Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Notices 17823 

0941), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd 

Street, SW., Stop 7121, Washington, DC 

20593–7121. A member of the public 

requesting reasonable accommodation 

should make such request prior to April 

13, 2010. Requests made after this date 

might not be able to be accommodated. 

Please note that due to security 

considerations, two valid, government 

issued photo identifications must be 

presented to gain entrance to the 

Headquarters building. The 

Headquarters building is accessible by 

taxi and privately owned conveyance 

(public transportation is not generally 

available). However, parking in the 

vicinity of the building is extremely 

limited. Additional information 

regarding this and other IMO SHC 

public meetings may be found at: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/imo. 

This announcement might appear in 

the Federal Register less than 15 days 

prior to the meeting. The Department of 

State finds that there is an exceptional 

circumstance in that this advisory 

committee meeting must be held on 

April 20th in order to prepare for the 

IMO Diplomatic Conference to be 

convened on April 26th. 

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Greg O’Brien, 

Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7903 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6945] 

Notice of Meeting of the Cultural 

Property Advisory Committee 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Convention on Cultural Property 

Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601 et 

seq.) (the Act) there will be a meeting of 

the Cultural Property Advisory 

Committee on Thursday, May 6, 2010, 

from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., 

and on Friday, May 7, 2010, from 9:00 

a.m. to approximately 3 p.m., at the 

Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. During its 

meeting the Committee will review a 

proposal to extend the ‘‘Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the 

Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the 

Republic of Italy Concerning the 

Imposition of Import Restrictions on 

Categories of Archaeological Material 

Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical 

and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy’’ 

signed in Washington, DC on January 

19, 2001 and amended and extended in 

2006 through an exchange of diplomatic 

notes. The purpose of this review is for 

the Committee to make findings and a 

recommendation regarding the proposal 

to extend this Memorandum of 

Understanding. 

The Committee’s responsibilities are 

carried out in accordance with 

provisions of the Act. The U.S.—Italy 

Memorandum of Understanding, as 

amended and extended, the Designated 

List of restricted categories, the text of 

the Act and related information may be 

found at http://exchanges.state.gov/ 

heritage/culprop. 

Exercising delegated authority from 

the President and the Secretary of State, 

I have determined that portions of the 

meeting on May 6 and 7 will be closed 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 

19 U.S.C. 2605(h), because the 

disclosure of matters involved in the 

Committee’s proceedings would 

compromise the Government’s 

negotiation objectives or bargaining 

positions on the negotiations of this 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

However, on May 6, the Committee will 

hold an open session, 9:30 a.m. to 

approximately 11:30 a.m., to receive 

oral public comment on the proposal to 

extend the Memorandum of 

Understanding. Persons wishing to 

attend this open session should notify 

the Cultural Heritage Center of the 

Department of State at (202) 632–6301 

by Thursday, April 22, 2010, 5 p.m. 

(EDT) to arrange for admission, as 

seating is extremely limited. 

Those who wish to make oral 

presentations should request to be 

scheduled and submit a written text of 

the oral comments by Thursday, April 

22, 2010, to allow time for distribution 

of these comments to Committee 

members for their review prior to the 

meeting. Oral comments will be limited 

to five minutes each or less to allow 

time for questions from members of the 

Committee and must specifically 

address the determinations under 

section 303(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 

2602(a)(1), pursuant to which the 

Committee must make findings. This 

citation for the determinations can be 

found at the Web site noted above. The 

Committee also invites written 

comments and asks that they be 

submitted no later than April 22, 2010. 

All written materials, including the 

written texts of oral statements, should 

be faxed to (202) 632–6300, if 5 pages 

or less. Written comments greater than 

five pages in length must be duplicated 

(20 copies) and mailed to Cultural 

Heritage Center, SA–5, Fifth Floor, 

Department of State, Washington, DC 

20522–0505. Express mail is 

recommended for timely delivery. 

Dated: March 29, 2010. 

Judith A. McHale, 

Under Secretary, Public Diplomacy and 

Public Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7898 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6944] 

Notice of Proposal To Extend the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government 

of the Republic of Italy Concerning the 

Imposition of Import Restrictions on 

Categories of Archaeological Material 

Representing the Pre-Classical, 

Classical and Imperial Roman Periods 

of Italy 

The Government of the Republic of 

Italy has informed the Government of 

the United States of its interest in an 

extension of the Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the 

Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the 

Republic of Italy Concerning the 

Imposition of Import Restrictions on 

Categories of Archaeological Material 

Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical 

and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy 

and Public Affairs, and pursuant to the 

requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), 

an extension of this Memorandum of 

Understanding is hereby proposed. 

