Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14837 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 

for International Carriage by Air, adopted on May 

28, 1999 at Montreal. 

2The quoted language might absolve a carrier 

from liability for a fragile item that is damaged 

during transport. It would not absolve the carrier 

from liability for the item’s loss or theft. 

of investors and the public interest. 

Therefore, the Commission designates 

the proposal operative upon filing. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission may summarily abrogate 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–02 on 

the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–02. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC 20549, on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Copies of such filing also will be 

available for inspection and copying at 

the principal office of the Exchange. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make publicly available. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–02 and 

should be submitted on or before April 

22, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7217 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Interest Rates 

The Small Business Administration 

publishes an interest rate called the 

optional ‘‘peg’’ rate (13 CFR 120.214) on 

a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted 

average cost of money to the 

government for maturities similar to the 

average SBA direct loan. This rate may 

be used as a base rate for guaranteed 

fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This 

rate will be 3.375 (33⁄8) percent for the 

April–June quarter of FY 2009. 

Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the 

maximum legal interest rate for any 

third party lender’s commercial loan 

which funds any portion of the cost of 

a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall 

be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, 

if that exceeds the maximum interest 

rate permitted by the constitution or 

laws of a given State, the maximum 

interest rate will be the rate permitted 

by the constitution or laws of the given 

State. 

Grady B. Hedgespeth, 

Director, Office of Financial Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–7315 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Providing Guidance on Airline 

Baggage Liability and Responsibilities 

of Code Share Partners Involving 

International Itineraries 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department is publishing 

the following notice on Airline Baggage 

Liability and Responsibilities of Code 

Share Partners Involving International 

Itineraries. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Lowry, Attorney, Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

(C–70), 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE.,Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366– 

9349. 

This notice is intended to give 

guidance to U.S. and foreign air carriers 

on two tariff matters: First, tariffs 

relating to liability for lost, stolen, 

delayed or damaged baggage carried on 

international itineraries; and second, 

tariffs that appear to assign 

responsibility, in code-share service, to 

the operating carrier rather than the 

selling carrier (i.e., the carrier shown on 

the ticket). 

We have become aware of tariff 

provisions filed by several carriers that 

attempt, with respect to checked 

baggage, to exclude certain items, 

generally high-cost or fragile items such 

as electronics, cameras, jewelry or 

antiques, from liability for damage, 

delay, loss or theft. A typical provision 

found in carrier tariffs and disclosed on 

carrier Web sites states that the carrier 

does not assume liability for loss, 

damage, or delay of ‘‘certain specific 

items, including: * * * antiques, 

documents, electronic equipment, film, 

jewelry, keys, manuscripts, medication, 

money, paintings, photographs * * *.’’ 

Such exclusions, while not prohibited 

in domestic contracts of carriage, are in 

contravention of Article 17 of the 

Montreal Convention (Convention),1 as 

revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 

provides that carriers are liable for 

damaged or lost baggage if the 

‘‘destruction, loss or damage’’ occurred 

while the checked baggage was within 

the custody of the carrier, except to the 

extent that the damage ‘‘resulted from 

the inherent defect, quality or vice of 

the baggage.’’ 2 Article 19 provides that 

a carrier is liable for damage caused by 

delay in the carriage of baggage, except 

to the extent that it proves that it took 

all reasonable measures to prevent the 

damage or that it was impossible to take 

such measures. Although carriers may 

wish to have tariff terms that prohibit 

passengers from including certain items 

in checked baggage, once a carrier 

accepts checked baggage, whatever is 

contained in the checked baggage is 

protected, subject to the terms of the 

14838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

3Article 22, para. 2 also allows the passenger to 

declare excess value for baggage, subject to payment 

of a supplementary fee if the carrier so requires. 

Some tariff provisions state that the higher declared 

value shall not apply to a list of valuable articles 

including ‘‘money, jewelry, silverware, negotiable 

papers, securities, business documents, samples, 

paintings * * *.’’ Such rules are also inconsistent 

with the Convention. 

4Similar language occurs in numerous other 

approvals of code-share services. 

Convention, up to the limit of 1000 

SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para. 2.).3

Carriers should review their filed tariffs 

on this matter and modify their tariffs 

and their baggage claim policies, if 

necessary, to conform to the terms of the 

Convention. In addition, carriers should 

ensure that their websites do not 

contain improper information regarding 

baggage liability exclusions applicable 

to international service. 

