Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices 21841

1An earlier statement of international air

transportation policy and our request for comments

on the statement was published at 59 FR 55523,

Nov. 7, 1994.

2Our request for comments on the code sharing

study was published at 60 FR 2171, Jan. 6, 1995.

Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Ft. Worth, TX

76155

or other locally announced locations. In

addition, applications for economic

injury loans from small businesses

located in the contiguous counties of

Canadian, Cleveland, Kingfisher,

Lincoln, Logan and Pottawatomie in the

State of Oklahoma may be filed until the

specified date at the above location.

The interest rates are:

Percent

For Physical Damage:

Homeowners With Credit Available

Elsewhere.

8.000

Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere.4.000

Businesses With Credit Available

Elsewhere.

8.000

Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available

Elsewhere.

4.000

Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available

Elsewhere.

7.125

For Economic Injury: Businesses and

Small Agricultural Cooperatives

Without Credit Available Elsewhere.

4.000

The number assigned to this disaster

for physical damage is 276904 and for

economic injury the number is 850400.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008).

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Bernard Kulik,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–10805 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. 49844]

RIN 2105–AC19

Statement of United States

International Air Transportation Policy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth a

statement of U.S. international air

transportation policy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Boyd, Office of International

Aviation, Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 7th Street SW.,

Room 6412, Washington, DC 20590,

(202) 366–4870; or Patricia N. Snyder,

Office of International Law, Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 7th Street SW.,

Room 10105, Washington, DC 20590.

(202) 366–9179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

statement of U.S. international air

transportation policy, which was

developed by the Department of

Transportation in consultation with the

Department of State and other executive

agencies, sets forth objectives and

guidelines for use by U.S. Government

officials in carrying out U.S.

international air transportation policy. It

was first published in the Federal

Register on November 7, 1994 to enable

interested persons to comment.1 On

January 6, 1995, the Department asked

for comments on a related report

prepared for the Office of the Secretary

titled ‘‘A Study of International Airline

Code Sharing.’’ 2 After reviewing the

comments received on the policy

statement and on the code sharing

study, the Department of Transportation

and other agencies have adopted the

following final international air

transportation policy statement.

United States International Air

Transportation Policy

Introduction

The availability of efficient

international air transportation will

greatly enhance the future expansion of

international commerce and the

development of the emerging global

marketplace. Worldwide, travelers and

shippers are demanding more and better

quality service to more places. U.S. and

foreign airlines are responding to this

demand by expanding traditional forms

of service and by developing new and

innovative services. Increased demand

and the variety of carrier responses to it

challenge the existing

intergovernmental system’s ability to

ensure the development of a

competitive air transportation system

that meets the needs of the rapidly

evolving, expanding and increasingly

integrated international aviation

marketplace. In many cases, existing

bilateral agreements impede the growth

of the marketplace.

We must address the challenges

presented by these rapid changes to

meet our future civil and military air

transportation needs, and to provide our

aviation industry with the environment

and the opportunities that will enable it

to grow and compete effectively in the

world market. This policy statement

outlines our approach to addressing

those challenges.

Our Goal

Safe, Affordable, Convenient and

Efficient Air Service for Consumers

As established in our last aviation

policy statement in 1978, our overall

goal continues to be to foster safe,

affordable, convenient and efficient air

service for consumers. We continue to

believe that the best way to achieve this

goal is to rely on the marketplace and

unrestricted, fair competition to

determine the variety, quality, and price

of air service. We believe that this

approach will provide consumers and

shippers with more and better service

options at costs that reflect

economically efficient operations and

work best to:

• Expand the international aviation

market;

• Increase airlines’ opportunities to

expand their operations;

• Increase productivity and highquality job opportunities within the

aviation industry;

• Address the nation’s defense air

transportation needs; and

• Promote aerospace exports and

general economic growth.

Changing Environment

Growing economic interdependence

among nations—the ‘‘globalization’’ of

the world economy—has expanded

demand for convenient, reliable and

affordable international air service.

Demand for international service is

growing faster than demand for U.S.

domestic service, and most major U.S.

airlines are now providing and planning

to expand international operations.

Between 1983 and 1993, the

international component of U.S.

airlines’ route networks, measured in

revenue passenger miles (RPMs), grew

from around 16% to over 27%. U.S.

airline revenues from international air

service nearly tripled from $6.3 billion

to $17.6 billion. Moreover, forecasts

indicate that U.S. carrier international

traffic, measured by RPMs, will increase

to almost one-third of their total system

traffic by the year 2000.