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the 

views and recommendations of the 

Cultural Property Advisory Committee 

regarding this proposal will be 

requested. 

A copy of this Memorandum of 

Understanding, the designated list of 

restricted categories of material, and 

related information can be found at the 

following Web site: http:// 

exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop. 

Dated: March 29, 2010. 

Judith A. McHale, 

Under Secretary, Public Diplomacy and 

Public Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7894 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Notice—Interpretation of 49 CFR 

158.45 

The Department received a request for 

a legal interpretation from the Interim 

Trustee of an air carrier in a Chapter 11 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

17824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Notices 

1Our conclusion is based solely on an analysis of 

12 CFR Section 226 and 49 U.S.C. Section 

40117(g)(4), as implemented by the relevant PFC 

regulations (as set forth below). 

liquidation proceeding, regarding an 

airport’s obligation to refund passenger 

facility charges (PFCs) for certain tickets 

purchased by consumers with credit 

cards. These tickets were never used 

due to the airline’s cessation of 

operations prior to the flight dates. On 

March 30, 2010, the Department sent the 

Interim Trustee the response re-printed 

below, which supersedes informal 

communications that the Department 

and the FAA have provided in prior 

instances. 

In the majority of airline customer 

refund requests, the Department has 

made clear that no refund of a PFC is 

due where no refund of the ticket is due, 

as is usually the case for non-refundable 

tickets. See 14 CFR 158.45(a); 72 FR 

28837 at 28843. However, a distinction 

must be made in an airline’s liquidation 

where the tickets in question were 

purchased by credit card, the defunct 

airline has not operated the relevant 

flights, and the defunct airline is no 

longer operating (and no delivery of the 

airline transportation service is 

therefore possible). In such an instance, 

pursuant to applicable regulations of the 

Federal Reserve System, enforced by the 

Department for airline ticket sales, a 

refund is due and owing to the 

customer, including the PFC. See 

Federal Truth in Lending Act/ 

Regulation Z requirements (12 CFR 

226.13(e); 14 CFR 374.3(b)). Because the 

Interim Trustee’s letter requested an 

interpretation only with respect to 

tickets purchased with credit cards, the 

Department’s letter addresses only that 

situation. We defer to the Bankruptcy 

Court on which party may properly 

claim repayment of the PFCs from the 

airports (Aloha’s bankruptcy estate or 

the credit card processor that has 

refunded such amounts to the ticket 

purchasers), or how such collection 

should be effected. If any questions 

arise, please feel free to contact Ronald 

Jackson, DOT Assistant General Counsel 

for Operations, at 202–366–9151. 

Issued on March 31, 2010. 

Ronald Jackson, 

Assistant General Counsel for Operations. 

Dane S. Field 

Interim Trustee 

Estate of Aloha Airlines 

P.O. Box 4198 

Honolulu, HI 96812–4198 

Re: Passenger Facility Charge Refunds 

Dear Mr. Field: This responds to your 

March 9, 2009 letter to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

General Counsel submitted in your 

capacity as Interim Trustee for Aloha 

Airlines, which ceased operations on 

March 31, 2008. Thank you for your 

patience as we have reviewed this 

matter. 

Specifically, you request ‘‘assistance 

in providing guidance to the airports 

that refund of [Passenger Facility 

Charges (PFCs)] by airports is 

appropriate when refunds for unusable 

tickets have been refunded to ticket 

purchasers as a part of a full ticket 

refund initiated by the airline ticket 

purchasers.’’ Your letter refers in 

particular to situations in which the 

customer held a ticket for an Aloha 

flight scheduled for March 31, 2008 or 

later, contacted his/her credit card 

processor to request a refund given 

Aloha’s cessation of operations, and 

received the refund—including a refund 

of the PFC associated with the ticket. 

