Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices 21845

1Our X.400 e-mail address is S=dotdockets/

OU1=qmail/O=hq/p=gov+dot/a=attmail/c=us.

while meeting national security

requirements.

Given the diverse positions of our

trading partners and their varying

degrees of willingness to liberalize

aviation relations, we must also have a

strategy for dealing with countries that

are not prepared or willing to join us in

moving quickly to an unrestricted air

service regime. Our approach is a

practical one: It proposes to advance the

liberalization of air service regimes as

far as our partners are willing to go, and

to withhold benefits from those

countries that are not willing to move

forward. Specifically, we will pursue

the following strategy:

1. We will offer liberal agreements to

a country or group of countries if it can

be justified economically or

strategically. We will view economic

value more broadly than we have in the

past, in terms of both direct and indirect

access and in terms of potential future

development. Moreover, there may be

strategic value in adopting liberal

agreements with smaller countries

where doing so puts competitive

pressure on neighboring countries to

follow suit.

2. We recognize that some countries

believe that they can resist the trend of

economic forces and continue to control

access to their markets tightly. We

believe that they cannot, and that

attempts to do so will ultimately fail.

Nevertheless, we will work with these

countries to develop alternatives that

address their immediate concerns where

this will advance our international

aviation policy objectives. We will

examine alternative approaches that

may include departing from established

methods of negotiation (perhaps

negotiations with two or more trading

partners); trying to develop service

opportunities for the foreign airline to

make service to the U.S. more

economically advantageous for it; and

continuing our efforts to help those

governments and their constituencies

appreciate the benefits that unrestricted

air services can bring to their economies

and industries.

While we work with such countries,

we can consider, in the interim,

transitional or sectoral agreements.

Transitional agreements—Under this

approach, we would agree to a specified

phased removal of restrictions and

liberalization of the air service market.

This approach contemplates that both

sides would agree, from the beginning,

to a completely liberalized air service

regime that would come into effect at

the end of a certain period of time.

Sectoral agreements—Traditionally,

aviation agreements have covered all

elements of air transportation between

two countries. However, as a first step,

we can consider agreements that

eliminate restrictions only on services

in specific aviation sectors, such as air

cargo or charter services.

3. For countries that are not willing to

advance liberalization of the market, we

will maintain maximum leverage to

achieve our procompetitive objectives.

We can limit their airlines’ access to the

U.S. market and restrict commercial

relations with U.S. airlines. When

airlines request authority to serve

restricted bilateral markets that is not

provided for under an international

agreement, we will consider their

requests on a case-by-case basis in light

of all our policy objectives, including,

inter alia:

• Whether approval will increase the

variety of pricing and service options

available to consumers;

• Whether approval will improve the

access of cities, shippers and travelers to

the international air transportation

system;

• The effect of granting code-sharing

authority on the Civil Reserve Air Fleet

program;

• The effect of the proposed

transaction on the U.S. airline industry

and its employees. In this regard, we

will ascribe greater value to codesharing arrangements where U.S.

airlines provide the long-haul

operations. We will also recognize the

greater economic value of such

arrangements where the services

connect one hub to another; and

• Whether the transaction will

advance our goals of eliminating

operating and market restrictions and

achieving liberalization.

If aviation partners fail to observe

existing U.S. bilateral rights, or

discriminate against U.S. airlines, we

will act vigorously, through all

appropriate means, to defend our rights

and protect our airlines.

Conclusion

We are living through a period in

which international aviation rules must

change. Privatization, competition, and

globalization are trends fueled by

economic and political forces that will

ultimately prevail. Governments and

airlines that embrace these trends will

far outpace those that do not. The U.S.

government will be among those that

embrace the future.

Authority citation: 49 U.S.C.40101, 40113,

41102, 41302, and 41310.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Patrick V. Murphy,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs, Department of

Transportation.

[FR Doc. 95–10584 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

[Docket No. 50315]

Study of Gambling on Commercial

Aircraft

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments

on study of gambling on commercial

aircraft.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

elements of an ongoing study of

gambling on commercial aircraft. This

notice is being published to provide

interested persons an opportunity to

provide comments on specific questions

important to the study.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than May 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Docket Clerk, Docket 50315,

Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street SW., Plaza 401, Washington, DC

20590. To facilitate consideration of the

comments, we ask commenters to file

eight copies of each comment. We

encourage commenters who wish to do

so also to submit comments to the

Department through the Internet; our

Internet address is

dotldockets@postmaster.dot.gov.1

However, at this time the Department

considers only the paper copies filed

with the Docket Clerk to be the official

comments. Comments will be available

for inspection at this address from 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday. Commenters who wish the

Department to acknowledge the receipt

of their comments should include a

stamped, self-addressed postcard with

their comments. The Docket Clerk will

date-stamp the postcard and mail it back

to the commenter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James H. New, II, Office of Planning and

Special Projects, Office of the Secretary,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

7th Street SW., Room 9215A,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–4868.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

study, which is mandated by 49 U.S.C.

41311, requires the consideration of,

among other things, the safety and

competitive implications of gambling on

commercial aircraft. Before this study is
21846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

completed, we will carefully consider

any comments that are received.

