20034 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Short Brothers, 

Airworthiness & Engineering Quality, P.O. 

Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ, 

Northern Ireland. 

(3) You may review copies at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 

2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7118 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 204 and 399 

[Docket No. OST–2003–15759] 

RIN 2105–AD25 

Review of Data Filed by Certificated or 

Commuter Air Carriers To Support 

Continuing Fitness Determinations 

Involving Citizenship Issues 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department is adopting 

its proposed editorial changes to its 

rules on Data to Support Fitness 

Determinations, 14 CFR part 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The Department had earlier withdrawn 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 U.S. citizens. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective 

May 23, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William M. Bertram, Chief, Air Carrier 

Fitness Division (X–56), Office of 

Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–9721. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

By statute, only citizens of the United 

States may obtain and hold certificate 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 41102 or 

41103 authorizing them to provide air 

transportation within the United States 

or operate as a U.S. air carrier on 

international routes. The statutory 

citizenship requirements require that at 

least 75 percent of the voting interest of 

a U.S. air carrier be owned and 

controlled by U.S. citizens, that the 

president and two-thirds of the board of 

directors and managing officers be U.S. 

citizens, and that U.S. carriers be subject 

to the actual control of U.S. citizens. 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(15). In this proceeding, 

we invited public comment on three 

matters related to our consideration of 

citizenship issues: (i) We proposed 

technical changes to our rules governing 

citizenship and fitness determinations, 

14 CFR part 204; (ii) we considered 

whether we should modify our 

procedures for reviewing whether a 

carrier is complying with the continuing 

citizenship requirement; and (iii) we 

proposed to modify the standards used 

for determining whether a carrier is 

actually controlled by U.S. citizens. We 

have withdrawn the proposal to modify 

our standards on actual control. 71 FR 

71106 (December 8, 2006). In this final 

rule, we are resolving the other two 

matters. We are adopting the proposed 

technical changes to part 204, and we 

explain why we have decided to 

continue following our procedural 

practices in continuing fitness cases. 

Background 

We examine carrier citizenship 

primarily in two situations. First, when 

a firm applies for authority to operate as 

a U.S. carrier, we conduct an initial 

fitness review, which necessarily 

includes a review of the carrier’s 

citizenship. We conduct initial fitness 

reviews through docketed proceedings, 

where a public record of the pleadings 

is maintained; we publish all 

Department decisions in the case; and 

we give interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the 

application. Second, we conduct a 

continuing fitness review if an existing 

carrier undergoes a substantial change 

in ownership, operations, or 

management. We usually conduct 

continuing fitness investigations 

without a public proceeding and 

therefore do not create a docket 

containing record material, publish a 

final decision, or provide an 

opportunity for public comment. In 

some continuing fitness cases, we may 

decide to use more formal public 

procedures. See 71 FR 26426–26427. 

Rulemaking Notices 

We issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to 

update our interpretation of actual 

control and to continue using our 

informal procedures in most continuing 

fitness reviews. 70 FR 67389 (November 

7, 2005). We also proposed changes to 

part 204 to correct minor typographical 

errors, update statutory references, and 

clarify some language. 70 FR 67395. We 

thereafter issued a Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to 

address the comments made on the 

NPRM, and to propose additional 

refinements to our proposed 

modification of our actual control 

standard. 71 FR 26425 (May 5, 2006). 

We again proposed to continue using 

our informal procedures in most 

continuing fitness reviews. 

In the NPRM and SNPRM, we stated 

that we had tentatively determined to 

continue using the same informal 

procedures for continuing fitness 

reviews that we have always used. 71 

FR 26436; 70 FR 67392. We believed 

that significant potential harm could 

result if we made all substantial foreign 

investment cases subject to public 

notice and comment, and that using 

public proceedings in all significant 

cases appeared to be unnecessary for the 

protection of interested persons. We 

stated that we would have the option of 

beginning a public proceeding in any 

case if we found that doing so would be 

useful. 71 FR 26436. 

Comments 

The comments on the NPRM and 

SNPRM focused on our proposed 

change to our standard for defining 

when U.S. citizens had actual control of 

a U.S. carrier. None of the commenters 

opposed our proposed changes to part 

204. While several commenters 

discussed the procedural issues in their 

responses to our NPRM, only 

Continental commented in any detail on 

our SNPRM’s proposed decision to 

continue using informal procedures in 

most continuing fitness reviews. 

Continental asserted that the informal 

procedures enable us to resolve 

citizenship matters after negotiating 

only with the carrier and its foreign 

investors, not with other persons 

affected by the transaction. Continental 

Comments at 9. 

Decision on Procedures 

We have determined to continue 

following our existing procedures for 

continuing fitness reviews for the 

reasons stated in our earlier notices. We 

can, of course, always choose to use 

public procedures in any continuing 

fitness review, and interested persons 

have the right to ask us to do so. See 71 

FR 26436. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20035 

We think that our procedures give the 

public a significant amount of 

information on our decisions in fitness 

cases, notwithstanding Continental’s 

assertion to the contrary, although we 

will be considering whether they can be 

improved. First, we decide all initial 

fitness cases in public orders that 

explain the basis for our decision on all 

significant issues. If such a case presents 

a significant citizenship issue, the order 

deciding the case will discuss why we 

find that the applicant is (or is not) 

actually controlled by U.S. citizens. 

Second, in continuing fitness reviews 

where we begin public proceedings, any 

final decision on the merits would be a 

public order that would explain the 

basis for that decision. 

When we use the more informal 

procedures in continuing fitness 

reviews, we do not publish our final 

decision explaining our analysis of any 

citizenship issues. However, we will be 

following the same procedures in such 

cases that we use in other situations 

where we believe that a carrier or other 

person may have violated our 

regulations or statute. Continental has 

presented no reason why we should 

treat continuing fitness reviews 

differently from all other enforcement 

investigations, which are typically done 

informally unless the enforcement office 

determines that there is a need for a 

formal enforcement proceeding. 

Nevertheless, we think it may be 

helpful if carriers, potential investors, 

and the public generally had additional 

information on our analyses in 

citizenship cases. We will consider 

developing procedures that would give 

the public more information on our 

decisions in citizenship matters, and we 

are actively exploring whether there are 

practicable means of doing so in 

appropriate cases. 

Airports Council International—

Europe (‘‘ACI’’), bmi, and Virgin 

Atlantic Airways would like us to make 

commitments on the timetable for the 

completion of our review of citizenship 

issues in initial fitness cases. bmi 

Comments at 2; Virgin Atlantic 

Comments at 4; ACI Comments at 2. We 

appreciate the interest of a carrier and 

its investors, officers, and employees in 

obtaining a prompt decision from us on 

any application for operating authority. 

We intend to complete our decisions in 

such cases as promptly as possible and 

with the aim of imposing the minimum 

administrative burden consistent with 

ensuring that the standards we have set 

forth are met. However, we do not 

proceed on an initial application for 

operating authority until the record is 

complete, and the applicant has the 

responsibility of providing us with a 

complete record. 14 CFR 302.209. 

Citizenship, moreover, is but one of 

several matters that must be addressed 

in determining whether a carrier is fit, 

for we must also review the applicant’s 

financial fitness, managerial 

competence, and compliance 

disposition. In initial fitness cases 

deadlines for the completion of our 

decision-making process are set by 49 

U.S.C. 41108 and 14 CFR part 302, 

subpart B. 

Part 204 Modifications 

Part 204 of our rules governs the data 

needed for fitness determinations. We 

proposed minor changes to that part to 

correct typographical errors, clarify 

some language, and update references to 

the applicable statutory language. 71 FR 

26436. In section 204.2, we are 

amending the definition of ‘‘citizen of 

the United States’’ to mirror the 

language that is now contained in 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(15). We believe that the 

regulations should mirror the text of the 

statute as it is currently written. Finally, 

we are making minor changes to section 

204.5 to clarify language in paragraph 

(a)(2); deleting a typographical error in 

paragraph (b); revising the address in 

paragraph (c); and adding a new 

paragraph (d) that would replace the last 

sentence of paragraph (c). These 

amendments to part 204 should make 

the regulations easier to understand for 

carriers consulting the sections. Because 

we have withdrawn the proposed policy 

statement on our standards for 

determining actual control, we will not 

adopt the proposal to include a crossreference to that policy statement in part 

204. 

No commenter opposed these 

changes, and we find that they should 

be made for the reasons given in the 

SNPRM. 

Rulemaking 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. This 

rulemaking was initially considered 

significant under DOT Policies and 

Procedures and E.O. 12866 because of 

significant public interest in our 

proposal to adopt a policy statement 

modifying our standards for 

determining actual control. The NPRM 

and the SNPRM were reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. In the NPRM 

and SNPRM, we tentatively concluded 

that the benefits of our proposed rule 

would outweigh its costs, which would 

be minimal because the rule would not 

impose any new costs on the affected 

certificated and commuter air carriers. 

70 FR 67389, 67395; 71 FR 26440. 

Commenters had an opportunity to 

submit comments on our tentative 

analysis. None of the commenters 

submitted comments on our tentative 

regulatory evaluation. 

We have withdrawn the proposed 

policy statement, 71 FR 71106 

(December 8, 2006), and there is no 

significant public interest in the 

technical changes that we are adopting 

for part 204, which will not make any 

substantive changes. In this proceeding 

we are not changing our procedures for 

resolving continuing fitness issues. 

This final rule is not considered 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and was not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. This rule 

would result in little, if any cost. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, requires federal 

agencies, as part of each rule, to 

consider regulatory alternatives that 

minimize the impact on small entities 

while achieving the objectives of the 

rulemaking. This rule makes only 

editorial amendments to part 204 that 

do not change its substance. We certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Trade Impact Assessments 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that U.S. 

standards be compatible. The 

Department has assessed the potential 

effect of this rule and has determined 

that it will have no effect on any tradesensitive activity. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is the Department’s 

policy to comply with International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

to the maximum extent practicable. The 

Department has determined that there 

are no ICAO Standards and 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES
20036 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Recommended Practices that 

correspond to these regulations. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1955 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act requires each Federal 

agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal 

mandate in a proposed or final agency 

rule that may result in an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ This 

rule does not contain such a mandate. 

The requirements of Title II of the Act, 

therefore, do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 

43255). This rule does not have a 

substantial direct effect on, or 

significant federalism implications for 

the States, nor would it limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States. 

This rule would not directly preempt 

any State law or regulation, nor impose 

burdens on the States. This action 

would not have a significant effect on 

the States’ ability to execute traditional 

State governmental functions. The 

agency has, therefore, determined that 

this proposal does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

either the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement or require 

consultations with State and local 

governments. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires 

Federal agencies to obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulation. The agency 

has determined that the rule would not 

impose any additional requirements and 

does not change the paperwork 

collection that currently exists. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 204 

Air carriers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 399 

Administration practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Consumer 

protection. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Department amends 14 CFR part 204 

as set forth below: 

PART 204—DATA TO SUPPORT 

FITNESS DETERMINATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 204 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 411, 

417. 

■ 2. Revise § 204.1 to read as follows: 

§ 204.1 Purpose. 

This part sets forth the fitness data 

that must be submitted by applicants for 

certificate authority, by applicants for 

authority to provide service as a 

commuter air carrier to an eligible place, 

by carriers proposing to provide 

essential air transportation, and by 

certificated air carriers and commuter 

air carriers proposing a substantial 

change in operations, ownership, or 

management. This part also contains the 

procedures and filing requirements 

applicable to carriers that hold dormant 

authority. 

■ 3. Revise § 204.2(c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 204.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Citizen of the United States means: 

* * * * * 

(3) A corporation or association 

organized under the laws of the United 

States or a State, the District of 

Columbia, or a territory or possession of 

the United States, of which the 

president and at least two-thirds of the 

board of directors and other managing 

officers are citizens of the United States, 

which is under the actual control of 

citizens of the United States, and in 

which at least 75 percent of the voting 

interest is owned or controlled by 

persons that are citizens of the United 

States. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 204.5 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

set forth below; 

■ B. Amend paragraph (b) to remove the 

‘‘s’’ after ‘‘Carrier’’ in the third sentence 

in the reference to ‘‘Air Carrier Fitness 

Division’’; 

■ C. Revise paragraph (c) to read as set 

forth below; and 

■ D. Add a new paragraph (d) to read as 

set forth below. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 204.5 Certificated and commuter air 

carriers undergoing or proposing to 

undergo a substantial change in operations, 

ownership, or management. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The change substantially alters the 

factors upon which its latest fitness 

finding is based, even if no new 

authority is required. 

* * * * * 

(c) Information filings pursuant to this 

section made to support an application 

for new or amended certificate authority 

shall be filed with the application and 

addressed to Docket Operations, M–30, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC 20590, or by electronic 

submission at [http://dms.dot.gov]. 

(d) Information filed in support of a 

certificated or commuter air carrier’s 

continuing fitness to operate under its 

existing authority in light of substantial 

changes in its operations, management, 

or ownership, including changes that 

may affect the air carrier’s citizenship, 

shall be addressed to the Chief, Air 

Carrier Fitness Division, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 16, 

2007. 

Andrew B. Steinberg, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E7–7605 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–AU80 

[Docket No. 061016268–7080–02; I.D. 

100506E] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Regulatory Amendment to 

Modify Recordkeeping and Reporting 

and Observer Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement measures to modify the 

existing reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for federally permitted 

seafood dealers/processors, and the 

observer requirements for participating 

hagfish vessels. The New England 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC74 with RULES