A second issue of concern stems from 

airline tariffs related to code-share 

service. As a condition for approval of 

international code-share services, the 

Department has as a matter of policy 

required that ‘‘the carrier selling such 

transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on 

the ticket) accept responsibility for the 

entirety of the code-share journey for all 

obligations established in the contract of 

carriage with the passenger; and that the 

passenger liability of the operating 

carrier be unaffected.’’ (Order 2008–5– 

19, OST–2008–0064).4 Notwithstanding 

this clear language, several carriers have 

filed tariff provisions that purport to 

apply the terms and conditions of the 

operating carrier’s contract of carriage 

generally, or in certain areas such as 

check-in time limits, unaccompanied 

minors, carriage of animals, refusal to 

transport, oxygen service, irregular 

operations, denied boarding 

compensation, and baggage acceptance, 

allowance and liability. Others state that 

passengers on code-share flights ‘‘may 

be subject’’ to the operating carrier’s 

baggage charges. A number of carriers 

have no clear tariff rule on the subject. 

The intent of this DOT code-share 

approval provision may not be 

circumvented by tariff provisions 

attempting to allocate responsibility and 

contract of carriage provisions in 

different ways by the carriers involved, 

or by silence on the subject. As with the 

exclusionary provisions cited above, 

carriers should review their tariffs and 

practices and make revisions, if 

necessary, to reflect the conditions 

imposed in the Department’s orders 

approving code-share service. 

As a matter of policy, the Aviation 

Enforcement Office will consider the 

subject tariff provisions noted above 

involving exclusionary baggage 

provisions to be of no effect and in 

violation of the Convention and those 

involving code share relationships to be 

in violation of pertinent Department 

approvals of those code-share services. 

The tariffs and their application, and 

similar practices, in the view of the 

Aviation Enforcement Office, also 

constitute unfair or deceptive business 

practices and unfair methods of 

competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 

41712. Carriers should, therefore, 

review their tariffs and practices with 

respect to these two areas and, if 

necessary, immediately modify their 

practices to conform to the Convention 

and Department code-share conditions 

and, within 90 days of this notice, revise 

their respective tariffs and modify 

appropriately the statements of their 

baggage and code-share policies on their 

Web sites. After that date, the Aviation 

Enforcement Office will pursue 

enforcement action in appropriate cases. 

This disclosure guidance, it should be 

noted, also extends to ticket agents. 

Questions regarding this notice may be 

addressed to the Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings (C–70), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

Dated: March 26, 2009. 

By: 

Samuel Podberesky, 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings. 

An electronic version of this 

document is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

[FR Doc. E9–7264 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of 

Noise Compatibility Program and 

Request for Review; Kansas City 

International Airport, Kansas City, MO 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

determination that the noise exposure 

maps submitted by the Kansas City 

Aviation Department for the Kansas City 

International Airport under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. 

(Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 

Act, herein after referred to as ‘‘the 

Act’’) and 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 150 (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Part 150’’) are in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements. The FAA also announces 

that it is reviewing a proposed noise 

compatibility program that was 

submitted for the Kansas City 

International Airport under Part 150 in 

conjunction with the noise exposure 

map, and that this program will be 

approved or disapproved on or before 

September 16, 2009. 

DATES: The effective date of the FAA’s 

determination on the noise exposure 

maps and of the start of its review of the 

associated noise compatibility program 

is March 20, 2009. The public comment 

period ends May 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

FAA, Todd Madison, ACE–61 1 F, 901 

Locust, Room 335, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106–2325, 

todd.madison@faa.qov, 816–329–2640. 

Comments on the proposed noise 

compatibility program should also be 

submitted to the above office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces the FAA finds that the 

noise exposure maps submitted for the 

Kansas City International Airport are in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements of Part 150, effective 

March 20, 2009. Further, FAA is 

reviewing a proposed noise 

compatibility program for that airport 

which will be approved or disapproved 

on or before September 16, 2009. This 

notice also announces the availability of 

this program for public review and 

comment. 

Under 49 U.S.C., section 47503 of the 

Act, an airport operator may submit to 

the FAA noise exposure maps which 

meet applicable regulations and which 

depict non-compatible land uses as of 

the date of submission of such maps, a 

description of projected aircraft 

operations, and the ways in which such 

operations will affect such maps. The 

Act requires such maps to be developed 

in consultation with interested and 

affected parties in the local community, 

government agencies, and persons using 

the airport. 

An airport operator who has 

submitted noise exposure maps that are 

found by FAA to be in compliance with 

the requirements of Part 150, 

promulgated pursuant to the Act, may 

submit a noise compatibility program 

for FAA approval which sets forth the 

measures the operator has taken or 

proposes to take to reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent the 

introduction of additional noncompatible uses. 

The Kansas City Aviation Department 

submitted to the FAA on March 6, 2009, 

noise exposure maps, descriptions and 

other documentation that were 

produced during the ‘‘2008 Update to 14 

CFR Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps and