2006R0474 — EN — 28.06.2015 — 025.001

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

►B COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 474/2006 of 22 March 2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 084 23.3.2006, p. 14)

Amended by:









▼B

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 474/2006

of 22 March 2006

establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(Text with EEA relevance)







THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE ( 1 ), and in particular Article 3 thereof, Whereas: (1) Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’) lays down procedures for establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community as well as procedures allowing the Member States, in certain circumstances, to adopt exceptional measures imposing operating bans within their territory. (2) In accordance with Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation, each Member State communicated to the Commission the identity of the air carriers that are subject to an operating ban in its territory, together with the reasons which led to the adoption of such bans and any other relevant information. (3) The Commission informed all air carriers concerned either directly or, when this was not practicable, through the authorities responsible for their regulatory oversight, indicating the essential facts and considerations which would form the basis for a decision to impose them an operating ban within the Community. (4) In accordance with Article 7 of the basic Regulation, opportunity was given by the Commission to the air carriers concerned to consult the documents provided by Member States, to submit written comments and to make an oral presentation to the Commission within 10 working days and to the Air Safety Committee ( 2 ). (5) The common criteria for consideration of an operating ban for safety reasons at Community level are set out in the Annex to the basic Regulation. Whereas: Air Bangladesh (6) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Bangladesh with regard to a certain aircraft of its fleet. These deficiencies have been identified during ramp inspections performed by Germany under the SAFA programme ( 3 ). (7) Air Bangladesh did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Germany regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication, as demonstrated by its lack of reply to correspondence from this Member State. To date Germany had no opportunity to verify whether the safety deficiencies have been corrected. (8) The authorities of Bangladesh with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air Bangladesh have not exercised an adequate oversight on one specific aircraft used by this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. (9) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Bangladesh should be submitted to a strict operational restriction and included in Annex B. Air Koryo (10) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Koryo. These deficiencies have been identified by France and Germany, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 4 ). (11) Persistent failure by Air Koryo to address deficiencies previously communicated by France was identified during other ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 5 ). (12) Substantiated and serious incident-related information communicated by France indicates latent systemic safety deficiencies on the part of Air Koryo. (13) Air Koryo demonstrated a lack of ability to address these safety deficiencies. (14) Air Koryo did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of France regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication, as demonstrated by the absence of reply to a request by that Member State. (15) The corrective action plan presented by Air Koryo in response to France’s request was not adequate and sufficient to correct the identified serious safety deficiencies. (16) The authorities of the Democratic People Republic of Korea with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air Koryo have not exercised an adequate oversight on this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. (17) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Koryo does not meet the relevant safety standards. Ariana Afghan Airlines (18) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of certain aircraft operated by Ariana Afghan Airlines. These deficiencies have been identified by Germany, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 6 ). (19) Ariana Afghan Airlines demonstrated a lack of ability to address these safety deficiencies. (20) Ariana Afghan Airlines did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Germany regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of communication, as demonstrated by the absence of adequate response to correspondence from this Member State. (21) The competent authorities of Afghanistan, where the aircraft used by Ariana Afghan Airlines is registered, have not exercised a fully adequate oversight of the aircraft used by this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. (22) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Ariana Afghan does not meet the relevant safety standards for all the aircraft it operates, with the exception of A310 registration number F-GYYY which is registered in France and subject to the oversight of the French authorities. BGB Air (23) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of BGB Air. These deficiencies have been identified by Italy, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 7 ). (24) BGB Air demonstrated a lack of ability or willingness to address safety deficiencies as demonstrated by the submission of a self-assessment with ICAO Standards on the basis of the Foreign Operator Check List provided by Italy, which was found not to be in conformity with the subsequent findings of SAFA inspections. (25) BGB Air did not respond adequately to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Italy, regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication, as demonstrated by the absence of reply to some correspondence sent by this Member State. (26) There is no evidence of the implementation of an adequate corrective action plan presented by BGB Air to correct the serious safety deficiencies in response to the request from Italy. (27) The authorities of Kazakhstan with responsibility for regulatory oversight of BGB Air did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of Italy when concerns about the safety of the operation of BGB Air certified in that state were raised, as demonstrated by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State. (28) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that BGB Air does not meet the relevant safety standards. Buraq Air (29) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Buraq Air concerning its cargo operations. These deficiencies have been identified by Sweden and the Netherlands, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 8 ). (30) Buraq Air did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Germany regarding the safety aspect of its Cargo operations showing a lack of transparency or communication, as demonstrated by a lack of response to correspondence from this Member State. (31) The authorities of Libya with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Buraq Air have not exercised an adequate oversight