6382 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2004, and effective September 16, 2004, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

would be published subsequently in the 

Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 

40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations to ensure 

the safe and efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it proposes to revise Class E 

airspace sufficient to contain aircraft 

executing instrument approaches at St. 

Michael Airport and represents the 

FAA’s continuing effort to safely and 

efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows:

PART 71— DESIGNATION OF CLASS 

A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; 

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 

POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9M, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 30, 2004, and 

effective September 16, 2004, is to be 

amended as follows:

* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet or more above the 

surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 St. Michael, AK [Revised] 

St. Michael Airport, AK 

(Lat. 63°29′24′′ N., long. 162°06′37′′ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile 

radius of the St. Michael Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Anchorage, AK, on January 26, 

2005. 

Anthony M. Wylie, 

Acting Area Director, Alaska Flight Services 

Area Office.

[FR Doc. 05–2223 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 375

[Docket No. OST–2003–15511] 

RIN 2105–AD39

Certain Business Aviation Activities 

Using U.S.-Registered Foreign Civil 

Aircraft

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Under Part 375 of the 

Department’s regulations, 14 CFR part 

375, which provides for the operation in 

the United States of ‘‘foreign civil 

aircraft’’ which are not engaged in 

common carriage, persons or entities 

seeking to operate foreign civil aircraft 

within the United States involving the 

carriage of persons, property and mail 

‘‘for remuneration or hire’’ must obtain 

a ‘‘foreign aircraft permit’’ from the 

Department of Transportation under 

that Part. On May 16, 2003, the National 

Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), a 

trade association that represents many 

business aircraft operators throughout 

the United States, wrote to the 

Department requesting a policy 

determination that certain types of 

operations that its representative 

companies might perform using U.S.-

registered foreign civil aircraft (such as 

carriage of a company’s own officials 

and guests, or aircraft time-sharing, 

interchange or joint ownership 

arrangements between companies) do 

not, in fact, constitute operations ‘‘for 

remuneration or hire’’ within the 

meaning of Part 375. The NBAA noted 

that a favorable response would 

eliminate the need for the companies 

involved to secure a permit for such 

operations. The Department of 

Transportation is now proposing to 

amend 14 CFR part 375 to clarify those 

circumstances under which companies 

operating U.S.-registered foreign civil 

aircraft are not deemed to be involved 

in air commerce for remuneration or 

hire and, therefore, are not required 

under Part 375 to obtain a foreign 

aircraft permit. 

On July 7, 2003, the Department 

solicited comments on the NBAA 

request (see 68 FR 40321 (July 7, 2003)). 

Pursuant to the Department’s request, 

comments were filed by interested 

parties. The Department has reviewed 

the comments filed in Docket OST–

2003–15511 and now proposes to 

amend Part 375 of our regulations as 

described below.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must 

be received by April 8, 2005. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

OST–2003–15511 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 6383

Public Participation heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading under 

Regulatory Notices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Modesitt, Chief, Europe Division, 

Office of International Aviation (X–40), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 

(202) 366–2384.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The issue 

here is whether, and under what 

circumstances, companies operating 

U.S.-registered foreign civil aircraft are 

engaged in commercial air operations 

for remuneration or hire to, from, and 

within the United States. Part 375 

defines ‘‘foreign civil aircraft’’ as ‘‘(a) an 

aircraft of foreign registry that is not part 

of the armed forces of a foreign nation, 

or (b) a U.S.-registered aircraft owned, 

controlled or operated by persons who 

are not citizens or permanent residents 

of the United States.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(15) defines ‘‘citizen of the 

United States’’ as, among other things, 

‘‘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.’’ Thus, if a company 

that does not meet the definition of a 

citizen of the United States (for 

example, if its president is not a U.S. 

citizen) owns, directly or through a 

parent or subsidiary, a corporate 

aircraft, that aircraft is considered to be 

a ‘‘foreign civil aircraft’’ under Part 375, 

even if it is U.S.-registered. 

