Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Notices 61431

mind the prohibition in 14 CFR 399.80(b) on a 

ticket agent displaying its name on aircraft in a 

manner that may mislead or confuse the traveling 

public as to the agency status of the ticket agent, 

the Enforcement Office has reviewed such matters 

on a case-by-case basis and has generally declined 

to take enforcement action where the name of the 

carrier is also displayed prominently on the aircraft 

and consumers are not otherwise misled into 

believing that the ticket agent is an airline.

9See, e.g., Premier Aircraft Management, Inc., 

Violations of 49 U.S.C. 41101 and 41712 and 14 

CFR Part 375, Order 2004–5–11 (May 13, 2004); 

SportsJet, LLC, Violations of 49 U.S.C. 41101 and 

41712, Order 2003–12–23 (Dec. 29, 2003). In 

addition, 14 CFR 125.11(b) provides that ‘‘[n]o 

certificate holder may conduct any operation which 

results directly or indirectly from any person’s 

holding out to the public to furnish transportation.’’

10We understand that some charter managers 

may manage air services for up to 200 separate 

customers.

11A Part 125 carrier may only contract to 

transport goods through a charter manager if the 

charter manager is acting legally as the agent of the 

customer. A Part 125 carrier may not enter into a 

contract with a charter manager in which the Part 

125 carrier’s obligation is to the charter manager 

(not the customer) to perform the transportation and 

the charter manager has a separate agreement to 

provide the customer air transportation. This is the 

case because, if the charter manager is not acting 

as the lawful agent of the customer in its contract 

with an air carrier, it would be acting either as a 

direct air carrier, in effect sub-servicing the 

operation (some charter managers do, in fact, hold 

authority as direct air carriers), or as an indirect air 

carrier, i.e., freight forwarder, pursuant to 14 CFR 

Part 296. A Part 125 carrier can never lawfully carry 

the traffic of an air carrier (Part 135 or 121) or a 

freight forwarder since such transportation clearly 

would be in common carriage. Indeed, we would 

view seriously the actions of any charter manager 

acting as a direct or indirect air carrier that 

contracted in such a manner with a Part 125 carrier. 

Such actions could, at a minimum, constitute an 

unfair and deceptive practice and unfair method of 

competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

12Presuming the Part 125 carrier signs a contract 

with a charter manager/agent representing three 

customers, the carrier should not participate in any 

other bid quote solicitation system operated by 

another charter manager/agent unless doing so 

involved only bidding on and operating trips for the 

same three customers. To do so would likely trigger 

an investigation by the Enforcement Office to 

determine whether the carrier is engaging in 

common carriage.

Although the proscriptions on 

deceptive and anticompetitive conduct 

found in Part 399 are written in general 

terms, at a minimum, air charter brokers 

without economic authority (or other 

ticket agents for that matter) should take 

care not to hold out as ‘‘airlines,’’ ‘‘air 

carriers,’’ ‘‘operators,’’ ‘‘airways,’’ or in 

any other way likely to create the false 

impression that they are direct air 

carriers in their own right. Toward this 

end, such entities should not refer to an 

aircraft used in the air services that they 

are marketing in a manner that conveys 

the false impression that they are an air 

carrier or the operator of the air 

transportation (e.g., ‘‘our fleet,’’ or ‘‘our 

charters,’’ ‘‘our charter service,’’ ‘‘our jet 

operators,’’ or ‘‘we operate a fleet of’’). 

In the course of several recent 

enforcement investigations, the 

Enforcement Office has also become 

aware of the use of air charter brokers 

by operators of commercial service with 

large aircraft operated pursuant to 14 

CFR part 125. Such operators may not 

hold out or provide air transportation to 

the public for compensation or hire, 

directly or indirectly through third 

parties.9 Therefore, air charter brokers 

who offer transportation services to the 

public, regardless of whether they hold 

economic authority in their own right, 

may not act as an agent of a Part 125 

operator with respect to the provision of 

air transportation. Such actions may be 

unfair and deceptive practices and 

unfair methods of competition on the 

part of the air charter broker, in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712, and would 

subject the Part 125 operator to 

enforcement action for unlawfully 

engaging in common carriage.