Just as important, the pattern of

demand for international service has

changed considerably. First, the regional

distribution of U.S. carriers’

international revenues has changed

dramatically, as the primary focus of

carriers’ expansion moved beyond

Europe to meet new demand in the

emerging markets of Asia, the Pacific
21842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

Rim and Latin America. In 1983, the

Atlantic accounted for 48% of our

carriers’ international revenues, while

the Pacific accounted for 32%. By 1993,

the Pacific had grown to 46% while the

Atlantic was only 37%. The fastest

growing sectors of the international

aviation market are new and relatively

undeveloped markets. During this same

period, revenues in the Pacific grew

286%, in Latin America 151% and in

Europe 116%. Second, from 1983 to

1993, the number of international

aviation city-pair markets in which U.S.

airlines participate has grown by more

than a third, reflecting the major

expansion of air service and carrier

networks throughout the world and the

increased dispersion of demand. Many

of these city-pair markets are relatively

small, generating only a few passengers

per day.

Towards a Globalized Aviation

Industry

The rapid growth of demand for

international air service and the wider

dispersion of traffic in city-pair markets

are primary factors influencing the

development of the air service industry.

Carriers are increasingly finding that

they cannot remain profitable unless

they can respond to this changed

demand. To compete effectively,

carriers today must have unrestricted

access to as many markets and

passengers as possible.

To meet demand and to improve their

efficiency, many carriers are developing

international hub-and-spoke systems

that permit them to combine traffic

flows from many routes (the ‘‘spokes’’)

at a central point (the ‘‘hub’’) and

transport them to another point either

directly or through a hub in another

region. Just as U.S. carriers developed

hub-and-spoke systems to tap the broad

traffic pool in the domestic market and

to provide the most cost-efficient service

for hundreds of communities that could

not support direct service, international

air carriers are developing world-wide

hub-and-spoke systems to tap the

substantial pool of international citypairs. Internationally, an even larger

portion of traffic moving over hub-andspoke systems will require the use of at

least two hubs (e.g., a hub in both the

U.S. and Europe for a passenger moving

from an interior U.S. point to a point

beyond the European hub). This

increases the complexity and

interdependence of the components of

the system (both the spokes and hubs)

and the importance of multinational

traffic rights to the success of the

system.

As a result, carriers wishing to

establish global networks require a

higher quality and quantity of

supporting route authority than they

have sought in the past. Airlines will

become increasingly concerned with

every market that enables them to flow

passengers over any part of their system

network. These airlines will be looking

for broad, flexible authority to operate

beyond and behind hub points, in

addition to the hub-to-hub market

between two countries. At present,

governments operating in a bilateral

context naturally focus on opportunities

for their respective carriers to serve the

local market between their two

countries. In a bilateral context, services

destined for or coming from third

countries receive less consideration. In

the future, governments will have to

adjust their focus to bargain for the

bundles of rights that will permit

airlines to develop global networks.

Carriers can either serve markets

themselves (direct service) or provide

service through commercial

arrangements with other carriers

(indirect service), whether on a

traditional interline connecting basis or

under a closer commercial agreement

between the carriers, such as code

sharing. Carriers will develop service

products—single-plane, on-line

connecting, interline connecting, joint

service—that respond to the preferences

of the traveling public as measured by

passenger willingness to pay for

differences in the quality of service and

that take into account their cost

structure and market strategy. To the

greatest extent possible, airlines should

be free to set prices and offer various

service products in response to

passenger preferences.

Significant challenges face carriers

wishing to develop international

networks using their own direct

services. They need:

• Substantial access not only to key

hub cities overseas, but also through

and beyond them to numerous other

cities, mostly in third countries. This

type of access is not readily obtainable

in today’s bilateral system of negotiating

air rights, since governments can only

exchange access rights to their own

countries and cannot, between

themselves, deliver access to third

countries, thus requiring piecemeal

negotiating efforts to build the necessary

package of rights;

• Access to a large number of gates

and takeoff/landing slots, frequently at

some of the world’s most congested

airports. It may become increasingly

difficult for carriers to gain effective,

direct access to certain airport facilities,

including some in the United States;

• Considerable financial resources to

establish and sustain commercially

successful overseas hub systems; and

• The ability to obtain infrastructure

and establish market presence in a new

region quickly. Existing foreign

investment laws can effectively

preclude airlines from entering new

markets in one of the most efficient

means available: merger or acquisition.