The Department has addressed this 

issue in limited fashion in past 

interpretations of Part 375 as it pertains 

to demonstration flights performed on a 

chargeback basis related to the sale of 

aircraft and chargeback operations 

conducted by a parent for its whollyowned subsidiary under circumstances 

where the management and/or board of 

directors and management of the 

corporation were not entirely composed 

of U.S. citizens. In both instances the 

Department indicated that such 

operations, within the confines of the 

record of those interpretations, did not 

constitute operations for remuneration 

or hire, and, therefore, a foreign aircraft 

permit would not be required under Part 

375 of the Department’s regulations. 

Summary of Comments Filed 

Pursuant to the Department’s request 

for comments on NBAA’s proposal, the 

Department received comments from 

several parties. 

Comments in Support of NBAA’s 

Request 

Comments in support of NBAA’s 

request were filed by NBAA, Dassault 

Falcon Jet Corporation, Carnival Cruise 

Lines, and Ford Motor Company. In its 

comments, NBAA strongly supports a 

policy determination that makes it clear 

that the business operations at issue 

here are non-commercial in nature, and 

are not subject to the prior approval 

requirements of Part 375. NBAA 

maintains that application of the Part 

375 prior approval requirements to such 

operations does not make practical 

sense and serves only as an impediment 

to efficient business aviation operations. 

NBAA further states that business 

aircraft operations are non-commercial 

in nature because they: are not for 

remuneration or hire; are conducted 

entirely incidental to the principal 

business of the company; are not a 

business per se; and, contain no 

elements of holding out to the general 

public. Such services, NBAA says, are 

without compensation in most cases 

other than limited and defined 

reimbursement of expenses. Finally, 

NBAA maintains that application of Part 

375’s prior approval requirements to 

these operations, particularly if due to 

the involvement of one or more nonU.S. citizens, would restrict the free 

flow of business aviation, and that doing 

so sets a bad precedent for other 

countries’ assessment of whether to 

restrict U.S. general aviation operations 

for business-related purposes. 

Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., a major 

manufacturer of business aircraft, filed 

comments that strongly supported the 

NBAA position and asked the 

Department to extend the current 

interpretation of Part 375 beyond 

aircraft demonstration flights and 

parent/wholly-owned subsidiary 

situations to include other related 

business activities, such as aircraft timesharing, aircraft interchanges, joint 

ownership of aircraft by multiple 

business, and the full scope of intracorporate family operations. Dassault 

notes that most businesses operating 

aircraft carry employees, customers, and 

other persons with whom they conduct 

business. These activities, Dassault 

maintains, are incidental to, and in 

support of, a company’s primary 

businesses, as opposed to being a 

business in and of itself. Dassault notes 

that a broader interpretation by the 

Department of Part 375 similar to that 

requested by NBAA will result in 

conformity with the manner in which 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

treats these activities under 14 CFR Part 

91 for the purposes of aircraft 

certification. 

Carnival Corporation, a/k/a Carnival 

Cruise Lines, also filed comments that 

supported DOT issuance of the policy 

determination requested by NBAA. 

Carnival sees no useful purpose for the 

Department to consider the activities at 

issue to be commercial in nature when 

they are conducted entirely for the 

benefit of business-related participants, 

with no elements of holding out for sale, 

and without compensation other than 

limited and defined reimbursement of 

expenses. Nor does Carnival believe that 

such operations should be restricted 

because one of the participants in not a 

U.S. citizen, as doing so would restrict 

the free flow of business aviation due to 

the burden of regulatory approvals. 

Carnival also noted that the NBAA 

request would more closely align the 

way the Department treats such 

business activities with the FAA’s 

regulations.

Comments Opposing NBAA’s Request 

In filed comments, the Air Transport 

Association of America, Inc., (ATA) 

asked the Department to deny NBAA’s 

request. ATA stated that because the 

NBAA’s request raises cabotage and 

bilateral international aviation issues, it 

seeks relief than cannot be considered 

properly and granted through a 

regulatory interpretation. ATA stated 

that it does not object to a previous 

Departmental interpretation of Part 375 

saying that authority is not required for 

certain operations by a parent company 

on behalf of a wholly-owned subsidiary 

and vice versa. ATA’s concern, 

however, is about a broadening of that 

interpretation to involve non-related 

companies with unrestricted 

involvement of non-U.S. citizens. ATA 

expressed concern that granting the 

relief sought by NBAA would generate 

incentives for foreign companies to pool 

U.S.-registered aircraft in order to get 

additional compensation and, therefore, 

a better return on their aircraft 

investment that would otherwise not be 

6384 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1We wish to make clear, however, that nothing 

in our proposed change to Part 375 would in any 

way serve to alter any orders, regulations, or 

requirements, or interpretations thereof, of the 

Federal Aviation Administration.

available, and that the bigger the pool of 

such participants the greater the risk 

that such arrangements would involve 

true commercial operations. ATA also 

stated that the NBAA proposal would 

allow such foreign entities to 

circumvent their home countries’

restrictive bilateral agreements with the 

United States, thereby allowing foreign 

entities to avoid longstanding U.S. 

statutory prohibitions against cabotage. 

ATA expressed concern that under the 

NBAA proposal there would be no 

assurance of reciprocity by foreign 

governments in their treatment of 

similar operations of U.S. citizens 

operating in foreign countries. Finally, 

with respect to time share operations, 

ATA maintains one element of the cost 

recovery allowance, namely the ability 

to charge in addition to other 

specifically allowed incremental cost 

recoveries, a 100% fee of fuel, oil and 

lubrication expenses, provides a return 

above marginal operating costs and 

therefore would allow a profit for time 

share operations on a marginal cost 

basis. 

NBAA Reply 

On August 27, 2003, NBAA requested 

leave to submit a reply to the comments 

of ATA. In the interest of a complete 

record, we accepted NBAA’s reply 

comments, as well as the surreply 

comments of ATA and NBAA discussed 

below. In its reply, NBAA stated that 

ATA’s concerns are unfounded. NBAA 

believed that ATA misunderstands 

crucial concepts that distinguish 

corporate aviation from common 

carriage. NBAA cited as distinctions the 

requirement that the transportation be 

merely incidental to the corporate 

operator’s principal business, that the 

corporate operator engage in no holding 

out or other indicia of common carriage, 

and that any payments made to 

corporate operators do not exceed costs. 

These distinctions, NBAA maintained, 

assure that the worst-case scenario 

envisioned by ATA—that foreign 

corporations would join together to 

secure economic benefits under the 

NBAA proposal—would not happen, 

just as it has not happened with respect 

to U.S. corporations during the more 

than thirty years they have operated 

under comparable FAA provisions. 

NBAA stated further that its proposal is 

not contrary to the U.S. statutory 

prohibition against cabotage, and does 

not diminish Departmental oversight 

responsibility of foreign commercial air 

service. Concerning ATA concerns that 

time share operators cost recovery 

allowances could potentially involve a 

profit for the aircraft operator, NBAA 

states that the allowable cost recovery 

consistently falls short of a fullyallocated cost recovery, much less a 

profit. 

ATA Surreply 

On October 2, 2003, ATA filed a 

motion for leave to file a surreply. ATA 

stated that the issues of cabotage and 

international reciprocity that are 

implicated here are irrefutable. ATA 

also stated that the distinction drawn by 

the NBAA between corporate aircraft 

operations and commercial operations 

or common carriage is a moot point, as 

the issue is whether companies can 

operate in air commerce without being 

common carriers. ATA stated that the 

question of whether corporate aircraft 

operations are incidental to a business 

is of no consequence, because the 

services involved are performed by a 

third party and the third party would be 

receiving compensation. 

NBAA Surreply 

On October 3, 2003, NBAA filed a 

motion for leave to file a surreply. 

NBAA stated that the issue of whether 

general aviation operations of corporate 

aircraft operators are conducted for 

commercial benefit has been addressed 

numerous times, and that ATA is 

mistaken in its belief that aircraft timesharing, joint ownership, and 

interchange operations constitute 

operations for compensation or hire. 

Discussion 

It is our tentative view that NBAA has 

made a persuasive case for the changes 

to Part 375 that it seeks, and we are 

proposing to amend our regulations to 

effect those changes.

As NBAA notes, pursuant to 14 CFR 

91.501 of the FAA’s regulations, U.S. 

citizen operators of U.S.-registered 

aircraft now perform, without prior 

Department approval, the kinds of 

intracorporate, interchange, joint 

ownership, and time-sharing operations 

that are the subject of this proceeding. 