on the Cargo operations of this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. (32) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Buraq Air should be subject to strict operational restrictions and included in Annex B. Air Service Comores (33) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Service Comores. These deficiencies have been identified by a Member State, France, during a ramp inspection performed under the SAFA programme ( 9 ). (34) There is no evidence of the implementation of an adequate corrective action plan presented by Air Service Comores to correct the identified serious safety deficiencies in response to the request from France. (35) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air Service Comores have shown a lack of ability to address safety deficiencies. (36) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Comores did not cooperate in due time with the civil aviation authority of France when concerns about the safety of the operation of a carrier licensed or certified in that state were raised. (37) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Service Comores does not meet the relevant safety standards. GST Aero Air Company (38) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of GST Aero Air Company. These deficiencies have been identified by Italy, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 10 ). (39) GST Aero Air Company demonstrated a lack of ability or willingness to address safety deficiencies. (40) GST Aero Air Company did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of Italy regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State. (41) There is no evidence of the implementation of an adequate corrective action plan presented by GST Aero Air Company to correct the serious safety deficiencies in response to Italy’s request. (42) The authorities of Kazakhstan with responsibility for regulatory oversight of GST Aero Air Company did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of Italy when concerns about the safety of the operation of a carrier licensed or certified in that state were raised, as demonstrated by the limited reply to the correspondence sent by Italy. (43) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that GST Aero Air Company does not meet the relevant safety standards. Phoenix Aviation (44) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Kirghizstan have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards with regard to Phoenix Aviation. While Phoenix Aviation’s Air Operator’s Certificate was issued by Kyrgyzstan, there is evidence showing s that the airline has its principal place of business in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. The US National Transportation Safety Board’s Factual Report ( 11 ) into an accident involving Kam Air flight 904, which was operated by Phoenix Aviation, states that Phoenix Aviation has its headquarters in the UAE. (45) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Phoenix Aviation does not meet the relevant safety standards. Phuket Airlines (46) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Phuket Airlines. These deficiencies have been identified by Member States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 12 ). (47) Phuket Airlines demonstrated a lack of ability to address timely and adequately these safety deficiencies. (48) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Thailand did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands when concerns about the safety of Phuket Airlines certified in that state were raised as demonstrated by the lack of pertinent responses to the correspondence from this Member State. (49) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Phuket Airlines does not meet the relevant safety standards. Reem Air (50) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Reem Air. These deficiencies have been initially identified by the Netherlands, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 13 ). (51) Persistent failure by Reem Air to address deficiencies was confirmed by the Netherlands, during subsequent ramp inspections on one specific aircraft performed under the SAFA programme ( 14 ). (52) Reem Air demonstrated a lack of ability or willingness to address safety deficiencies. (53) Reem Air did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State. (54) There is no evidence of the implementation of an adequate corrective action plan presented by Reem Air to correct the identified serious safety deficiencies in response to the request from the Netherlands. (55) The authorities of Kirghizstan with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Reem Air have not exercised an adequate oversight on this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention, as demonstrated by the persistence of serious safety deficiencies. In addition, information provided to the Commission by Reem Air during the hearing granted to this company evidences that, while Reem Air Operator’s Certificate was issued by Kyrgyzstan, this airline has its principal place of business in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. (56) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Reem Air does not meet the relevant safety standards. Silverback Cargo Freighters (57) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Silverback Cargo Freighters. These deficiencies have been identified by Belgium during a ramp inspection performed under the SAFA programme ( 15 ). (58) Silverback Cargo Freighters which equally assures the maintenance (A&B checks) of its own aircraft, did not respond adequately to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of this Member State regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated by the lack of pertinent response to requests made by this Member State. (59) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Silverback Cargo Freighters does not meet the relevant safety standards. Air carriers from the Democratic Republic of Congo (60) In spite of its efforts, the civil aviation authorities of the Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) have persistent difficulties to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards, as demonstrated by the ICAO-USOAP — Audit Summary Report of the Directorate of Civil Aviation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa, 11-18 June 2001). In particular, no system for the certification of Air Operators is currently in place. (61) The authorities of the DRC with responsibility for regulatory oversight have consequently shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight. (62) An operating ban is imposed on Central Air Express because of substantiated deficiencies related to international safety standards, and its lack of cooperation with a Member State. (63) Belgium ( 16 ) and Hewa Bora Airways (HBA) have provided information showing that, in the case of HBA, the deficiencies observed in the past by the Belgian authorities have been significantly corrected with respect to certain aircraft. Belgium has further informed the Commission that it intends to conduct systematic ramp inspections of HBA. In view of this, it is considered that this air carrier should be allowed to continue its current operations. (64) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo (RDC) should be included in Annex A with the exception of Hewa Bora Airways (HBA) which should be included in Annex B. Air carriers from Equatorial Guinea (65) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Equatorial Guinea did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of the United Kingdom (UK) when concerns about the safety of the operation of carriers licensed or certified in that state were raised. The UK wrote to the Director General of Civil Aviation in Equatorial Guinea on 27 March 2002 ( 17 ) seeking clarification on the following points: — a significant increase in the number of aircraft registered in Equatorial Guinea and suggestions that the Aircraft Registration Bureau (ARB) or a similar organisation might be managing the register, — the fact that a number of operators holding an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) issued by Equatorial Guinea did not have their principal place of business in Equatorial Guinea. The letter also advised the Director General of Civil Aviation that the UK would not be in a position to allow further commercial operations to its territory by Equatorial Guinea airlines until the UK authorities were satisfied that these airlines were receiving satisfactory oversight. Equatorial Guinea did not reply to this letter. (66) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Equatorial Guinea have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards, in particular as demonstrated by audits and related corrective action plans established under ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme. Such a USOAP audit of Equatorial Guinea took place in May 2001 whereby the audit report ( 18 ) indicated that the Civil Aviation Authority did not, at the time of the audit, have the ability to provide adequate oversight to its airlines and ensure that they operate in accordance with ICAO standards. These audit findings namely included: — lack of an organisation capable of undertaking safety oversight activities, in particular a lack of specialised staff in the areas of licensing, aircraft operations or airworthiness, — inability to identify the number of aircraft on the register or the number of valid certificates of airworthiness issued, — failure to establish a structured system for the certification and supervision of air operators, — failure to adopt aeronautical operations regulations, — failure to perform surveillance on authorised operators, — failure to implement a system for performing the basic duties of an airworthiness inspection agency. Furthermore the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Equatorial Guinea has never up to date submitted to ICAO an action plan to address these audit findings ( 19 ) and consequently an audit follow up mission has not taken place. (67) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Equatorial Guinea have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. In fact, some holders of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) issued by Equatorial Guinea do not have their principal place of business in Equatorial Guinea, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention ( 20 ). (68) The authorities of Equatorial Guinea with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight on these carriers: Air Consul SA, Avirex Guinée Equatoriale, COAGE — Compagnie Aeree de Guinée Equatorial, Ecuato Guineana de Aviación, Ecuatorial Cargo, GEASA — Guinea Ecuatorial Airlines SA, GETRA — Guinea Ecuatorial de Transportes Aéreos, Jetline Inc., King Transavia Cargo, Prompt Air GE SA, UTAGE — Unión de Transporte Aéreo de Guinea Ecuatorial. (69) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Equatorial Guinea should be subject to an operating ban and included in Annex A. Air carriers from Liberia (70) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of International Air Services certified in Liberia. These deficiencies have been identified by France, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 21 ). (71) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Liberia did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of the United Kingdom (UK) when informed of serious safety deficiencies identified during a ramp inspection of a Liberian-registered aircraft carried out by the UK civil aviation authority on 5 March 1996 ( 22 ). Concerns about the safety of the operation of carriers licensed or certified in Liberia were promptly raised when on 12 March 1996 the Liberian DCA was advised by the UK civil aviation authority that all requests for permits for Liberian registered aircraft to operate commercial services to the UK would be refused until the Liberian authorities could demonstrate the existence of an effective regulatory system to ensure the airworthiness of aircraft on the Liberian register. No response was ever received from the Liberian authorities. Likewise, the Liberian authorities did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of France by declining to reply when the latter Member State raised concerns about the safety of the operation of a carrier licensed or certified in Liberia. (72) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Liberia have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards. The Government of Liberia itself admitted in 1996 ( 23 ) that it was unable to maintain regulatory control over Liberian registered aircraft because of the civil conflict. While the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2003 and the UN and the National Transitional Government of Liberia are slowly putting in place measures to improve security, it is unlikely that the Government’s ability to regulate its register has improved since 1996. ICAO has not yet carried out a USOAP audit of Liberia because of the security situation. (73) The authorities of Liberia with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight on these carriers: International Air Services Inc., Satgur Air Transport Corp., Weasua Air Transport Co. Ltd. (74) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Liberia should be subject to an operating ban and included in Annex A. Air carriers from Sierra Leone (75) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Universal Ltd. These deficiencies have been identified by Sweden during a ramp inspection performed under the SAFA programme ( 24 ). (76) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sierra Leone did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authority of Sweden when concerns about the safety of the operation of Air Universal Ltd. certified in that state were raised, as demonstrated by the lack of response to the correspondence from this Member State. (77) The operating authorisation or technical permission of any carrier under the oversight of Sierra Leone has previously been refused or revoked by the United Kingdom. (78) While the Air Operator’s Certificate of Air Universal Ltd was issued by Sierra Leone, evidence shows that the airline has currently its principal place of business in Jordan, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. (79) The authorities of Sierra Leone with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Air Universal Ltd have not exercised an adequate oversight on this carrier in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. (80) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that Air Universal Ltd. does not meet the relevant safety standards. (81) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of air carriers certified in Sierra Leone. These deficiencies have been identified by three Member States, the UK, Malta and Sweden, during ramp inspections performed under the SAFA programme ( 25 ). (82) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sierra Leone did not fully cooperate with the civil aviation authorities of Sweden and of Malta when concerns about the safety of the operation of Air Universal Ltd certified in that state were raised as demonstrated by the lack of response to the correspondence from this Member State. (83) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sierra Leone have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards in accordance with their obligations under the Chicago Convention. Sierra Leone lacks an appropriate system in place to oversee its operators or the aircraft, and does not have the technical capability or resources to undertake such a task. Some holders of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) issued by Sierra Leone did not have their principal place of business in Sierra Leone, contrary to the requirements of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. (84) The corrective action plan presented by Sierra Leone is considered inappropriate (or insufficient) to correct the identified serious safety deficiencies. The Civil Aviation Authority of Sierra Leone has contracted a private company, International Aviation Surveyors (IAS), to conduct certain oversight activities on its behalf. However, the arrangements entered into between the two parties in a Memorandum of Understanding ( 26 ) do not provide an adequate oversight system for aircraft on the Sierra Leone register. In particular: — The aircraft/airlines covered by the MoU were not based in Sierra Leone and the lAS personnel were based in neither Sierra Leone nor the country in which the airlines were based. — IAS did not appear to have any enforcement powers. — IAS assumed responsibility for routine inspections of the airlines concerned but the level of inspection activity was not specified. — The MoU gave lAS a contractual relationship with the airlines concerned. — The MoU did not appear to adequately address the supervision of flight operations. (85) The authorities of Sierra Leone with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight on these carriers: Aerolift Co. Ltd, Afrik Air Links, Air Leone Ltd, Air Rum Ltd, Air Salone Ltd, Air Universal Ltd, Destiny Air Services Ltd, First Line Air (SL) Ltd, Heavylift Cargo, Paramount Airlines Ltd, Star Air Ltd, Teebah Airways, West Coast Airways Ltd. (86) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Sierra Leone should be subject to an operating ban and included in Annex A. Air carriers from Swaziland (87) There is verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part of Jet Africa, an air carrier certified in Swaziland. These deficiencies have been identified by the Netherlands during a ramp inspection performed under the SAFA programme ( 27 ). (88) Jet Africa did not respond adequately and timely to an enquiry by the civil aviation authority of the Netherlands regarding the safety aspect of its operation showing a lack of transparency or communication as demonstrated by the absence of reply to the correspondence sent by this Member State. (89) There is no evidence of a corrective action plan presented by Jet Africa to correct the serious safety deficiencies in response to the Netherlands request. (90) The authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Swaziland have shown an insufficient ability to implement and enforce the relevant safety standards, in particular as demonstrated by a USOAP audit which took place in March 1999. The audit report ( 28 ) concluded that at the time of the audit, Swaziland was not capable of satisfactorily undertaking safety oversight related responsibilities in respect of its airlines and aircraft register. It also noted that it was not possible to determine the actual number of aircraft on the register as it was not properly maintained. Neither was it possible for the audit team to determine the actual number of personnel licences issued by Swaziland that were still valid, as records were not being maintained. A USOAP audit follow up mission has not taken place because Swaziland has not provided ICAO with information on the progress it has made in implementing the action plan to address the audit findings. (91) The authorities of Swaziland with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the following air carriers have shown a lack of ability to carry out adequate safety oversight on these carriers: Aero Africa (Pty) Ltd, African International Airways (Pty) Ltd, Airlink Swaziland Ltd, Northeast Airlines (Pty) Ltd, Scan Air Charter Ltd, Swazi Express Airways, Jet Africa. (92) Therefore, on the basis of the common criteria, it is assessed that all air carriers certified in Swaziland should be subject to an operating ban and included in Annex A. General considerations concerning the carriers included in the list (93) Since it would not compromise safety, all air carriers mentioned above can be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with. (94) The Community list has to be updated regularly and as soon as it is required, in order to take into account the evolution of safety in relation to the air carriers concerned and on the basis of further evidence of remedial actions undertaken. Air carriers not included in the list (95) In light of the evidence provided by Tuninter and the authorities of Tunisia with responsibility for its regulatory oversight and further confirmation by Italy, it is considered that there is substantiated evidence that the safety deficiencies observed during two on-site inspections by the Italian authorities have been corrected by this carrier. (96) On the basis of the information provided by Germany, it is considered that there is no longer substantiated evidence of a lack of ability or willingness of the authorities of Tajikistan with responsibility for regulatory oversight of air carriers certified in this State. (97) On the basis of the information provided to Belgium showing that the deficiencies which led to a national ban on I.C.T.T.P.W. and South Airlines have been fully remedied, it is considered that there is no substantiated evidence of persisting serious safety deficiencies on the part of these air carriers. (98) On the basis of the information provided by Germany showing that the specific aircraft which led to the imposition of a operational restriction on Atlant Soyuz is no more part of its fleet, it is considered that there is no substantiated evidence of persisting serious safety deficiencies on the part of this air carrier. (99) On the basis of the information available at this stage, it is considered that there is no substantiated evidence of non-corrected serious safety deficiencies on the part of Air Mauritanie. Nevertheless, the ability of the authorities of Mauritania with responsibility for regulatory oversight of this air carrier needs to be further assessed. To this end, an evaluation of the authorities of Mauritania with responsibility for regulatory oversight of this air carrier and the undertakings under its responsibility should be conducted within 2 months by the Commission with the assistance of the authorities of any interested Member States. (100) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Air Safety Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:







Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation establishes the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community referred to in Chapter II of the basic Regulation.

Article 2

Operating bans

1. The air carriers listed in Annex A are subject to a ban within the Community for all their operations.

2. The air carriers listed in Annex B are subject to operational restrictions within the Community. The operational restrictions consist of a prohibition on the use of the specific aircraft or specific aircraft types mentioned in Annex B.

Article 3

Enforcement

Member States shall inform the Commission of any measures taken under Articles 3(1) of the basic Regulation to enforce, within their territory, the operating bans included in the Community list in respect of the air carriers that are the subject of those bans.

Article 4

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

▼M25









ANNEX A

LIST OF AIR CARRIERS WHICH ARE BANNED FROM OPERATING WITHIN THE UNION, WITH EXCEPTIONS ( 29 )







Name of the legal entity of the air carrier as indicated on its AOC (and its trading name, if different) Air Operator Certificate (‘AOC’) Number or Operating Licence Number ICAO airline designation number State of the Operator BLUE WING AIRLINES SRBWA-01/2002 BWI Suriname All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Afghanistan, including Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ARIANA AFGHAN AIRLINES AOC 009 AFG Islamic Republic of Afghanistan KAM AIR AOC 001 KMF Islamic Republic of Afghanistan PAMIR AIRLINES Unknown PIR Islamic Republic of Afghanistan SAFI AIRWAYS AOC 181 SFW Islamic Republic of Afghanistan All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Angola, with the exception of TAAG Angola Airlines put in Annex B, including Republic of Angola AEROJET AO 008-01/11 TEJ Republic of Angola AIR GICANGO 009 Unknown Republic of Angola AIR JET AO 006-01/11-MBC MBC Republic of Angola AIR NAVE 017 Unknown Republic of Angola AIR26 AO 003-01/11-DCD DCD Republic of Angola ANGOLA AIR SERVICES 006 Unknown Republic of Angola DIEXIM 007 Unknown Republic of Angola FLY540 AO 004-01 FLYA Unknown Republic of Angola GIRA GLOBO 008 GGL Republic of Angola HELIANG 010 Unknown Republic of Angola HELIMALONGO AO 005-01/11 Unknown Republic of Angola MAVEWA 016 Unknown Republic of Angola SONAIR AO 002-01/10-SOR SOR Republic of Angola All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Benin, including Republic of Benin AERO BENIN PEA No 014/MDCTTTATP-PR/ANAC/DEA/SCS AEB Republic of Benin AFRICA AIRWAYS Unknown AFF Republic of Benin ALAFIA JET PEA No 014/ANAC/MDCTTTATP-PR/DEA/SCS Unknown Republic of Benin BENIN GOLF AIR PEA No 012/MDCTTP-PR/ANAC/DEA/SCS. BGL Republic of Benin BENIN LITTORAL AIRWAYS PEA No 013/MDCTTTATP-PR/ANAC/DEA/SCS. LTL Republic of Benin COTAIR PEA No 015/MDCTTTATP-PR/ANAC/DEA/SCS. COB Republic of Benin ROYAL AIR PEA No 11/ANAC/MDCTTP-PR/DEA/SCS BNR Republic of Benin TRANS AIR BENIN PEA No 016/MDCTTTATP-PR/ANAC/DEA/SCS TNB Republic of Benin All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the Republic of Congo, including Republic of Congo AERO SERVICE RAC06-002 RSR Republic of Congo CANADIAN AIRWAYS CONGO RAC06-012 Unknown Republic of Congo EMERAUDE RAC06-008 Unknown Republic of Congo EQUAFLIGHT SERVICES RAC 06-003 EKA Republic of Congo EQUAJET RAC06-007 EKJ Republic of Congo EQUATORIAL CONGO AIRLINES S.A. RAC 06-014 Unknown Republic of Congo MISTRAL AVIATION RAC06-011 Unknown Republic of Congo TRANS AIR CONGO RAC 06-001 TSG Republic of Congo All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), including Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) AIR FAST CONGO 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0112/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) AIR KASAI 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0053/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) AIR KATANGA 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0056/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) AIR TROPIQUES 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/00625/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) BLUE AIRLINES 106/CAB/MIN/TVC/2012 BUL Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) BLUE SKY 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0028/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) BUSY BEE CONGO 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0064/2010 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) COMPAGNIE AFRICAINE D'AVIATION (CAA) 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0050/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) CONGO AIRWAYS 019/CAB/MIN/TVC/2015 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) DAKOTA SPRL 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/071/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) DOREN AIR CONGO 102/CAB/MIN/TVC/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) GOMAIR 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/011/2010 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) KIN AVIA 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0059/2010 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) KORONGO AIRLINES 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/001/2011 KGO Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) MALU AVIATION 098/CAB/MIN/TVC/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) MANGO AIRLINES 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/009/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) SERVE AIR 004/CAB/MIN/TVC/2015 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) SERVICES AIR 103/CAB/MIN/TVC/2012 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) SWALA AVIATION 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0084/2010 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) TRANSAIR CARGO SERVICES 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/073/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) WILL AIRLIFT 409/CAB/MIN/TVC/0247/2011 Unknown Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Djibouti, including Djibouti DAALLO AIRLINES Unknown DAO Djibouti All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Equatorial Guinea, including Equatorial Guinea CEIBA INTERCONTINENTAL 2011/0001/MTTCT/DGAC/SOPS CEL Equatorial Guinea CRONOS AIRLINES 2011/0004/MTTCT/DGAC/SOPS Unknown Equatorial Guinea PUNTO AZUL 2012/0006/MTTCT/DGAC/SOPS Unknown Equatorial Guinea TANGO AIRWAYS Unknown Unknown Equatorial Guinea All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Eritrea, including Eritrea ERITREAN AIRLINES AOC No 004 ERT Eritrea NASAIR ERITREA AOC No 005 NAS Eritrea All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the Republic of Gabon, with the exception of Afrijet and SN2AG put in Annex B, including Republic of Gabon AFRIC AVIATION 010/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA EKG Republic of Gabon ALLEGIANCE AIR TOURIST 007/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA LGE Republic of Gabon NATIONALE REGIONALE TRANSPORT (N.R.T) 008/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA NRG Republic of Gabon SKY GABON 009/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA SKG Republic of Gabon SOLENTA AVIATION GABON 006/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA SVG Republic of Gabon TROPICAL AIR-GABON 011/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA Unknown Republic of Gabon All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Indonesia, with the exception of Garuda Indonesia, Airfast Indonesia, Ekspres Transportasi Antarbenua and Indonesia Air Asia, including Republic of Indonesia AIR BORN INDONESIA 135-055 Unknown Republic of Indonesia AIR PACIFIC UTAMA 135-020 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ALFA TRANS DIRGANTATA 135-012 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ANGKASA SUPER SERVICES 135-050 LBZ Republic of Indonesia ASCO NUSA AIR 135-022 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ASI PUDJIASTUTI 135-028 SQS Republic of Indonesia AVIASTAR MANDIRI 121-043 Unknown Republic of Indonesia AVIASTAR MANDIRI 135-029 VIT Republic of Indonesia BATIK AIR 121-050 BTK Republic of Indonesia CITILINK INDONESIA 121-046 CTV Republic of Indonesia DABI AIR NUSANTARA 135-030 Unknown Republic of Indonesia DERAYA AIR TAXI 135-013 DRY Republic of Indonesia DERAZONA AIR SERVICE 135-010 DRZ Republic of Indonesia DIRGANTARA AIR SERVICE 135-014 DIR Republic of Indonesia EASTINDO 135-038 ESD Republic of Indonesia ELANG LINTAS INDONESIA 135-052 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ELANG NUSANTARA AIR 135-053 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ENGGANG AIR SERVICE 135-045 Unknown Republic of Indonesia ERSA EASTERN AVIATION 135-047 Unknown Republic of Indonesia GATARI AIR SERVICE 135-018 GHS Republic of Indonesia HEAVY LIFT 135-042 Unknown Republic of Indonesia INDONESIA AIR ASIA EXTRA 121-054 Unknown Republic of Indonesia INDONESIA AIR TRANSPORT 121-034 IDA Republic of Indonesia INTAN ANGKASA AIR SERVICE 135-019 Unknown Republic of Indonesia JAYAWIJAYA DIRGANTARA 121-044 JWD Republic of Indonesia JOHNLIN AIR TRANSPORT 135-043 JLB Republic of Indonesia KAL STAR 121-037 KLS Republic of Indonesia KARTIKA AIRLINES 121-003 KAE Republic of Indonesia KOMALA INDONESIA 135-051 Unknown Republic of Indonesia KURA-KURA AVIATION 135-016 KUR Republic of Indonesia LION MENTARI AIRLINES 121-010 LNI Republic of Indonesia MANUNGGAL AIR SERVICE 121-020 MNS Republic of Indonesia MARTABUANA ABADION 135-049 Unknown Republic of Indonesia MATTHEW AIR NUSANTARA 135-048 Unknown Republic of Indonesia MIMIKA AIR 135-007 Unknown Republic of Indonesia MY INDO AIRLINES 121-042 Unknown Republic of Indonesia NAM AIR 121-058 Unknown Republic of Indonesia NATIONAL UTILITY HELICOPTER 135-011 Unknown Republic of Indonesia NUSANTARA AIR CHARTER 121-022 SJK Republic of Indonesia NUSANTARA BUANA AIR 135-041 Unknown Republic of Indonesia PACIFIC ROYALE AIRWAYS 121-045 PRQ Republic of Indonesia PEGASUS AIR SERVICES 135-036 Unknown Republic of Indonesia PELITA AIR SERVICE 121-008 PAS Republic of Indonesia PENERBANGAN ANGKASA SEMESTA 135-026 Unknown Republic of Indonesia PURA WISATA BARUNA 135-025 Unknown Republic of Indonesia RIAU AIRLINES 121-016 RIU Republic of Indonesia SAYAP GARUDA INDAH 135-004 Unknown Republic of Indonesia SMAC 135-015 SMC Republic of Indonesia SRIWIJAYA AIR 121-035 SJY Republic of Indonesia SURVEI UDARA PENAS 135-006 PNS Republic of Indonesia SURYA AIR 135-046 Unknown Republic of Indonesia TRANSNUSA AVIATION MANDIRI 121-048 TNU Republic of Indonesia TRANSWISATA PRIMA AVIATION 135-021 TWT Republic of Indonesia TRAVEL EXPRESS AVIATION SERVICE 121-038 XAR Republic of Indonesia TRAVIRA UTAMA 135-009 TVV Republic of Indonesia TRI MG INTRA ASIA AIRLINES 121-018 TMG Republic of Indonesia TRIGANA AIR SERVICE 121-006 TGN Republic of Indonesia UNINDO 135-040 Unknown Republic of Indonesia WING ABADI AIRLINES 121-012 WON Republic of Indonesia All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Kazakhstan, with the exception of Air Astana put in Annex B, including Republic of Kazakhstan AIR ALMATY AK-0483-13 LMY Republic of Kazakhstan ATMA AIRLINES AK-0469-12 AMA Republic of Kazakhstan AVIA-JAYNAR/AVIA-ZHAYNAR AK-0467-12 SAP Republic of Kazakhstan BEK AIR AK-0463-12 BEK Republic of Kazakhstan BEYBARS AIRCOMPANY AK-0473-13 BBS Republic of Kazakhstan BURUNDAYAVIA AIRLINES KZ-01/001 BRY Republic of Kazakhstan COMLUX-KZ KZ-01/002 KAZ Republic of Kazakhstan EAST WING KZ-01/007 EWZ Republic of Kazakhstan EURO-ASIA AIR AK-0472-13 EAK Republic of Kazakhstan FLY JET KZ AK-0477-13 FJK Republic of Kazakhstan INVESTAVIA AK-0479-13 TLG Republic of Kazakhstan IRTYSH AIR AK-0468-13 MZA Republic of Kazakhstan JET AIRLINES KZ-01/003 SOZ Republic of Kazakhstan KAZAIR JET AK-0474-13 KEJ Republic of Kazakhstan KAZAIRTRANS AIRLINE AK-0466-12 KUY Republic of Kazakhstan KAZAVIASPAS AK-0484-13 KZS Republic of Kazakhstan PRIME AVIATION AK-0478-13 PKZ Republic of Kazakhstan SCAT KZ-01/004 VSV Republic of Kazakhstan ZHETYSU AIRCOMPANY AK-0470-12 JTU Republic of Kazakhstan All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the Kyrgyz Republic, including Kyrgyz Republic AIR BISHKEK (formerly EASTOK AVIA) 15 EAA Kyrgyz Republic AIR MANAS 17 MBB Kyrgyz Republic AVIA TRAFFIC COMPANY 23 AVJ Kyrgyz Republic CENTRAL ASIAN AVIATION SERVICES (CAAS) 13 CBK Kyrgyz Republic HELI SKY 47 HAC Kyrgyz Republic AIR KYRGYZSTAN 03 LYN Kyrgyz Republic MANAS AIRWAYS 42 BAM Kyrgyz Republic S GROUP INTERNATIONAL (formerly S GROUP AVIATION) 45 IND Kyrgyz Republic SKY BISHKEK 43 BIS Kyrgyz Republic SKY KG AIRLINES 41 KGK Kyrgyz Republic SKY WAY AIR 39 SAB Kyrgyz Republic TEZ JET 46 TEZ Kyrgyz Republic VALOR AIR 07 VAC Kyrgyz Republic All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Liberia. Liberia All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Libya, including Libya AFRIQIYAH AIRWAYS 007/01 AAW Libya AIR LIBYA 004/01 TLR Libya BURAQ AIR 002/01 BRQ Libya GHADAMES AIR TRANSPORT 012/05 GHT Libya GLOBAL AVIATION AND SERVICES 008/05 GAK Libya LIBYAN AIRLINES 001/01 LAA Libya PETRO AIR 025/08 PEO Libya All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the Republic of Mozambique, including Republic of Mozambique AERO-SERVIÇOS SARL MOZ-08 Unknown Republic of Mozambique CFM — TRABALHOS E TRANSPORTES AÉREOS LDA MOZ-07 Unknown Republic of Mozambique COA — COASTAL AVIATION MOZ-15 Unknown Republic of Mozambique CPY — CROPSPRAYERS MOZ-06 Unknown Republic of Mozambique CRA — CR AVIATION LDA MOZ-14 Unknown Republic of Mozambique EMÍLIO AIR CHARTER LDA MOZ-05 Unknown Republic of Mozambique ETA — EMPRESA DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS LDA MOZ-04 Unknown Republic of Mozambique HCP — HELICÓPTEROS CAPITAL LDA MOZ-11 Unknown Republic of Mozambique KAY — KAYA AIRLINES, LDA MOZ-09 KYY Republic of Mozambique LAM — LINHAS AÉREAS DE MOÇAMBIQUE S.A. MOZ-01 LAM Republic of Mozambique MAKOND, LDA MOZ-20 Unknown Republic of Mozambique MEX — MOÇAMBIQUE EXPRESSO, SARL MEX MOZ-02 MXE Republic of Mozambique OHI — OMNI HELICÓPTEROS INTERNATIONAL LDA MOZ-17 Unknown Republic of Mozambique SAF — SAFARI AIR LDA MOZ-12 Unknown Republic of Mozambique SAM — SOLENTA AVIATION MOZAMBIQUE, SA MOZ-10 Unknown Republic of Mozambique TTA — TRABALHOS E TRANSPORTES AÉREOS LDA MOZ-16 TTA Republic of Mozambique UNIQUE AIR CHARTER LDA MOZ-13 Unknown Republic of Mozambique All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Nepal, including Republic of Nepal AIR DYNASTY HELI. S. 035/2001 Unknown Republic of Nepal AIR KASTHAMANDAP 051/2009 Unknown Republic of Nepal BUDDHA AIR 014/1996 BHA Republic of Nepal FISHTAIL AIR 017/2001 Unknown Republic of Nepal GOMA AIR 064/2010 Unknown Republic of Nepal MAKALU AIR 057A/2009 Unknown Republic of Nepal MANANG AIR PVT LTD 082/2014 Unknown Republic of Nepal MOUNTAIN HELICOPTERS 055/2009 Unknown Republic of Nepal MUKTINATH AIRLINES 081/2013 Unknown Republic of Nepal NEPAL AIRLINES CORPORATION 003/2000 RNA Republic of Nepal SHREE AIRLINES 030/2002 SHA Republic of Nepal SIMRIK AIR 034/2000 Unknown Republic of Nepal SIMRIK AIRLINES 052/2009 RMK Republic of Nepal SITA AIR 033/2000 Unknown Republic of Nepal TARA AIR 053/2009 Unknown Republic of Nepal YETI AIRLINES DOMESTIC 037/2004 NYT Republic of Nepal All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sao Tome and Principe, including Sao Tome and Principe AFRICA'S CONNECTION 10/AOC/2008 ACH Sao Tome and Principe STP AIRWAYS 03/AOC/2006 STP Sao Tome and Principe All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sierra Leone, including Sierra Leone AIR RUM, LTD UNKNOWN RUM Sierra Leone DESTINY AIR SERVICES, LTD UNKNOWN DTY Sierra Leone HEAVYLIFT CARGO UNKNOWN Unknown Sierra Leone ORANGE AIR SIERRA LEONE LTD UNKNOWN ORJ Sierra Leone PARAMOUNT AIRLINES, LTD UNKNOWN PRR Sierra Leone SEVEN FOUR EIGHT AIR SERVICES LTD UNKNOWN SVT Sierra Leone TEEBAH AIRWAYS UNKNOWN Unknown Sierra Leone All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Sudan, including Republic of Sudan ALFA AIRLINES 54 AAJ Republic of the Sudan ALMAJAL AVIATION SERVICE 15 MGG Republic of the Sudan BADER AIRLINES 35 BDR Republic of the Sudan BENTIU AIR TRANSPORT 29 BNT Republic of the Sudan BLUE BIRD AVIATION 11 BLB Republic of the Sudan DOVE AIRLINES 52 DOV Republic of the Sudan ELIDINER AVIATION 8 DND Republic of the Sudan FOURTY EIGHT AVIATION 53 WHB Republic of the Sudan GREEN FLAG AVIATION 17 Unknown Republic of the Sudan HELEJETIC AIR 57 HJT Republic of the Sudan KATA AIR TRANSPORT 9 KTV Republic of the Sudan KUSH AVIATION 60 KUH Republic of the Sudan MARSLAND COMPANY 40 MSL Republic of the Sudan MID AIRLINES 25 NYL Republic of the Sudan NOVA AIRLINES 46 NOV Republic of the Sudan SUDAN AIRWAYS 1 SUD Republic of the Sudan SUN AIR COMPANY 51 SNR Republic of the Sudan TARCO AIRLINES 56 TRQ Republic of the Sudan All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Zambia, including Zambia ZAMBEZI AIRLINES Z/AOC/001/2009 ZMA Zambia









ANNEX B

LIST OF AIR CARRIERS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE UNION ( 30 )







Name of the legal entity of the air carrier as indicated on its AOC (and its trading name, if different) Air Operator Certificate (‘AOC’) Number ICAO airline designation number State of the Operator Aircraft type restricted Registration mark(s) and, when available, construction serial number(s) of restricted aircraft State of registry TAAG ANGOLA AIRLINES 001 DTA Republic of Angola All fleet with the exception of: 6 aircraft of type Boeing B777 and 4 aircraft of type Boeing B737-700. All fleet with the exception of: D2-TED, D2-TEE, D2-TEF, D2-TEG, D2-TEH, D2-TEI, D2-TBF, D2-TBG, D2-TBH, D2-TBJ. Republic of Angola AIR ASTANA (1) AK-0475-13 KZR Kazakhstan All fleet with the exception of: aircraft of type Boeing B767, aircraft of type Boeing B757, aircraft of type Airbus A319/320/321. All fleet with the exception of: aircraft within the Boeing B767 fleet, as mentioned on the AOC; aircraft within the Boeing B757 fleet, as mentioned on the AOC; aircraft within the Airbus A319/320/321 fleet, as mentioned on the AOC. Aruba (Kingdom of the Netherlands) AIR SERVICE COMORES 06-819/TA-15/DGACM KMD Comoros All fleet with the exception of: LET 410 UVP. All fleet with the exception of: D6-CAM (851336). Comoros AFRIJET BUSINESS SERVICE (2) 002/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA ABS Republic of Gabon All fleet with the exception of: 2 aircraft of type Falcon 50, 2 aircraft of type Falcon 900. All fleet with the exception of: TR-LGV; TR-LGY; TR-AFJ; TR-AFR. Republic of Gabon NOUVELLE AIR AFFAIRES GABON (SN2AG) 003/MTAC/ANAC-G/DSA NVS Republic of Gabon All fleet with the exception of: 1 aircraft of type Challenger CL-601, 1 aircraft of type HS-125-800. All fleet with the exception of: TR-AAG, ZS-AFG. Republic of Gabon; Republic of South Africa IRAN AIR (3) FS100 IRA Islamic Republic of Iran All fleet with the exception of: 14 aircraft of type Airbus A300, 8 aircraft of type Airbus A310, 1 aircraft Boeing B737. All fleet with the exception of: EP-IBA, EP-IBB, EP-IBC, EP-IBD, EP-IBG, EP-IBH, EP-IBI, EP-IBJ, EP-IBM, EP-IBN, EP-IBO, EP-IBS, EP-IBT, EP-IBV, EP-IBX, EP-IBZ, EP-ICE, EP-ICF, EP-IBK, EP-IBL, EP-IBP, EP-IBQ, EP-AGA. Islamic Republic of Iran AIR KORYO GAC-AOC/KOR-01 KOR Democratic People's Republic of Korea All fleet with the exception of: 2 aircraft of type TU- 204. All fleet with the exception of: P-632, P-633. Democratic People's Republic of Korea AIR MADAGASCAR 5R-M01/2009 MDG Madagascar All fleet with the exception of: aircraft of type Boeing B737, aircraft of type ATR 72/42 and 3 aircraft of type DHC 6-300. All fleet with the exception of: aircraft within the Boeing B737 fleet, as mentioned on the AOC, aircraft within the ATR 72/42 fleet, as mentioned on the AOC; 5R-MGC, 5R-MGD, 5R-MGF. Republic of Madagascar (1) Air Astana is only allowed to use the specific aircraft types mentioned, provided that they are registered in Aruba and that all changes to the AOC are timely submitted to the Commission and to Eurocontrol. (2) Afrijet is only allowed to use the specific aircraft mentioned for its current level of operations within the Union. (3) Iran Air is allowed to operate to the Union using the specific aircraft under the conditions set out in Recital (69) of Regulation (EU) No 590/2010, OJ L 170, 6.7.2010, p. 15.