplish this. The oversales sign will
continue to be required until we have more experience with any potential
oversale problems involving ticketless passengers.

As a result of the policy described here, the notices that are currently
required by DOT rules to accompany tickets will have to be given or made
readily available to ticketless passengers in writing no later than when
they appear at the airport for the first flight on their itinerary. We
can envision several ways of accomplishing this:

\(1\) Carriers could have a box or stack of the notice sheets on the
countertop at each staffed position at the ticket counter and at each
gate (since some passengers check in only at the ticket counter and
others only at the gate), with the box or stack prominently labeled
"Consumer Notices."

\(2\) Carriers could keep a supply of the notices at a central location
within sight of all passengers near the ticket counter and also near the
carrier's gates.

\(3\) The carrier's agents could simply hand one of the notice sheets to
each passenger as they check in at the ticket counter and at the gate,
or hand it to every passenger at the ticket counter and at the gates
have a supply of the notices in sight in one of the ways described
above. The notice sheet would only have to be handed to a passenger
checking in for the first flight on his or her itinerary, but carriers
might choose to simply give it to all passengers in order to cut down on
procedure and labor time.

\(4\) Carriers could post a sign visible from each position at the
ticket counter and at each gate briefly describing the nature of the
notice (e.g., "important consumer information") and stating that a copy
is available from any counter or gate agent upon request. (It would not
be sufficient for a carrier to simply provide a copy of the notice sheet
to passengers who request it, without posting a sign, since most
passengers would not know that the notice exists.) If the notice sheet
is to be provided only upon request, manuals and training would probably
have to be updated to ensure that carrier agents are aware of the
distinction between this notice and other written material that
passengers are entitled to see upon request, e.g. the detailed notice
about boarding priorities and denied boarding compensation (14 CFR
§250.9), the complete contract of carriage (14 CFR §253.4(b)), and a
copy of the DOT rule on the rights of airline passengers with
disabilities (14 CFR §382.45(d)).

If a carrier chooses to provide the notices in question to ticketless
passengers in advance of the flight date (as many airlines do now), the
policy described here will not require the notices to be furnished to
those passengers a second time when they check in at the airport.

As indicated earlier, the Department sought comment on whether a
passenger should be able to have an independent record of his or her
reservation status in case a computer reservation record is lost. Based
on the information currently available to us, we agree with ATA that
electronic ticketing does not necessarily create any additional
likelihood that a passenger's record will be unlocatable. However, there
nonetheless appears to be the *same* likelihood of "no record"
passengers as exists for passengers with paper tickets, and yet
ticketless passengers will not necessarily have written evidence of
their reservation. Continental and Western Pacific commented that a
ticketless passenger's confirmation number is the evidence of his or her
reservation; however, if a carrier cannot locate a passenger's
reservation record in the computer, a confirmation number does not
necessarily prove that the passenger had a reservation on that
particular flight. It is questionable whether carriers would board a
passenger based on a confirmation number alone. On the other hand, we
note TWA's assertion that the Department's concern over no-record
passengers is understandable in a historical context but that over the
past decade there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and
that no-record passengers are no longer a significant problem. Our
complaint data appear to support this: in 1996 we received only four
consumer complaints against U.S. carriers about denied boardings caused
by "no record" reservation problems. None of those complaints was about
a totally-ticketless carrier.

The Request for Comments also noted that a conventional paper ticket
contains a record of the passenger's fare, whereas a ticketless
passenger might not have proof of the fare that had been agreed to in
the event a higher charge is posted to his or her credit card. Once
again, however, consumer complaints filed with DOT show no clear
indication of a problem in this area. In 1996 we received 52 complaints
against U.S. carriers concerning alleged overcharges, but only one of
them involved a totally-ticketless carrier. The statistics do not
indicate how many of the remaining complaints may have involved
ticketless transactions, but of the 36 overcharge complaints against
Major U.S. carriers (i.e., airlines with revenues over \$1 billion per
year), only three were against Southwest Airlines or United Airlines,
two Major carriers with the earliest electronic ticketing programs.

We have no rules that require reservation or fare information to appear
on conventional tickets, and we will not require this information to be
furnished in writing to ticketless passengers at this time. As far as we
are aware, all airlines that offer electronic ticketing provide a paper
itinerary showing the fare and reservation status either automatically
or upon request. With most carriers, passengers also have the option of
a conventional paper ticket if they prefer. A large percentage of
ticketless transactions are paid for by credit card, and those
passengers have the dispute-resolution procedures of the Fair Credit
Billing Act available to them in the event of a problem. Nonetheless, we
will continue to monitor complaints in these areas and will not hesitate
to take further action in the future if it is warranted.

Likewise, the Department will continue to monitor the evolution of
ticketless travel and any consumer problems that may arise from the
practice. The compliance policy stated herein will be reconsidered if
circumstances so justify. However, before making any substantive change
in the policy, we will provide public notice of our planned actions.

We note that under present rules, certificated carriers must maintain
consumer complaint records for a period of three years, flight coupons
from tickets for a period of one year, and other records related to
errors, oversales, irregularities, and delays in handling of passengers
for a period of one year. (14 CFR §249.20.) While we see no need at this
time to impose additional recordkeeping requirements on carriers using
electronic ticketing systems, we encourage all carriers to maintain
records sufficient and in such a fashion as to help the Department make
informed decisions in the future in this important and evolving area of
air transportation.

The compliance policy set forth above is an attempt to provide carriers
the maximum flexibility to develop their ticketless travel systems while
at the same time providing a

measure of protection to consumers from unfair or deceptive practices
prohibited by 49 U.S.C. §41712. At the same time, however, carriers may
find it advantageous to continue to provide the written DOT ticket
notices to ticketless passengers in advance or to consider implementing
the innovative notification systems discussed in the comments submitted
in this docket (some of which are summarized above). In this regard,
carriers may ultimately decide that it is in their overall best
financial interest to do so considering that the preemption protections
of 49 U.S.C. §41713 and 14 CFR §253.1 may not apply unless notice of
contract of carriage terms is provided to ticketless passengers at the
time of sale either orally or by contemporaneously mailed (or faxed,
emailed, etc.) written notice.

The policy described here does not affect the existing notice
requirements for conventional paper tickets. Those tickets must continue
to be accompanied by the written notices described in DOT regulations.

*Accordingly,* it shall be the compliance policy of the Department that
ticket notices required by Department regulations shall be given or made
readily available to electronically ticketed passengers in writing in a
manner such as described above no later than the time that they check in
for the first flight in their itinerary.

Issued this 8th day of April, 1997 at Washington, D.C.

Charles A. Hunnicutt

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs

\[FR Doc. 97-10147 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am\]