Some carriers are taking on these

challenges directly and are striving to

develop their own global systems of

direct service. Other carriers have

chosen to side-step the obstacles,

turning instead to a new networkbuilding technique: Cross-border

marketing alliances that link traffic

flows between established hub-andspoke systems in key cities of the

Western Hemisphere, Europe and Asia.

Some of these alliances involve cross

ownership, while others do not. Under

this strategy, the linking of hubs

requires indirect market access through

code-sharing or other cooperative

marketing arrangements. Although code

sharing has become a widely-used

marketing device for airlines and is

currently the most prevalent form of

commercial arrangement, further

evolution of the industry and its

regulatory environment may lead to new

marketing practices that could

supplement or supplant code sharing.

Code sharing and other cooperative

marketing arrangements can provide a

cost-efficient way for carriers to enter

new markets, expand their systems and

obtain additional flow traffic to support

their other operations by using existing

facilities and scheduled operations.

Because these cooperative arrangements

can give the airline partners new or

additional access to more markets, the

partners will gain traffic, some

stimulated by the new service, and some

diverted from incumbents. In this way,

cooperative arrangements can enhance

the competitive positions of both

partners in such a relationship.

Increased international code sharing

and other cooperative arrangements can

benefit consumers by increasing

international service options and

enhancing competition between

carriers, particularly for traffic to or

from cities behind major gateways. By

stimulating traffic, the increased

competition and service options should

expand the overall international market

and increase overall opportunities for

the aviation industry. U.S. airlines

should be major beneficiaries of this

expansion and the concomitant

increased service opportunities, given

their competitive advantages.

Moreover, code sharing should also

enhance domestic competition. Many
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices 21843

international passengers traveling to or

from U.S. interior cities use domestic

services for some portion of their

international journey. Code sharing

should increase competition among

domestic carriers to carry those

passengers on the domestic segment of

their international journey.

Although we expect the expansion of

cooperative arrangements to be largely

beneficial, there may be some negative

effects. The greater traffic access of

participants may give them considerable

competitive muscle, and we may need

to watch for harmful effects on

competition. In addition, cooperative

arrangements may affect the availability

of civil aircraft to meet emergency airlift

requirements. Our national defense

establishment relies on U.S. civil

aircraft committed to the Civil Reserve

Air Fleet program to respond to

worldwide crises. As set forth in our

National Airlift Policy, the global

mobility needs of our national defense

establishment, and ensuring that the

nation’s defense air transportation needs

are met during peace and contingency

operations, are important

considerations.

Global systems and the growing use of

code sharing may put significant

competitive pressure on carriers whose

strategy does not include participation

in such systems or in code-sharing

alliances, or whose options to

participate may be limited due to the

lack of potential partners. Such carriers

will have to develop other commercial

responses to compete effectively. We

expect these pressures and responses to

lead to a restructuring of service and

airlines, similar to the U.S. domestic

experience in the 1980s. Overall, cities

and consumers will probably enjoy

improved service and access to the

international transportation system,

although some cities may have fewer or

less convenient service options in some

markets than they have today. Similarly,

although some airlines will grow and

prosper, others will not. Moreover, we

recognize that the balance of benefits in

any particular alliance will depend on

the specific structure of that

arrangement between the partners.

Overall, this evolution should expand

the level and quality of international air

service for consumers.

Code-sharing arrangements are

designed to address the preference of

passengers and shippers for on-line

service from beginning to end through

coordinated scheduling, baggage- and

cargo-handling, and other elements of

single-carrier service. However,

innovative service products, such as

code sharing, can only respond to

consumer preferences accurately, and

thereby enable the marketplace to

function efficiently, if consumers make

choices based on full information.

Therefore, we must ensure that airlines

give consumers clear information about

the characteristics of their service

product, and that consumers can

distinguish between code sharing and

other forms of service.

In addition to the two types of global

networks (sole-carrier systems and joint

carrier systems), there will continue to

be a role for air services outside of

global networks. The U.S. experience

with deregulation indicates that—absent

legal barriers to entry—specialized

competitors will enter the market and

discipline the pricing and service

behavior of the larger network operators.

The introduction of technologically

advanced aircraft such as the B–767, the

MD–11 and the B–777 make direct

service on longer or thinner routes

economically viable. Moreover, airlines

can viably serve heavily traveled routes

with point-to-point service.

In short, as indicated by our domestic

experience, a variety of service forms—

global networks with carriers

participating either as the sole provider

or as participant in a joint network, and

regional niche carriers—can exist in the

international aviation market and the

competition among these services will

enhance consumer benefits through

efficient operations and low fares. Thus,

our international aviation strategy

should provide opportunities for all of

these forms of service so that we realize

the benefits from maximum competition

among them.

Our airlines are well positioned to be

primary participants in all aspects of the

future global marketplace. In recent

years, our largest domestic carriers have

become our primary international

carriers, replacing specialized

international operators. After operating

in a deregulated domestic market for

more than 15 years, our carriers have

developed operating efficiencies that

give them a cost advantage over their

major foreign competitors. Moreover,

the financial positions of our carriers are

improving due to their cost-cutting

measures and improving economic

conditions. Coupled with their cost

efficiencies, their improving financial

status will further enhance their

competitive capabilities. Over time,

however, trends toward privatization

and increased productivity of major

foreign competitors may affect the

current cost advantage U.S. airlines

enjoy. We must try to provide our

carriers with the flexible rights and

economic environment that will enable

them to respond to the dynamics of the

marketplace.

Intergovernment Aviation Relations

International air services between two

nations have traditionally been

conducted pursuant to bilateral

agreements. The U.S. National

Commission to Ensure a Strong

Competitive Airline Industry and the

European Union’s Comite ́ des Sages for

Air Transport have both recognized that

the bilateral system is limited in its

ability to encompass the broad,

multinational market access required by

the new global operating systems.

Consequently, progress in developing

global networks has been and will be

extremely fragmented and may preclude

or limit the development of efficient

operations. We must consider

alternative forums for international

aviation negotiations and agreements in

which we can obtain the necessary

broad access rights. We should examine

the feasibility of achieving multilateral

air service agreements among trading

partners. Although such negotiations

may be more complex and difficult

because of the number of parties

involved, they should be undertaken

when they present a reasonable prospect

for further liberalization.

Moreover, some governments are

taking steps to enhance their airlines’

positions both by restricting the

development of new, competitive

services and by trying to overcome,

through government fiat, their carriers’

cost disadvantages that make it difficult

for them to compete against U.S. airlines

in a free market. These efforts underlie

many of the disputes we face in

international negotiations today.

Such countries are responding to the

highly competitive integrated and global

air transportation market, in which their

airlines may not be fully prepared to

compete. Most foreign airlines are only

beginning to adapt to the more

competitive operating environment

through such mechanisms as

streamlining costs and realigning their

operations to achieve greater

productivity and operating economies.

For state-owned airlines, privatization is

an important initial step as it will lead

those airlines to develop cost-efficient

operations and, in the longer term, to

expand their markets. These

governments also may be reacting to the

U.S. airlines’ recent operating successes

in the international aviation market,

which are largely attributable to the U.S.

airlines’ productivity and competitive

gains.

Some national governments continue

to give their national airlines financial

aid. Some also distort the marketplace

by permitting their national airlines to

maintain ground-handling and other
21844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Notices

monopolies, by denying airlines access

to necessary airport facilities, or by

allowing user fees that equalize cost

differentials between carriers. These

actions distort competition and deprive

the aviation system and consumers of

the benefits that greater cost efficiency

and lower prices would encourage. In

the long run, these efforts will work

against the overall best interest of the

world economy. Moreover, they will be

unsuccessful in providing long-term

protection against the developing global

aviation systems because no individual

government can control all facets of its

airlines’ marketplace.

U.S. Objectives

We have outlined above our

expectations about the future of the

world air transportation industry and

the role of U.S. airlines. We expect that

international operations will depend

more on traffic flows from multiple

countries. In light of our goals, recent

developments in the market and

industry, and the positions and actions

of our trading partners, we have

designed our international aviation

strategy to meet the following

objectives:

• Increase the variety of price and

service options available to consumers.

• Enhance the access of U.S. cities to

the international air transportation

system.

• Provide carriers with unrestricted

opportunities to develop types of

service and systems based on their

assessment of marketplace demand:

—These opportunities should include

unrestricted rights for airlines to

operate between international

gateways by way of any point and

beyond to any point, at the discretion

of airline management. Carriers

should be able to pursue both direct

service using their own equipment

and indirect service through

commercial relationships with other

carriers;

—Service opportunities should not be

restricted in any manner, such as

restrictions on frequencies, capacity

or equipment, so that carriers may

provide levels of service

commensurate with market demand;

—Carriers’ ability to set prices should

also be unrestricted to create

maximum incentives for cost

efficiencies and to provide consumers

with the benefits of price competition

and lower fares; and

—These opportunities should apply not

only to scheduled passenger services,

but also to cargo and charter

opportunities, because of their

growing importance to the world’s

economy. We have long recognized

the significant differences among

these types of operations. In

particular, air cargo services have

specific qualities and requirements

that are significantly different from

the passenger market. We will

continue to follow our longstanding

policy of seeking an open, liberal

operating environment to facilitate the

establishment and expansion of

efficient, innovative and competitive

air cargo services.

• Recognize the importance of

military and civil airlift resources being

able to meet defense mobilization and

deployment requirements in support of

U.S. defense and foreign policies.

• Ensure that competition is fair and

the playing field is level by eliminating

marketplace distortions, such as

government subsidies, restrictions on

carriers’ ability to conduct their own

operations and ground-handling, and

unequal access to infrastructure,

facilities, or marketing channels.

• Encourage the development of the

most cost-effective and productive air

transportation industry that will be best

equipped to compete in the global

aviation marketplace at all levels and

with all types of service:

—Infrastructure needs should be

addressed and unnecessary regulatory

barriers eliminated.

—Privately held airlines have better

incentives to reduce costs and

respond to public demand. Therefore,

as we have in the past, we will be

supportive of governments wishing to

privatize their airlines so that their

privatization efforts will be

successful; and

—Reduce barriers to the creation of

global aviation systems, such as

limitations on cross-border

investments wherever possible.

Plan of Action

We recognize that considerable time

and effort will be required to achieve an

open aviation regime worldwide. We

can get there by making a concerted

effort to eliminate the obstacles to that

regime and by taking a more strategic

and long-term approach to our overall

international aviation policies. At a

minimum, we must increase our focus

on emerging markets and their

contribution to global networks; build a

coalition of like-minded trading

partners committed to the principles of

free trade in aviation services; work

closely with our trading partners to

address their concerns; develop new

incentives for encouraging market

reform, such as increased opportunities

for cross-border investment in airlines;

and devise alternatives to the bilateral

aviation system for achieving our

objectives. We are launching our new

initiatives to create freer trade in

aviation services by taking the following

steps:

• Extend invitations to enter into

open aviation agreements to a group of

countries that share our vision of

liberalization and offer important flow

traffic potential for our carriers even

though they may have limited Third and

Fourth Freedom traffic potential. This

would assist the development of global

systems and increase the momentum for

further worldwide liberalization.

• Give priority to building aviation

relationships between the United States

and potential growth areas in Asia,

South America and Central Europe. This

recognizes the importance of these

trading partners and the need to provide

air transportation to support those

developing trade markets. It will also

make available new markets to build

global networks.

• Renew efforts to achieve liberal

agreements with trading partners with

which our aviation relationships lag

behind those of our general trade

advancements, as we have done

successfully with Canada.

• Emphasize the importance of sound

economic analysis based on sufficient

data in developing policies and

strategies for achieving our overall

aviation goals. This will enable us to

remain focused on the overall strategic

objectives, understand developments in

the industry and market, and plan for

the future.

• Seek changes in U.S. airline foreign

investment law, if necessary, to enable

us to obtain our trading partners’

agreement to liberal arrangements to the

extent it is consistent with U.S.

economic and security interests.

• Increase our efforts to reach out to

Congress and constituent groups, such

as consumers, corporations with

international perspectives (aircraft

manufacturers, telecommunications,

travel and tourism industries), cities,

airports, airlines, labor and travel agents

to learn their anticipated needs over a

3–5 year period. This will provide us

with valuable information for

developing our positions, as well as

enlisting their support in pushing for

greater liberalization.

• Establish stronger connections

among U.S. government agencies whose

functions are to promote U.S. business

and trade interests (e.g., Departments of

Commerce, State, and Transportation,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, and the Export/Import

Bank) as well as the Department of

Defense, to ensure that we share a single

vision of the future global marketplace
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