Now Aloha’s bankruptcy estate seeks to 

obtain from the relevant airports the 

amount of PFCs refunded to these 

customers, but not all of the airports 

have refunded the amounts to Aloha’s 

estate. As a matter of aviation law (as 

opposed to bankruptcy law), we believe 

a refund of the PFCs by the relevant 

airports is appropriate where an airline 

fails to provide the purchased flight due 

to liquidation in bankruptcy.1 However, 

out of deference to the Bankruptcy 

Court presiding over Aloha’s estate, we 

offer no opinion on which party may 

properly claim repayment of the PFCs 

from the airports (Aloha’s bankruptcy 

estate or the credit card processor that 

has refunded such amounts to the ticket 

purchasers), or how such collection 

should be effected. 

In support of Aloha’s position, you 

cite 14 CFR Section 158.45(a)(3)(i), 

which states that, ‘‘Any change in 

itinerary initiated by a passenger that 

requires an adjustment to the amount 

paid by the passenger is subject to 

collection or refund of the PFC as 

appropriate.’’ Section 158.45(a)(3)(ii), on 

the other hand, states that a passenger’s 

‘‘failure to travel on a nonrefundable or 

expired ticket is not a change in 

itinerary’’ requiring a PFC refund. 

(Italics added.) Arguing against the 

application of the latter provision, you 

state that it was Aloha that ceased 

operations, and thus the passenger did 

not ‘‘fail’’ to travel. As you explain, ‘‘The 

ticket purchasers requested refund of 

non-expired tickets on which it is not 

possible to travel, due to the actions of 

others, and not the ticket purchaser’s 

inaction.’’ Furthermore, you note that 

the tickets were ‘‘basically usable or 

refundable until one year after 

issuance.’’ 

It is important to note that the 

prohibition of refunds in Section 

158.45(a)(3)(ii) covers only ‘‘a 

nonrefundable or expired ticket.’’ 

Section 158.45(a)(3)(ii) further provides 

that, ‘‘[i]f the ticket purchaser is not 

permitted any fare refund on the unused 

ticket, the ticket purchaser is not 

permitted a refund of any PFC 

associated with that ticket.’’ In the 

matter before us, DOT understands that 

the ticket purchasers were given a 

refund of the full fare, including PFCs, 

by the credit card processor. Such 

refunds would be required from a credit 

card processor by 12 CFR Sections 

226.13(a)(3) and (e)(1), both of which 

are applicable to credit card processors 

working with air carriers under 14 CFR 

Section 374.3(b), in the event of a 

‘‘billing error.’’ The regulations define 

‘‘billing error’’ as including ‘‘a reflection 

on or with a periodic statement of an 

extension of credit for property or 

services * * * not delivered to the 

consumer or the consumer’s designee as 

agreed,’’ 12 CFR § 226.13(a)(3) (italics 

added), in which case—at least as an 

initial matter pending further 

investigation—the credit card processor 

must ‘‘[c]orrect the billing error and 

credit the consumer’s account with any 

disputed amount and related finance or 

other charges, as applicable.’’ 12 CFR 

§ 226.13(e)(1). Barring a reversal of the 

refund following an investigation, it is 

then up to the credit card processor and 

the merchant to work out the matter 

between themselves, and in the case of 

a bankruptcy, subject to the terms of any 

bankruptcy stay or other bankruptcy 

requirements. 

If full fare refunds to the ticket 

purchasers by the credit card processors 

were indeed required by 12 CFR 

Sections 226.13(a)(3) and (e)(1), then the 

tickets at issue could not be considered 

‘‘nonrefundable’’ under Section 

158.45(a)(3)(ii). Therefore, the 

prohibition of PFC refunds in 

158.45(a)(3)(ii) is inapplicable, and a 

refund of the PFCs would be 

appropriate. Moreover, if the 

Bankruptcy Court should also find as a 

factual matter that the tickets under 

their terms were refundable by Aloha as 

of the bankruptcy filing date, then that 

would provide a further basis for a 

refund. 

You indicate that Aloha requests that 

the airports submit the refunds to the 

Aloha bankruptcy estate. We do not 

offer an opinion on that particular issue. 