Such operations are more problematic 

for companies operating U.S.-registered 

foreign civil aircraft under the current 

Part 375, which defines ‘‘commercial air 

operations’’ (requiring specific 

Department approval) as ‘‘any 

operations for remuneration or hire to, 

from, or within the United States 

* * *,’’ and which makes no distinction 

for the kinds of business-oriented 

transportation provided for under the 

FAA’s regulations. 

As the U.S. economy has become 

more global and companies more 

multinational in character, more and 

more businesses find it difficult or 

impossible to operate separate corporate 

flight departments or conduct the range 

of services that they could provide if 

their aircraft were not considered to be 

‘‘foreign civil aircraft’’ under Part 375. 

This situation, in our view, significantly 

hampers the companies’ flexibility, and 

puts them at a competitive disadvantage 

compared with companies that qualify 

as U.S. citizens. 

We believe, in the context of the 

limited business-related activities raised 

by NBAA, that public interest 

considerations warrant treating U.S. and 

foreign-citizen companies operating 

U.S. registered aircraft the same way. 

Specifically, we believe that 

reimbursement should not be 

considered remuneration or hire within 

the context of Part 375 where a 

company operating a U.S.-registered 

foreign civil aircraft engages in the 

kinds of business air service 

transactions as defined below, and is 

reimbursed for its expenses as set forth 

in our proposed amendments. As such, 

the operations would be authorized by 

regulation and would no longer require 

prior approval in the form of a foreign 

aircraft permit under Part 375. Our 

decision to level the playing field in this 

instance by placing U.S. and foreigncitizen companies on the same footing 

has the added practical advantage of 

treating U.S.-registered foreign civil 

aircraft in our regulations similarly to 

U.S.-registered civil aircraft in FAA 

regulations.1

We propose to implement the 

proposed changes by adding a new 

section to subpart D, of part 375. That 

new section, ‘‘Certain business aviation 

activities using U.S.-registered foreign 

civil aircraft’’, would authorize those 

operations that NBAA requested to be 

covered. We are also proposing a minor 

technical amendment to the existing 

language in § 375.1 to reflect the 

recodification of Title 49 of the U.S. 

Code, changing the current reference of 

‘‘section 402 of the Federal Aviation Act 

of 1958, as amended’’ to ‘‘49 U.S.C. 

41301.’’ We are also updating the 

authority citation for Part 375 to reflect 

recodification of Title 49. 

In making this proposal, we are 

mindful of the concerns raised by the 

parties filing pleadings in opposition to 

NBAA’s proposal. We believe, however, 

that the public benefits to be gained 

from this regulation would outweigh 

those concerns. We concur with ATA’s 

view that the relief NBAA seeks cannot 

be accomplished merely through 

interpretation of existing rules, and it is 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 6385

2See 51 FR 7251 (Mar. 3, 1986).

for this reason that we are inviting 

public comment through this NPRM. 

We do not believe that the very 

limited changes we are proposing here 

will result in a circumvention of 

bilateral aviation agreements, or raise 

any cabotage concerns. With respect to 

bilateral issues, we see the changes we 

are proposing as having the potential to 

assist U.S. corporate operators abroad, 

as it will indicate U.S. willingness to 

accord reciprocity for these sorts of 

business-related transportation 

arrangements. Still, if problems should 

occur, and reciprocity should be denied 

to U.S. operators, we have ample tools 

to seek resolution of such access 

problems. 

Moreover, we do not see that the 

changes we are proposing raise any 

cabotage issues. As noted, our proposed 

changes merely find that certain limited 

reimbursements made in connection 

with corporate-related travel do not 

constitute remuneration within the 

context of Part 375, and put all 

operators of U.S-registered aircraft on 

the same economic regulatory footing. It 

should be noted that we made a similar 

change to Part 375 in 1986 with respect 

to expense-related reimbursements for 

demonstration flights by foreign civil 

aircraft, finding that those 

reimbursements did not constitute 

remuneration.2 In our view, neither 

forms of business-related 

reimbursement raise any problems with 

the statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

41703.