Another area of interest regarding the 

relationship between Part 125 carriers 

and air charter brokers that has recently 

come to our attention involves the use 

of so-called Internet ‘‘bid bonds’’ The 

Enforcement Office understands that 

some air charter brokers, who often style 

themselves as ‘‘charter managers’’ or 

‘‘logistics companies,’’ manage the 

transportation of cargo for the major 

auto manufacturers, as well as scores of 

other customers,10 who may be the 

actual shippers of goods or air freight 

forwarders. These charter managers 

conduct business through an Internet 

bid-quote solicitation system that allows 

subscribing air carriers and Part 125 

operators to see and bid on the 

transportation needed. With respect to 

such computerized bidding processes, a 

Part 125 carrier could contract with 

customers through the charter manager, 

with the charter manager being an agent 

for the customers to be served, so long 

as either (1) the charter manager 

represents only a few customers or (2) 

the contracts signed by the Part 125 

carrier with the charter manager as 

agent are specific as to only a small 

number of delineated customers with 

whom the Part 125 carrier is dedicated 

to contracting.11 The Enforcement 

Office would likely investigate for 

unlawful common carriage any situation 

where the number of different 

customers whose trips the Part 125 

carrier bid on, or with whom the Part 

125 carrier contracted through the 

charter manager, exceeded three.12

If there are any questions regarding 

this notice, please contact Dayton 

Lehman, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, or Jonathan Dols, Senior 

Attorney, Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings (C–70), 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590, (202) 366–9349. 

An electronic version of this 

document is available on the World 

Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov

Dated: October 8, 2004. 

Samuel Podberesky, 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings.

[FR Doc. 04–23268 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Summary Notice No. PE–2004–78] 

Petitions for Exemption; Dispositions 

of Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of dispositions of prior 

petitions. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking 

provisions governing the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this 

notice contains a summary of certain 

dispositions of certain petitions 

previously received. The purpose of this 

notice is to improve the public’s 

awareness of, and participation in, this 

aspect of FAA’s regulatory activities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Adams (202) 267–8033, or Sandy 

Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, 

Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 

2004. 

Anthony F. Fazio, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Dispositions of Petitions 

Docket No.: FAA–2002–13180. 

Petitioner: Ryan International 

Airlines, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

91.203(a) and (b). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Ryan 

International Airlines, Inc., to operate 

temporarily its U.S.-registered aircraft 

following the incidental loss or 

mutilation of that aircraft’s 

airworthiness certificate or registration 

certificate, or both. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

6571D.

Docket No.: FAA–2003–14252. 

61432 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Notices 

Petitioner: Mr. Jack Oliphant. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

91.109(a). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Mr. Jack 

Oliphant to conduct certain flight 

instruction in Beechcraft Bonanza 

aircraft equipped with a functioning 

throwover control wheel instead of 

functioning dual controls. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7991A.

Docket No.: FAA–2002–13712. 

Petitioner: Mr. Kerrick R. Philleo. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

91.109(a). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Mr. Kerrick R. 

Philleo to conduct certain flight 

instruction in Beechcraft Bonanza and 

Beechcraft Debonair airplanes equipped 

with a functioning throwover control 

wheel in place of functioning dual 

controls. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7930A.

Docket No.: FAA–2004–19150. 

Petitioner: Mr. Walter B. Atkinson. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

91.109(a). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Mr. Walter B. 

Atkinson to conduct certain flight 

training in certain Beechcraft Bonanza/

Debonair/Baron airplanes that are 

equipped with a functioning throwover 

control wheel. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

8416.

Docket No.: FAA–2004–19178. 

Petitioner: Verticare. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Verticare to 

operate certain aircraft under part 135 

without a TSO–C112 (Mode S) 

transponder installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/4/2004, Exemption No. 

8418.

Docket No.: FAA–2003–14366. 

Petitioner: Baby B’Air, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B) and (C); 

121.311(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (c)(1); 

125.211(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (c)(1); and 

135.128(a)(2)(ii), (iii), and (b)(1). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Baby B’Air Inc., 

to use the Baby B’Air Flight Vest, a vesttype, lap-held child restraint system 

during takeoff, landing, and movement 

on surface. 

Denial, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

8417.

Docket No.: FAA–2004–19145. 

Petitioner: Big Sioux Aviation, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Big Sioux 

Aviation, Inc., to operate certain aircraft 

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 

(Mode S) transponder installed on those 

aircraft. 

Grant, 9/29/2004, Exemption No. 

8412.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–10509. 

Petitioner: Eagle Air Corporation. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Eagle Air 

Corporation to operate certain aircraft 

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 

(Mode S) installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 9/21/2004, Exemption No. 

8410.

Docket No.: FAA–2002–11575. 

Petitioner: Rhinelander Flying 

Service. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Rhinelander 

Flying Service to operation certain 

aircraft under part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on 

their Piper PA31–310 N9149Z Serial No. 

8112007 aircraft.

Grant, 9/29/2004, Exemption No. 

7793B.

Docket No.: FAA–2004–19238. 

Petitioner: Air West, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Air West, Inc., to 

operate certain aircraft under part 135 

without a TSO–C112 (Mode S) 

transponder installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

8414.

Docket No.: FAA–2004–19213. 

Petitioner: Helicopter Experts, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Helicopter 

Experts, Inc., to operate certain aircraft 

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 

(Mode S) transponder installed on those 

aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

8415.

Docket No.: FAA–2003–15969. 

Petitioner: Northern Air Cargo, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

121.345(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Northern Air 

Cargo, Inc., to operate certain aircraft 

under part 121 without a TSO–C112 

(Mode S) transponder installed on those 

aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

8121B.