Study of Gambling on Commercial

Aircraft

Background

Section 205 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Authorization Act of

1994 (the ‘‘Act’’), P.L. No. 103–305

(August 23, 1994) added section 41311

to Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Under 49

U.S.C. 41311(a), ‘‘an air carrier or

foreign air carrier may not install,

transport, or operate, or permit the use

of any gambling device on board an

aircraft in foreign air transportation.’’

Section 41311(a) was designed to clarify

current statutory prohibitions and to

ensure equal treatment of U.S.-flag air

carriers with foreign flag carriers with

regard to in-flight gambling on

commercial aircraft while the

Department of Transportation studied

the issue and recommended whether a

different approach might be appropriate.

Moreover, there was some concern that

at some future time a different rule

might be more appropriate. See 140

Cong. Rec. S6664 (June 9, 1994).

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41311(b), the

Secretary of Transportation is required

to complete a study not later than one

year (August 23, 1995) after the date of

the enactment of the Federal Aviation

Administration Authorization Act of

1994.

The study must have three

components outlined as follows:

(1) the aviation safety effects of gambling

applications on electronic interactive video

systems installed on board aircraft for

passenger use, including an evaluation of the

effect of such systems on the navigational

and other electronic equipment of the

aircraft, on the passengers and crew of the

aircraft and on issues relating to the method

of payment;

(2) the competitive implications of

permitting foreign air carriers only, but not

United States air carriers, to install, transport,

and operate gambling applications on

electronic interactive video systems on board

aircraft in the foreign commerce of the

United States on flights over international

waters, or in fifth freedom city-pair markets;

and

(3) whether gambling should be allowed on

international flights, including proposed

legislation to effectuate any recommended

changes in existing law.

Within five days after completion of

the study, the Secretary of

Transportation must submit a report to

the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation of the Senate and

the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure of the House of

Representatives on the results of the

study.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this study of gambling on

aircraft by submitting such written data,

views, or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasonable responses to the

congressional issues raised. Comments

are specifically invited regarding:

(a) Effects on safety of allowing

gambling devices, including payment

methods, to be installed and/or operated

onboard aircraft including the effects

on: (1) Navigational and other electronic

equipment, and (2) passengers and

crew. Regarding payment methods, at a

minimum, the following issues are of

particular interest—payments that

require an air-to-surface interface, and

whether payments/losses will interfere

with passenger safety and duties of the

crew.

(b) Competitive effects of retaining,

lifting, or modifying the current

restrictions on U.S. carriers with respect

to (1) foreign air transportation, (2)

code-share arrangements, and (3) flights

involving fifth freedom markets.

(c) Whether gambling should be

allowed in foreign air transportation by

U.S. and/or foreign air carriers.

(Authority Citation: 49 U.S.C. 41311)

Dated: April 27, 1995.

Patrick V. Murphy

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs, Department of

Transportation.

[FR Doc. 95–10909 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Federal Aviation Administration

Airborne Ground Proximity Warning

Equipment; Proposed Technical

Standard Order

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability for public

comment.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of and request comments on

a proposed technical standard order

(TSO) pertaining to airborne ground

proximity equipment. The proposed

TSO prescribes the minimum

performance standards that airborne

ground proximity equipment must meet

to be identified with the marking ‘‘TSO–

C92c.’’.

DATES: Comments must identify the

TSO file number and be received on or

before August 4, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the

proposed technical standard order to:

Technical Programs and Continued

Airworthiness Branch, AIR–120,

Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft

Certification Service—File No. TSO–

C92c, Federal Aviation Administration,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Or deliver

comments to: Federal Aviation

Administration, Room 804, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Bobbie J. Smith, Technical Programs

and Continued Airworthiness Branch,

AIR–120, Aircraft Engineering Division,

Aircraft Certification Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202)

267–9546.

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed TSO listed in

this notice by submitting such written

data, views, or arguments as they desire

to the above specified address.

Comments received on the proposed

technical standard order may be

examined, before and after the comment

closing date, in Room 804, FAA

Headquarters Building (FOB–10A), 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, weekdays

except Federal holidays, between 8:30

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments specified above will be

considered by the Director of the

Aircraft Certification Service before

issuing the final TSO.

Background

The FAA has reviewed TSO–C92b

and the referenced RTCA, Inc.,

Document No. DO–161A and finds that

there is a need to revise this TSO to

address NTSB Safety Recommendations

A–92–39 through A–92–42 and to

update the computer software and

environmental requirements.

Proposed TSO–C92c would add two

new requirements: Each aural warning

shall identify the reason for a GPWS

warning, and each approved equipment

would include airspeed in the logic that

determines GPWS warning times. These

requirements should satisfy Safety

recommendations A–92–39 and A–92–

40. The proposal adds a new paragraph

which will allow added features, such

as altitude callouts during nonprecision

approaches and warnings based on

airport location and aircraft position

data. This paragraph addresses Safety

Recommendations A–92–41 and A–92–

42. Additionally, the FAA proposes to

include RTCA DO–178B as the

computer software requirement (none

specified in TSO–C92b) and to update