With respect to concerns raised about 

operators pooling aircraft and arranging 

their operations so as to become 

common carriers without requisite 

Department authority, we must 

emphasize that such operations are not 

permissible today, nor have they been 

under longstanding rules (FAA’s Part 

91). Also, in detailing in this rulemaking 

under Part 375 those expense elements 

that can be considered for purposes of 

reimbursement, we are specifically 

excluding profit, which should 

additionally serve to meet the concerns 

raised by ATA. In any event, we are in 

a position to monitor such activities. If 

any operations develop that would 

constitute, in our view, common carrier 

operations by one of the companies 

operating under the amended rule we 

are proposing, we have adequate 

enforcement powers to assure that the 

operator involved complies with all 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

requirements.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above will be 

considered and will be available for 

examination in the docket at the above 

address. Comments received after the 

comment closing date will be filed in 

the docket and will be considered to the 

extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, the Department will also 

continue to file relevant information in 

the docket as it becomes available after 

the comment period closing date, and 

interested persons should continue to 

examine the docket for new material. A 

final rule may be issued at any time 

after close of the comment period. 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Provisions 

This rule is a significant regulation 

under Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Provisions 

because of industry interest. 

The economic impact of the 

implementation of the proposed rule is 

not considered to be significant. The 

rule would save certain U.S. companies 

the legal expenses and data-preparation 

expenses of submitting and processing 

requests for DOT authority to conduct 

specified types of intracorporate flight 

operations. In turn, the Department 

would save staff expense by not having 

to process additional foreign air carrier 

permit applications. 

Until recently, management in 

American companies was far more 

substantially composed of American 

citizens, and therefore U.S. companies 

operating non-commercial general 

aviation aircraft for parent or subsidiary 

companies on a cost-reimbursement 

basis did not experience difficulty in 

satisfying Departmental rules on 

citizenship. (Although the citizenship 

rules were intended to apply primarily 

to commercial operators, they also apply 

to many general aviation operations of 

U.S. companies.) With economic 

globalization, more non-U.S. citizens 

have become members of management 

in U.S. companies, and in a number of 

instances those companies now fail to 

qualify under Departmental citizenship 

rules for the reimbursable operation of 

general aircraft. They accordingly must 

seek Department approval to perform 

such operations. The proposed rule 

would remove the regulatory burden 

these companies now face of having to 

obtain Department approval for flight 

operations involving intracorporate 

reimbursement of expenses. Further, the 

rule provides a rational methodology for 

such reimbursement. This is consistent 

with sound accounting practices, as 

well as recent actions in industry and 

governmental policy seeking improved 

corporate accounting practices. 

Federalism 

The Department has analyzed this 

rulemaking action in accordance with 

the principles and criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 13132 and has 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials. The Department 

anticipates that any action taken will 

not preempt a State law or State 

regulation or affect the States’ ability to 

discharge traditional State government 

functions. We encourage commenters to 

consider these issues, as well as matters 

concerning any costs or burdens that 

might be imposed on the States as a 

result of actions considered here. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq, as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires 

an agency to review regulations to 

assess their impact on small businesses. 

The Department certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The rule would almost 

exclusively affect only large 

corporations. In addition, we anticipate 

the rule would have little, if any, 

economic impact. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, Federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. This rule 

contains information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Department will submit this 

requirement to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB for 

review, and reinstatement, with change 

of a previously approved collection for 

which approval has expired. 

OST Form 4509 is a required 

application for foreign aircraft permit or 

special authorization. The Department 

requires operators of foreign civil 

aircraft to obtain the permits before 

conducting certain flight operations 

within U.S. airspace. In granting such 

permits, the Department determines that 

the proposed operation is consistent 

with the applicable law, that the 

applicant’s homeland grants a similar 

privilege to U.S. registered aircraft, and 

that the proposed operation is in the 

6386 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

interest of the public of the United 

States.

OMB Number: 2106–0007. 

Title: 14 CFR part 375 Navigation of 

Foreign Civil Aircraft Within the United 

States. 

Burden Hours: 13. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Description of Paperwork: The 

proposed changes to the rulemaking are 

intended to save certain U.S. companies 

the legal expenses and data preparation 

expenses of submitting and processing 

requests for DOT authority to conduct 

special types of intracorporate flight 

operations. The Department would also 

save staff expenses by not having to 

process additional permit applications. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule, if adopted as proposed, 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate for the purposes of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Regulation Identifier (RIN) 

A regulation identifier (RIN) is 

assigned to each regulatory action listed 

in the United Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN contained in the heading 

of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 375

Aircraft, Airmen, Foreign relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

PART 375–NAVIGATION OF FOREIGN 

CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE UNITED 

STATES 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of 

Transportation proposes to amend 14 

CFR part 375 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 375 would be amended by revising 

the citation to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40103, and 

41703.