Docket No.: FAA–2002–17147. 

Petitioner: Helicorp, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Helicorp, Inc., to 

operate certain aircraft under part 135 

without a TSO–C112 (Mode S) 

transponder installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7947A.

Docket No.: FAA–2003–14251. 

Petitioner: Frontline Aviation, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Frontline 

Aviation, Inc., to operate certain aircraft, 

listed in the exemption, under part 135 

with a TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponder 

installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7987A.

Docket No.: FAA–2001–10414. 

Petitioner: Air Cargo Carriers, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Air Cargo 

Carriers, Inc., to operate certain aircraft 

under part 135 without a TSO–C112 

(Mode S) transponder installed on those 

aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7124C.

Docket No.: FAA–2003–14545. 

Petitioner: Temsco Helicopters, Inc. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Temsco 

Helicopters, Inc., to operate certain 

aircraft under part 135 without a TSO–

C112 (Mode S) transponder installed on 

those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7993A.

Docket No.: FAA–2000–8143. 

Petitioner: Peninsula Airways, Inc., 

d.b.a. PenAir. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.143(c)(2). 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Peninsula 

Airways, Inc., d.b.a. PenAir to operate 

certain aircraft under part 135 without 

a TSO–C112 (Mode S) transponder 

installed on those aircraft. 

Grant, 10/1/2004, Exemption No. 

7402B.

Docket No.: FAA–2002–12892. 

Petitioner: Central Air Flight Training, 

LLC. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 

135.251, 135.255, and 135.353, and 

appendices I and J to part 121. 

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Central Air 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2004 / Notices 61433

Flight Training, LLC, to conduct local 

sightseeing flights at the Columbiana 

County Airport, Liverpool, Ohio, for the 

Wings-N-Wheels airlift on or about 

September 19, 2004, with a rain date on 

or about September 26, 2004, for 

compensation or hire, complying with 

certain anti-drug and alcohol misuse 

prevention requirements of part 135, 

subject to the conditions and 

limitations. 

Grant, 9/17/2004, Exemption No. 

8411.

[FR Doc. 04–23256 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2004–

18665] 

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping 

Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

proposed collection of information. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Under procedures established 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information, including extensions and 

reinstatement of previously approved 

collections. 

This document describes one 

collection of information for which 

NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the 

docket notice numbers cited at the 

beginning of this notice and be 

submitted to Docket Management, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Please identify 

the proposed collection of information 

for which a comment is provided, by 

referencing its OMB clearance Number. 

It is requested, but not required, that 2 

copies of the comment be provided. The 

Docket Section is open on weekdays 

from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION: Dennis 

Flemons at the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis (NPO–

103), 202–366–5389, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Room 6213, Washington, DC 

20590. Please identify the relevant 

collection of information by referring to 

its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must first publish a 

document in the Federal Register

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

The OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: (i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (iii) how to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(iv) how to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g. permitting 

electronic submission of responses. In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following proposed 

collections of information: 

(1) Title: Fatal Accident Reporting 

System (FARS). OMB Control Number: 2127–0006. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Government. 

Abstract: Under both the Highway 

Safety Act of 1966 and the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1966, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the 

responsibility to collect accident data 

that support the establishment and 

enforcement of motor vehicle 

regulations and highway safety 

programs. These regulations and 

programs are developed to reduce the 

severity of injury and the property 

damage associated with motor vehicle 

accidents. The Fatal Accident Reporting 

System (FARS) is a major system that 

acquires national fatality information 

directly from existing State files and 

documents. Since FARS is an on-going 

data acquisition system, reviews are 

conducted yearly to determine whether 

the data acquired are responsive to the 

total user population needs. The total 

user population includes Federal and 

State agencies and the private sector. 

Annual changes in the forms are minor 

in terms of operation and method of 

data acquisition, and do not affect the 

reporting burden of the respondent 

(State employees utilize existing State 

accident files). The changes usually 

involve clarification adjustments to aid 

statisticians in conducting more precise 

analyses and to remove potential 

ambiguity for the respondents. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 82,364 

hours. 

Number of Respondents: 52. 

Comments are invited on: whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology.

Issued on: July 20, 2004. 

Joseph Carra, 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis.

[FR Doc. 04–23253 Filed 10–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[Ex Parte No. 333] 

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., October 20, 

2004.

PLACE: The Board’s Hearing Room, 

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423.

STATUS: The Board will meet to discuss 

among themselves the following agenda 

items. Although the conference is open 

for public observation, no public 

participation is permitted.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: STB Docket 

No. 42069, Duke Energy Corporation v. 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company.

STB Docket No. 42070, Duke Energy 

Corporation v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

STB Docket No. 42072, Carolina 

Power & Light Company v. Norfolk 

Southern Railway Company.

STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (SubNo. 91), CSX Corporation and CSX 

Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern