Consumer Information Regarding On-Demand Air Taxi Operations, 3773-3775 [E7-1232]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
series airplanes, all certified models, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category,
on which Airbus modification 42061 or
46077 or 53604 has been embodied in
production and delivered before December
31, 2005.
Reason
(d) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states that
an A330 operator has reported a shroud box
bottom panel missing during routine
inspection. The same panel detached from an
A330 aircraft during take-off, causing
damages to the surrounding structure and to
the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer (THS)
tip fairing. Preliminary inspection has shown
that the blind rivets used to attach the panel
worked loose causing the panel to suffer
fatigue damage with a crack propagation
through the fastener line resulting in panel
detachment. To avoid potential injuries to
persons on ground, the MCAI requires a one
time detailed visual inspection of the shroud
box bottom panel for cracks in the panel and
for missing and loose fasteners, and
applicable repairs.
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Actions and Compliance
(e) Unless already done, do the following
actions. Within the threshold specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD and in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A330–57A3792, dated
February 3, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A340–57A4101, dated February 3, 2006; as
applicable: Perform a one time detailed
inspection of the shroud box bottom panel
for cracks, fasteners missing or loose,
damage, and marks; and apply all applicable
corrective actions. Do applicable corrective
actions before further flight. The inspections
results, whatever they are, must be reported
to Airbus.
(1) For Model A330 airplanes: Whichever
occurs later between paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 1,200 flight
cycles or 2,400 flight hours from the first
flight of the aircraft, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 6 months or 1,200 flight hours,
whichever occurs first, following the
effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A340–200 and A340–300
series airplanes: Whichever occurs later
between paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii) of
this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 1,200 flight
cycles or 4,800 flight hours from the first
flight of the aircraft, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 6 months or 2,400 flight hours,
whichever occurs first, following the
effective date of this AD.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(f) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, Attn: Tim Backman,
Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057–3356, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. Before using any AMOC approved
in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(g) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006–
0107, dated May 12, 2006, and Airbus
Service Bulletins A330–57A3092 and A340–
57A4101, both dated February 3, 2006, for
related information.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January
12, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–1210 Filed 1–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 135 and 298
[Docket OST–2007–27057]
RIN 2105–AD66
Consumer Information Regarding OnDemand Air Taxi Operations
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of
Transportation (Department) is seeking
input from interested parties on the
recommendation of the National
Transportation Safety Board (Safety
Board or NTSB) that customers of ondemand air taxi services be advised, at
the time they contract for a flight, of: (1)
The name of the company with
operational control of the flight; (2) any
‘‘doing business as’’ names contained in
such company’s Operations
Specifications; (3) the name of the
aircraft owner; and (4) the name of any
broker involved in arranging the flight.
The NTSB has also recommended that
customers be updated thereafter in the
event such information changes. The
Department will evaluate the comments
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3773
to determine what, if any, changes to its
economic rules applicable to ondemand air taxi operators should be
made.
DATES: Comments should be received by
March 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
(identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number) by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: https://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–
0001.
• 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
https://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
Public Participation heading of the
Supplementary Information section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act discussion under the
Public Participation heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
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.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan Dols, Supervisory Trial
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
3774
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Attorney, or Dayton Lehman, Jr., Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, Office of
Aviation Enforcement Proceedings (C–
70), 400 7th Street, SW., Room 4116,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–
366–9342.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 28, 2004, a Canadair, Ltd.,
CL–600–2A12, operated by Air Castle
Corporation doing business as Global
Aviation Glo-Air 73, crashed during
takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport,
Montrose, Colorado. In the course of its
accident investigation, the Safety Board
noted non-causal factors that the Safety
Board felt could nevertheless play a role
in the safety choices that customers
make when contracting for on-demand
air taxi transportation with air charter
companies. Among the factors identified
by the NTSB was a lack of transparency
such that a customer or passenger may
not know the identities of those
businesses providing them with ondemand air transportation services,
hindering those persons’ abilities to
make decisions based on safety
considerations. In order to remedy this
concern, the Safety Board on August 4,
2006, recommended that the
Department adopt rules applicable to
on-demand air taxi flights that would
require that certain information be
provided to customers and passengers at
the time a flight is contracted, and any
time thereafter that a change in such
information might occur.
The Safety Board recommended the
following information be disclosed to
customers and passengers at the time an
air taxi charter contract is arranged and
anytime thereafter that such information
changes: (1) The name of the company
in operational control of the aircraft
during flight; (2) any other ‘‘doing
business as’’ names contained in the
Operations Specifications of the carrier
in operational control during the flight;
(3) the name of the aircraft owner; and
(4) the names of all brokers involved in
arranging the flight. A copy of Safety
Board Recommendation A–06–43 is
available online at https://www.ntsb.gov/
Recs/letters/2006/A06_43.pdf.
Authority to operate on-demand air
taxi service is prescribed by both the
Federal Aviation Administration’s
(FAA) safety regulations, set forth at 14
CFR Part 135, and the economic
requirements of the Office of the
Secretary, set forth at 14 CFR Part 298.
The Department has always believed
that adequate information is essential in
order that consumers be afforded the
opportunity to make informed decisions
about their flight choices. For example,
we have long had in effect a regulation
covering scheduled carriers, which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
provide air service for the vast majority
of passengers in the U.S,. that requires
that notice be provided the public of the
name of the airline operating a code
share or long-term wet lease operation.
(See 14 CFR Part 257) That required
notice is similar to that which the Safety
Board recommends be required of ondemand air taxi operations.
The Department also has longstanding
rules applicable to air charter brokers
and other ticket agents that prohibit
them from, among other things: (1)
Misleading the public into believing
they are airlines; (2) misleading the
public about the qualifications of pilots
or the safety record or certification of air
carriers, aircraft, or crew; and (3)
misleading the public about the quality
or kind of service, including the size or
type of aircraft and route to be flown.
(See 14 CFR 399.80) In addition, it
would be a deceptive practice
prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 41712 for an air
taxi to misidentify to a customer the
carrier actually operating a flight. Where
warranted, we have acted through our
Office of the Assistant General Counsel
for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings (Enforcement Office) to
enforce these requirements. For
example, the Enforcement Office’s
investigation following the February 2,
2005, crash of Canadiar CL–600–N370V
at Teterboro, New Jersey, resulted in
enforcement action against all three
entities involved—the unlicensed
operator of the aircraft, the air carrier on
whose operations specifications the
crashed aircraft was listed, and the air
charter broker who arranged the flight
using the unlicensed aircraft operator—
for violations of the Department’s
economic regulations described above.
See, Platinum Jet Management, LLC,
Michael F. Brassington, Andre Budhan,
and Paul Brassington, Consent Order
2006–6–14, issued June 12, 2006,
Docket OST–2006–23528 (finding, inter
alia, that Platinum and the named
individuals engaged in air
transportation without economic
authority from the Department in
violation of 49 U.S.C. 41301 and 41712);
Darby Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Alphajet
International, Consent Order 2005–12–
1, issued December 1, 2005, Docket
OST–2005–20077 (finding that Darby, a
properly licensed on-demand air taxi,
engaged in an unfair and deceptive
practice and an unfair method of
competition in violation of 49 U.S.C.
41712 by facilitating the unlawful air
taxi operations of Platinum Jet
Management); and BlueStarJets, LLC,
Consent Order 2005–10–24, issued
October 24, 2005, Docket OST–2005–
20077 (finding that BlueStarJets, an air
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
charter broker, violated 14 CFR Part 399
and 49 U.S.C. 41101 and engaged in an
unfair and deceptive practice and an
unfair method of competition in
violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 by
misrepresenting itself as an air carrier
and misrepresenting the safety records
and certification of carriers whose
services it was marketing).
The Department is aware of the
increasing role in the U.S. air
transportation system being played by
air carriers that operate on-demand air
taxi service under Part 298 of the
Department’s economic regulations, and
Part 135 of the FAA’s safety regulations,
as well as by air charter brokers who
bring together air taxis and customers in
that system. Therefore, we have not
limited our work in this area to afterthe-fact enforcement actions; rather, we
have been active in air charter industry
outreach efforts. The Department’s
Enforcement Office has reemphasized
our existing requirements applicable to
the air charter industry through
issuance of informal guidance and
regular participation in conferences and
meetings with the major associations
representing all facets of the air charter
industry, at which the need to provide
complete and accurate notice of the
carrier that is operating the flight has
been urged on the participants. The
Enforcement Office also maintains an
open line of communication with
carriers, individuals, and organizations
throughout the year to discuss matters
of concern to the on-demand air charter
industry.
Although we believe the Department’s
consumer protection efforts described
above have gone a long way toward
ensuring the protection of the public
who use on-demand air taxi services,
the notice recommended by the Safety
Board is not specifically required by
current Department regulations. The
Department agrees with the Safety
Board that accurate information is
essential if airline consumers are to
make informed choices, including those
related to safety. We are continually
striving to fulfill our duty to maintain
the proper balance between consumer
protections and our charge to permit
market forces to govern the air
transportation industry to the maximum
extent possible. Toward this end, there
are, of course, many factors to take into
account in determining whether or not
to implement the NTSB’s
recommendations. Accordingly, the
Department is seeking input from
interested parties on the
recommendations made by the NTSB.
We ask that, in considering their
comments on the Safety Board’s
recommendations, commenters
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 17 / Friday, January 26, 2007 / Proposed Rules
specifically consider and comment on
the following questions:
1. How might customers and
passengers benefit from the information
covered by the NTSB recommendation
in making their air taxi service purchase
decisions?
2. Should any notice requirement, if
adopted, also apply to air charter
brokers and other ticket agents who
arrange for air transportation for
customers using the services of ondemand air taxis?
3. To what extent is each of the
notices recommended by the Safety
Board already provided in the normal
course of business to persons who travel
using an on-demand air taxi? If such
notice is not currently routinely
provided, what, if any, practical
difficulties would the on-demand air
taxi industry likely face in providing the
notice?
4. What costs, if any, would the
recommended changes impose on the
industry? Would there be any
paperwork burdens? Would there be a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities ?
5. How might the disclosure of the
names of the owners of the aircraft
involved in the arranged flights be
useful to customers and passengers?
What, if any, practical or privacy
concerns would be raised by such a
requirement?
6. At what point in time must any
notice, if required, first be provided to
be effective, e.g., in printed and website
advertisements, to potential customers
when they are seeking information,
anytime prior to entering into a contract,
upon signing the contract, or anytime
prior to boarding the aircraft?
7. What form should any notice
requirement, if adopted, take? That is, is
verbal notice sufficient or must the
notice be in writing?
8. What are the practical problems in
requiring notice to individual
passengers of an on-demand air taxi?
Would any notice requirement be
sufficient if provided to the person
contracting for the flight, e.g., the
customer’s broker/agent or a
corporation’s travel department or an
executive’s assistant who arranged the
flight?
Andrew B. Steinberg,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7–1232 Filed 1–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 25, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250,
281, 284, 300, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347,
348, 375 and 385
[Docket No. RM01–5–000]
Notice of Meeting With North American
Energy Standards Board
January 18, 2007.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
notice of conference.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: A conference will be held
with the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB) to discuss
NAESB’s assistance in the process of
developing standards for electronic
tariff and rate schedules filings in
connection with the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposed to
initiate electronic tariff filings.
Electronic Tariff Filings, 69 FR 43929
(July 23, 2004).
DATES: February 1, 2007, 10 a.m. until
4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Markets
and Reliability, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
202–502–8525, Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
3775
20426, in the Commission Meeting
Room.
Information related to this conference
is available on NAESB’s Web site
(https://www.naesb.org/etariff.asp).
Background material can be found on
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov; click on eTariff under the
Documents and Filings Heading).
Notices of any subsequent NAESB
meetings will be posted on the NAESB
Web site https://www.naesb.org/
etariff.asp.
The conference is open to the public
to attend, and pre-registration is not
required.
Conferences held at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission are
accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For
accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov
or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice)
or 202–208–1659 (TTY), or send a FAX
to 202–208–2106 with the required
accommodations.
For more information about this
conference, please contact Keith Pierce,
Office of Energy Markets and Reliability
at (202) 502–8525 or
Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–1158 Filed 1–25–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Electronic Tariff Filings
29 CFR Part 825
Notice of Meeting With North American
Energy Standards Board
Request for Information on the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993;
Extension of Comment Period
Take notice that on February 1, 2007,
a conference will be held with the North
American Energy Standards Board
(NAESB) to discuss NAESB’s assistance
in the process of developing standards
for electronic tariff and rate schedules
filings in connection with the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that
proposed to initiate electronic tariff
filings. Electronic Tariff Filings, 69 FR
43929 (July 23, 2004) FERC Stats. &
Regs., Proposed Regulations ¶ 32,575
(July 8, 2004). This process will
examine the protocols, standards, and
data formats needed to provide
metadata to enable the Commission to
develop a database to track such filings.
The technical conference will be held
from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. (EDT) at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Employment Standards
Administration, Wage and Hour
Division, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Request for Information from
the Public; extension of comment
period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice extends the
period for comments to be submitted on
the request for information (‘‘RFI’’)
published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR
69504) related to the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (the ‘‘FMLA’’
or the ‘‘Act’’). That request for
information invites the public to
provide information to the Department
of Labor (‘‘Department’’) to assist in its
consideration and review of the
Department’s administration of the Act
and the implementing regulations. The
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 17 (Friday, January 26, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3773-3775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 135 and 298
[Docket OST-2007-27057]
RIN 2105-AD66
Consumer Information Regarding On-Demand Air Taxi Operations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (Department) is seeking input
from interested parties on the recommendation of the National
Transportation Safety Board (Safety Board or NTSB) that customers of
on-demand air taxi services be advised, at the time they contract for a
flight, of: (1) The name of the company with operational control of the
flight; (2) any ``doing business as'' names contained in such company's
Operations Specifications; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4)
the name of any broker involved in arranging the flight. The NTSB has
also recommended that customers be updated thereafter in the event such
information changes. The Department will evaluate the comments to
determine what, if any, changes to its economic rules applicable to on-
demand air taxi operators should be made.
DATES: Comments should be received by March 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number) by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://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 20590-0001.
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 https://
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 Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation
heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://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.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Dols, Supervisory Trial
[[Page 3774]]
Attorney, or Dayton Lehman, Jr., Deputy Assistant General Counsel,
Office of Aviation Enforcement Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th Street, SW.,
Room 4116, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9342.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 28, 2004, a Canadair, Ltd., CL-
600-2A12, operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global
Aviation Glo-Air 73, crashed during takeoff at Montrose Regional
Airport, Montrose, Colorado. In the course of its accident
investigation, the Safety Board noted non-causal factors that the
Safety Board felt could nevertheless play a role in the safety choices
that customers make when contracting for on-demand air taxi
transportation with air charter companies. Among the factors identified
by the NTSB was a lack of transparency such that a customer or
passenger may not know the identities of those businesses providing
them with on-demand air transportation services, hindering those
persons' abilities to make decisions based on safety considerations. In
order to remedy this concern, the Safety Board on August 4, 2006,
recommended that the Department adopt rules applicable to on-demand air
taxi flights that would require that certain information be provided to
customers and passengers at the time a flight is contracted, and any
time thereafter that a change in such information might occur.
The Safety Board recommended the following information be disclosed
to customers and passengers at the time an air taxi charter contract is
arranged and anytime thereafter that such information changes: (1) The
name of the company in operational control of the aircraft during
flight; (2) any other ``doing business as'' names contained in the
Operations Specifications of the carrier in operational control during
the flight; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4) the names of
all brokers involved in arranging the flight. A copy of Safety Board
Recommendation A-06-43 is available online at https://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/
letters/2006/A06_43.pdf.
Authority to operate on-demand air taxi service is prescribed by
both the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) safety regulations,
set forth at 14 CFR Part 135, and the economic requirements of the
Office of the Secretary, set forth at 14 CFR Part 298. The Department
has always believed that adequate information is essential in order
that consumers be afforded the opportunity to make informed decisions
about their flight choices. For example, we have long had in effect a
regulation covering scheduled carriers, which provide air service for
the vast majority of passengers in the U.S,. that requires that notice
be provided the public of the name of the airline operating a code
share or long-term wet lease operation. (See 14 CFR Part 257) That
required notice is similar to that which the Safety Board recommends be
required of on-demand air taxi operations.
The Department also has longstanding rules applicable to air
charter brokers and other ticket agents that prohibit them from, among
other things: (1) Misleading the public into believing they are
airlines; (2) misleading the public about the qualifications of pilots
or the safety record or certification of air carriers, aircraft, or
crew; and (3) misleading the public about the quality or kind of
service, including the size or type of aircraft and route to be flown.
(See 14 CFR 399.80) In addition, it would be a deceptive practice
prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 41712 for an air taxi to misidentify to a
customer the carrier actually operating a flight. Where warranted, we
have acted through our Office of the Assistant General Counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) to enforce
these requirements. For example, the Enforcement Office's investigation
following the February 2, 2005, crash of Canadiar CL-600-N370V at
Teterboro, New Jersey, resulted in enforcement action against all three
entities involved--the unlicensed operator of the aircraft, the air
carrier on whose operations specifications the crashed aircraft was
listed, and the air charter broker who arranged the flight using the
unlicensed aircraft operator--for violations of the Department's
economic regulations described above. See, Platinum Jet Management,
LLC, Michael F. Brassington, Andre Budhan, and Paul Brassington,
Consent Order 2006-6-14, issued June 12, 2006, Docket OST-2006-23528
(finding, inter alia, that Platinum and the named individuals engaged
in air transportation without economic authority from the Department in
violation of 49 U.S.C. 41301 and 41712); Darby Aviation, Inc. d/b/a
Alphajet International, Consent Order 2005-12-1, issued December 1,
2005, Docket OST-2005-20077 (finding that Darby, a properly licensed
on-demand air taxi, engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and an
unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 by
facilitating the unlawful air taxi operations of Platinum Jet
Management); and BlueStarJets, LLC, Consent Order 2005-10-24, issued
October 24, 2005, Docket OST-2005-20077 (finding that BlueStarJets, an
air charter broker, violated 14 CFR Part 399 and 49 U.S.C. 41101 and
engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of
competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 by misrepresenting itself
as an air carrier and misrepresenting the safety records and
certification of carriers whose services it was marketing).
The Department is aware of the increasing role in the U.S. air
transportation system being played by air carriers that operate on-
demand air taxi service under Part 298 of the Department's economic
regulations, and Part 135 of the FAA's safety regulations, as well as
by air charter brokers who bring together air taxis and customers in
that system. Therefore, we have not limited our work in this area to
after-the-fact enforcement actions; rather, we have been active in air
charter industry outreach efforts. The Department's Enforcement Office
has reemphasized our existing requirements applicable to the air
charter industry through issuance of informal guidance and regular
participation in conferences and meetings with the major associations
representing all facets of the air charter industry, at which the need
to provide complete and accurate notice of the carrier that is
operating the flight has been urged on the participants. The
Enforcement Office also maintains an open line of communication with
carriers, individuals, and organizations throughout the year to discuss
matters of concern to the on-demand air charter industry.
Although we believe the Department's consumer protection efforts
described above have gone a long way toward ensuring the protection of
the public who use on-demand air taxi services, the notice recommended
by the Safety Board is not specifically required by current Department
regulations. The Department agrees with the Safety Board that accurate
information is essential if airline consumers are to make informed
choices, including those related to safety. We are continually striving
to fulfill our duty to maintain the proper balance between consumer
protections and our charge to permit market forces to govern the air
transportation industry to the maximum extent possible. Toward this
end, there are, of course, many factors to take into account in
determining whether or not to implement the NTSB's recommendations.
Accordingly, the Department is seeking input from interested parties on
the recommendations made by the NTSB. We ask that, in considering their
comments on the Safety Board's recommendations, commenters
[[Page 3775]]
specifically consider and comment on the following questions:
1. How might customers and passengers benefit from the information
covered by the NTSB recommendation in making their air taxi service
purchase decisions?
2. Should any notice requirement, if adopted, also apply to air
charter brokers and other ticket agents who arrange for air
transportation for customers using the services of on-demand air taxis?
3. To what extent is each of the notices recommended by the Safety
Board already provided in the normal course of business to persons who
travel using an on-demand air taxi? If such notice is not currently
routinely provided, what, if any, practical difficulties would the on-
demand air taxi industry likely face in providing the notice?
4. What costs, if any, would the recommended changes impose on the
industry? Would there be any paperwork burdens? Would there be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ?
5. How might the disclosure of the names of the owners of the
aircraft involved in the arranged flights be useful to customers and
passengers? What, if any, practical or privacy concerns would be raised
by such a requirement?
6. At what point in time must any notice, if required, first be
provided to be effective, e.g., in printed and website advertisements,
to potential customers when they are seeking information, anytime prior
to entering into a contract, upon signing the contract, or anytime
prior to boarding the aircraft?
7. What form should any notice requirement, if adopted, take? That
is, is verbal notice sufficient or must the notice be in writing?
8. What are the practical problems in requiring notice to
individual passengers of an on-demand air taxi? Would any notice
requirement be sufficient if provided to the person contracting for the
flight, e.g., the customer's broker/agent or a corporation's travel
department or an executive's assistant who arranged the flight?
Andrew B. Steinberg,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-1232 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