2. The definition of ‘‘Commercial air 

operations’’ in § 375.1 would be revised 

to read as follows:

§ 375.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Commercial air operations shall mean 

operations by foreign civil aircraft 

engaged in flights for the purpose of 

crop dusting, pest control, pipeline 

patrol, mapping, surveying, banner 

towing, skywriting, or similar 

agricultural and industrial operations 

performed in the United States, and any 

operations for remuneration or hire to, 

from or within the United States 

including air carriage involving the 

discharging or taking on of passengers 

or cargo at one or more points in the 

United States, including carriage of 

cargo for the operator’s own account if 

the cargo is to be resold or otherwise 

used in the furtherance of a business 

other than the business of providing 

carriage by aircraft, but excluding 

operations pursuant to foreign air carrier 

permits issued under 49 U.S.C. 41301, 

exemptions, and all other operations in 

air transportation.

* * * * *

3. A new section, § 375.37, would be 

added to read as follows:

§ 375.37 Certain business aviation 

activities using U.S.-registered foreign civil 

aircraft. 

For purposes of this section, 

‘‘company’’ is defined as one that 

operates civil aircraft in furtherance of 

a business other than air transportation. 

U.S.-registered foreign civil aircraft that 

are not otherwise engaged in 

commercial air operations, or foreign air 

transportation, and which are operated 

by a company in the furtherance of a 

business other than transportation by 

air, when the carriage is within the 

scope of, and incidental to, the business 

of the company (other than 

transportation by air), may be operated 

to, from, and within the United States 

as follows: 

(a) Intracorporate operations: A 

company operating a U.S.-registered 

foreign civil aircraft may conduct 

operations for a corporate subsidiary or 

parent on a fully-allocated cost 

reimbursable basis; provided, that the 

operator of the U.S.-registered foreign 

civil aircraft must hold majority 

ownership, or be majority owned by, the 

relevant subsidiary or parent company; 

(b) Interchange operations: A 

company may lease a U.S.-registered 

foreign civil aircraft to another 

company, in exchange for equal time, 

when needed on the other company’s 

U.S. registered aircraft, where no charge, 

assessment, or fee is made, except that 

a charge may be made not to exceed the 

difference between the cost of owning, 

operating, and maintaining the two 

aircraft; 

(c) Joint ownership operations: A 

company that jointly owns a U.S.-

registered foreign civil aircraft and 

furnishes the flight crew for that aircraft 

may collect from the other joint owners 

of that aircraft a share of the actual costs 

involved in the operation of the aircraft; 

and 

(d) Time-sharing operations: A 

company may lease a U.S.-registered 

foreign civil aircraft, with crew, to 

another company; provided, that the 

operator may collect no charge for the 

operation of the aircraft except 

reimbursement for: 

(1) Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other 

additives. 

(2) Travel expenses of the crew, 

including food, lodging, and ground 

transportation. 

(3) Hanger and tie-down costs away 

from the aircraft’s base of operations. 

(4) Insurance obtained for the specific 

flight. 

(5) Landing fees, airport taxes, and 

similar assessments. 

(6) Customs, foreign permit, and 

similar fees directly related to the flight. 

(7) In flight food and beverages. 

(8) Passenger ground transportation. 

(9) Flight planning and weather 

contract services. 

(10) An additional charge equal to 100 

percent of the expenses for fuel, oil, 

lubricants, and other additives.

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.56a this 28th day of January, 2005, in 

Washington, DC. 

Karan K. Bhatia, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 05–2035 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

36 CFR Part 1253 

RIN 3095–AB47 

NARA Facility Locations and Hours

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NARA proposes to add to its 

regulations the location of the William 

J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little 

Rock, Arkansas, and the location and 

hours for the regional archives in 

NARA’s Southeast Region (Atlanta) in 

Morrow, Georgia. This proposed rule 

will affect the public.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

April 8, 2005.

ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

proposed rule. Please include ‘‘Attn: 

3095–AB47’’ and your name and 

mailing address in your comments. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the