As stated above, we defer to the 

Bankruptcy Court on the appropriate 

treatment of the PFC revenues. We do 

note that under 49 U.S.C. Section 

40117(g) and 14 CFR Section 158.49(b), 

an air carrier or its agent holds collected 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Notices 17825 

PFC revenues in ‘‘trust’’ for the 

beneficial interest of the eligible agency 

imposing the fee, and neither the carrier 

nor its agent holds legal or equitable 

interest in the revenues (with 

exceptions not relevant here). This is 

not to set forth a DOT position that 

Aloha may not collect the refundable 

PFC revenues; rather, as stated above, 

out of deference to the Bankruptcy 

Court and because we are not privy to 

Aloha’s arrangements with the credit 

card processors or the flow of funds in 

this matter, we defer to the Bankruptcy 

Court on all such matters, including 

which party may properly claim 

repayment of the PFCs, how such 

collection should be effected, and 

whether the airports have some other 

claim to the revenues in these 

circumstances based on an accounting 

error or otherwise. But should refund be 

appropriate, any solution must ensure 

that the flow of funds among Aloha, the 

credit card processors, and the airports 

complies with 14 CFR Sections 158.45 

and 158.49. 

We appreciate the importance of your 

work on Aloha’s behalf, and we hope 

that you find this letter helpful. As a 

courtesy, we are copying the 

Bankruptcy Court Judge and airports 

that may be affected by this letter. To be 

clear, however, this letter is not 

intended as a DOT position in the 

bankruptcy proceeding, or any type of 

final agency action; rather, we are 

merely providing guidance on the 

interpretation of the PFC regulations, in 

response to your request. If you have 

any further questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact me at (202) 366– 

4710. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald Jackson, 

Assistant General Counsel for Operations 

cc: United States Bankruptcy Court, 

District of Hawaii Airport Managers 

or PFC Contacts for the following 

airports: 

• Sacramento International Airport 

(SMF) 

• San Francisco International Airport 

(SFO) 

• John Wayne-Orange County Airport 

(SNA) 

• Oakland International Airport 

(OAK) 

• Denver International Airport (DEN) 

• Los Angeles International Airport 

(LAX) 

• Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport (ORD) 

• San Diego International Airport 

(SAN) 

[FR Doc. 2010–7887 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2009–0304] 

Request for Public Comments and 

OMB Approval of Existing Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration. 

ACTION: Request for Public Comments 

and OMB approval of existing 

Information Collection. 

SUMMARY: On October 15, 2009, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) published a notice in the 

Federal Register to invite comments on 

a proposed revision to an information 

collection under Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137– 

0584, titled ‘‘Gas and Hazardous Liquid 

Pipeline Safety Program.’’ Three 

comments were received. PHMSA is 

publishing this notice to respond to 

those comments, provide the public 

with an additional 30 days to comment 

on the proposed revision, and announce 

that the revised Information Collection 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before May 7, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number 

PHMSA–2009–0304 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 1–202–395–6566. 

• Mail: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), 726 

Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

• E-mail: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget, at the 

following address: 

oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cameron Satterthwaite by telephone at 

202–366–1319, by fax at 202–366–4566, 

or by mail at U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP–30, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal 

Regulations requires PHMSA to provide 

interested members of the public and 

affected agencies an opportunity to 

comment on information collection and 

recordkeeping requests. This notice 

identifies an information collection 

request that PHMSA is submitting to 

OMB for revision under OMB Control 

No. 2137–0584. This information 

collection is contained in 49 CFR part 

198. 

PHMSA received comments on the 

proposed revisions to the information 

collection from Carolinas AGC, Florida 

Public Service Commission, and the 

National Association of Pipeline Safety 

Representatives (NAPSR). Each of these 

entities expressed concerns regarding 

changes to the performance factors 

(questions with points) or the weights of 

each factor (score) in the overall scoring 

of the certification part of the grant 

allocation formula for the pipeline 

safety grant program. PHMSA is not 

making any changes to these areas. 

Rather, PHMSA is only revising the 

information collection to incorporate 

the use of tools that help to determine 

the amount of funds received by each 

participating State, and the parameters 

for those tools have been established for 

several years. PHMSA is proceeding 

with the tools specified in the Docket. 

An estimate of the revised burden is 

as follows: 

Title: Pipeline Safety: Gas and 

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety 

Program Certifications. 

OMB Control Number: 2137–0584. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: A State agency participating 

in the pipeline safety program must 

maintain records to demonstrate that the 

agency is properly monitoring the 

operations of pipeline operators in that 

State. The State agency must also 

submit an annual certificate to PHMSA 

verifying compliance. PHMSA uses the 

information collected to evaluate the 

State’s eligibility for Federal grants. 

Estimated number of respondents: 67. 

Estimated annual burden hours: 3,920 

hours. 

Frequency of collection: Annually. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 

2010. 

Alan K. Mayberry, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Field 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7930 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES