Review of American/JetBlue Agreements, 51552-51553 [2020-18193]
Download as PDF
51552
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Notices
c. Brief Overview of the Petitions
Each petitioner states that it typically
receives a bus shell 14 from an ‘‘original
manufacturer’’ and ‘‘customizes the
Over-the-Road Bus (‘OTRB’) to meet the
needs of entertainers, politicians,
musicians, celebrities and other
specialized customers who use
motorcoaches as a necessity for their
businesses.’’ Each petitioner states that
it ‘‘builds out the complete interior’’ of
the bus shell, including—
roof escape hatch; fire suppression systems
(interior living space, rear tires, electrical
panels, bay storage compartments, and
generator); ceiling, side walls and flooring;
seating; electrical system, generator, invertor
and house batteries; interior lighting; interior
entertainment equipment; heating,
ventilation and cooling system; galley with
potable water, cooking equipment,
refrigerators, and storage cabinets; bathroom
and showers; and sleeping positions.
Each petitioner states that ‘‘fewer than
100 entertainer-type motorcoaches with
side-facing seats are manufactured and
enter the U.S. market each year.’’
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(d), an
application must provide ‘‘[a] detailed
analysis of how the vehicle provides the
overall level of safety or impact
protection at least equal to that of
nonexempt vehicles.’’
Each petitioner reiterates the agency’s
discussion from the November 2013 seat
belt final rule, summarized above. The
petitioners also state that NHTSA has
not conducted testing on the impact or
injuries to passengers in side-facing
seats in motorcoaches, so ‘‘there is no
available credible data that supports
requiring a Type 2 belt at the side-facing
seating positions.’’ Each petitioner
believes that if they comply with the
final rule as published, they would be
‘‘forced to offer’’ customers—
a motorcoach with a safety feature that could
make the occupants less safe, or certainly at
least no more safe, than if the feature was not
installed. The current requirement in FMVSS
208 for Type 2 belts at side-facing seating
positions in OTRBs makes the applicants
unable to sell a motor vehicle whose overall
level of safety is equivalent to or exceeds the
level of safety of a non-exempted vehicle.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7),
petitioners must state why granting an
exemption allowing it to install Type 1
instead of Type 2 seat belts in sidefacing seats would be in the public
14 The petitions describe the bus as generally
containing the following components: exterior
frame; driver’s seat; dash cluster, speedometer,
emissions light and emissions diagnosis connector;
exterior lighting, headlights, marker lights, turn
signals lights, and brake lights; exterior glass,
windshield and side lights with emergency exits;
windshield wiper system; braking system; tires, tire
pressure monitoring system and suspension; and
engine and transmission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
interest and consistent with the
objectives of the Safety Act.
Each petitioner states that granting an
exemption to allow manufacturers an
option of installing a Type 1 lap belt at
side-facing seating positions is
consistent with the public interest
because ‘‘NHTSA’s analysis in
developing this rule found that such
belts presented no demonstrable
increase in associated risk.’’ The
petitioners also each state that the final
rule requiring Type 2 belts at side-facing
seats ‘‘was not the result of any change
in NHTSA policy or analysis, but rather
resulted from an overly broad mandate
by Congress for ‘safety belts to be
installed in motorcoaches at each
designated seating position.’ ’’ They
state that, ‘‘based on the existing studies
referenced herein and noted in the
rulemaking, petitioners assert that Type
1 belts at side-facing seats may provide
equivalent or even superior occupant
protection than Type 2 belts.’’
Petitioners believe that an option for
Type 1 belts at side-facing seats is
consistent with the objectives of the
Safety Act because, they state,
§ 30111(a) of the Safety Act states that
the Secretary shall establish motor
vehicle safety standards that ‘‘shall be
practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms.’’ Petitioners state that—
an option for Type 1 or Type 2 belts at sidefacing seating positions is practicable as it
allows the manufacturer to determine the
best approach to motor vehicle safety
depending on the intended use of the vehicle
and its overall design. Additionally, the
option to install either Type 1 or Type 2 belts
at such locations meets the need for motor
vehicle safety as it is consistent with current
analysis by NHTSA and the European
Commission that indicates no demonstrable
difference in risk between the two types of
belts when installed in sideways-facing seats.
Finally, the option for Type 1 or Type 2 belts
at side-facing seat locations provides an
objective standard that is easy for
manufacturers to understand and meet.
The petitioners indicate that if there
is no future NHTSA research, testing or
analysis to justify the use of Type 2 belts
in side-facing seats in over-the-road
buses, they expect to seek to renew the
exemption, if granted, at the end of the
exemption period.
f. Comment Period
The agency seeks comment from the
public on the merits of the petitions
requesting a temporary exemption from
FMVSS No. 208’s shoulder belt
requirement for side-facing seats.
NHTSA would like to make clear that
the petitioners seek to install lap belts
at the side-facing seats; they do not seek
to be completely exempted from a belt
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirement. Further, the petitioners’
requests do not pertain to forwardfacing designated seating positions on
their vehicles. Under FMVSS No. 208,
forward-facing seating positions on
motorcoaches must have Type 2 lap and
shoulder belts, and the petitioners are
not raising issues about that
requirement for forward-facing seats.
After considering public comments and
other available information, NHTSA
will publish a notice of final action on
the petitions in the Federal Register.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–18214 Filed 8–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Review of American/JetBlue
Agreements
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Extension of waiting period.
AGENCY:
American Airlines, Inc.
(American) and JetBlue Airways
Corporation (JetBlue) have submitted
cooperative agreements, including codesharing and alliance agreements, to the
U.S. Department of Transportation
(Department) for review. The statute
requires such joint venture agreements
between major U.S. passenger airlines to
be submitted to the Department at least
30 days before the agreements may take
effect and authorizes the Department to
extend the waiting period for these
agreements beyond the initial 30-day
period. The Department has determined
to extend the waiting period for the
American/JetBlue agreements for an
additional 90 days.
DATES: The waiting period will now
expire on November 19, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Homan, Director, Office of
Aviation Analysis, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or
(202) 366–5903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
22, 2020, American and JetBlue
submitted cooperative agreements,
including code-sharing and alliance
agreements, to the Department. We are
informally reviewing the agreements
submitted by the two carriers under 49
U.S.C. 41720. The statute requires such
joint venture agreements between major
U.S. passenger airlines to be submitted
to the Department at least 30 days before
the agreements may take effect.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Notices
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41720(a)(1), this
requirement currently covers codesharing agreements, long-term wet
leases involving a substantial number of
aircraft, and agreements concerning
frequent flyer programs. By publishing a
notice in the Federal Register, we may
extend the waiting period by up to 150
days in the case of a joint venture
agreement with respect to code-sharing
and by up to 60 days for other types of
agreements. At the end of the waiting
period (either the 30-day period or any
extended period established by us), the
parties are free to implement their
agreement unless the Department has
taken action. If we determine that the
agreements’ implementation would
constitute an unfair or deceptive
practice or unfair method of
competition, the Department would
issue an order under 49 U.S.C. 41712
and institute a formal enforcement
proceeding.
In the past, we have conducted the
reviews authorized by 49 U.S.C. 41720
informally. The airline parties to joint
venture agreements have filed the
agreements directly with the
Department staff that reviews them.
Further, we have not established a
docketed proceeding on any such
agreements. As part of the Department’s
informal review of the agreements under
Section 41720, we focus on whether
they would reduce competition or
would violate antitrust laws or
principles. Our review is analogous to
the review of notifiable mergers and
acquisitions conducted by the Justice
Department and the Federal Trade
Commission under the Hart-ScottRodino Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, since we are
considering whether we should institute
a formal proceeding for determining
whether an agreement would violate
section 41712.
In our review, we consult the Justice
Department, which is responsible for
enforcing the antitrust laws and may file
suit and seek injunctive relief against
the parties to an airline agreement,
whether or not the agreement is subject
to 49 U.S.C. 41720. We seek to avoid
duplicative proceedings by this
Department and the Justice Department.
Joint venture agreements featuring
code-sharing and other forms of
cooperation between separate entities
do not constitute a merger and, in
contrast to the antitrust-immunized
alliances between U.S. and foreign
airlines, are less likely to lead to a
substantial integration of the partners’
operations. Such agreements, however,
would likely reduce competition if their
terms or the resulting relationship
among the airline partners would create
the potential for collusion on price and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
service levels in markets where the
airlines compete, or if the agreements
and the airlines’ relationship could
otherwise significantly reduce
competition, for example, by
unreasonably restricting each airline’s
ability to set its own fares and service
levels.
The joint venture agreements
submitted by the parties require the
Department to undertake a detailed
review of the carriers’ submission and
analysis of its impacts to competition, as
well as analyzing the benefits of the
transaction. While American and
JetBlue submitted agreements on July
22, 2020, they are still negotiating and
finalizing several alliance agreements
material to the transaction. The two
carriers also filed prior to completing
their document production process. We
need adequate time to review these
documents once they are filed.
Extending the waiting period will also
facilitate the Department coordinating,
as contemplated by 49 U.S.C. 41720(f),
with the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice, which is
responsible for ensuring that the
agreements comply with the antitrust
laws of the United States. We have
therefore determined to extend the
waiting period by 90 days, from August
21, 2020, to November 19, 2020.
We understand the need to complete
our review as expeditiously as possible,
so that American and JetBlue will know
our views on whether and under what
terms they may go forward with the
agreements. We may therefore terminate
the waiting period upon earlier
completion of our review.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41720(c)(2).
Dated: August 14, 2020.
Joel Szabat,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2020–18193 Filed 8–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names
of one or more persons that have been
placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons List
based on OFAC’s determination that one
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51553
or more applicable legal criteria were
satisfied. All property and interests in
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of
these persons are blocked, and U.S.
persons are generally prohibited from
engaging in transactions with them.
DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for applicable date(s).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OFAC: Associate Director for Global
Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant
Director for Sanctions Compliance &
Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490;
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.:
202–622–2480; or Assistant Director for
Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Availability
The Specially Designated Nationals
and Blocked Persons List and additional
information concerning OFAC sanctions
programs are available on OFAC’s
website (www.treas.gov/ofac).
Notice of OFAC Action(s)
On August 17, 2020, OFAC
determined that the property and
interests in property subject to U.S.
jurisdiction of the following persons are
blocked under the relevant sanctions
authority listed below.
Individuals
1. ECOBU, Patrick (a.k.a. MUKISA,
Patrick), Uganda; DOB 29 Jan 1976;
nationality Uganda; Gender Male; National
ID No. 001278331 (Uganda) (individual)
[GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section
1(a)(iii)(A)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of
December 20, 2017, ‘‘Blocking the Property of
Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights
Abuse or Corruption,’’ 82 FR 60839, 3 CFR,
2017 Comp., p. 399, (E.O. 13818) for having
materially assisted, sponsored, or provided
financial, material, or technological support
for, or goods or services to or in support of,
corruption, including the misappropriation
of state assets, the expropriation of private
assets for personal gain, corruption related to
government contracts or the extraction of
natural resources, or bribery.
2. MIREMBE, Dorah, Uganda; DOB 27 Feb
1979; nationality Uganda; Gender Female;
National ID No. 001278404 (Uganda)
(individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section
1(a)(iii)(A)(1) of E.O. 13818 for having
materially assisted, sponsored, or provided
financial, material, or technological support
for, or goods or services to or in support of,
corruption, including the misappropriation
of state assets, the expropriation of private
assets for personal gain, corruption related to
government contracts or the extraction of
natural resources, or bribery.
3. MUKIIBI, Moses, Uganda; DOB 09 May
1954; POB Bugobango Village, Mpigi District,
Uganda; nationality Uganda; Gender Male
(individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section
1(a)(ii)(B)(1) of E.O. 13818 for being a current
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51552-51553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18193]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Review of American/JetBlue Agreements
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Extension of waiting period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: American Airlines, Inc. (American) and JetBlue Airways
Corporation (JetBlue) have submitted cooperative agreements, including
code-sharing and alliance agreements, to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (Department) for review. The statute requires such joint
venture agreements between major U.S. passenger airlines to be
submitted to the Department at least 30 days before the agreements may
take effect and authorizes the Department to extend the waiting period
for these agreements beyond the initial 30-day period. The Department
has determined to extend the waiting period for the American/JetBlue
agreements for an additional 90 days.
DATES: The waiting period will now expire on November 19, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Homan, Director, Office of
Aviation Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or
(202) 366-5903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 22, 2020, American and JetBlue
submitted cooperative agreements, including code-sharing and alliance
agreements, to the Department. We are informally reviewing the
agreements submitted by the two carriers under 49 U.S.C. 41720. The
statute requires such joint venture agreements between major U.S.
passenger airlines to be submitted to the Department at least 30 days
before the agreements may take effect.
[[Page 51553]]
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41720(a)(1), this requirement currently covers
code-sharing agreements, long-term wet leases involving a substantial
number of aircraft, and agreements concerning frequent flyer programs.
By publishing a notice in the Federal Register, we may extend the
waiting period by up to 150 days in the case of a joint venture
agreement with respect to code-sharing and by up to 60 days for other
types of agreements. At the end of the waiting period (either the 30-
day period or any extended period established by us), the parties are
free to implement their agreement unless the Department has taken
action. If we determine that the agreements' implementation would
constitute an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of
competition, the Department would issue an order under 49 U.S.C. 41712
and institute a formal enforcement proceeding.
In the past, we have conducted the reviews authorized by 49 U.S.C.
41720 informally. The airline parties to joint venture agreements have
filed the agreements directly with the Department staff that reviews
them. Further, we have not established a docketed proceeding on any
such agreements. As part of the Department's informal review of the
agreements under Section 41720, we focus on whether they would reduce
competition or would violate antitrust laws or principles. Our review
is analogous to the review of notifiable mergers and acquisitions
conducted by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, since we are
considering whether we should institute a formal proceeding for
determining whether an agreement would violate section 41712.
In our review, we consult the Justice Department, which is
responsible for enforcing the antitrust laws and may file suit and seek
injunctive relief against the parties to an airline agreement, whether
or not the agreement is subject to 49 U.S.C. 41720. We seek to avoid
duplicative proceedings by this Department and the Justice Department.
Joint venture agreements featuring code-sharing and other forms of
cooperation between separate entities do not constitute a merger and,
in contrast to the antitrust-immunized alliances between U.S. and
foreign airlines, are less likely to lead to a substantial integration
of the partners' operations. Such agreements, however, would likely
reduce competition if their terms or the resulting relationship among
the airline partners would create the potential for collusion on price
and service levels in markets where the airlines compete, or if the
agreements and the airlines' relationship could otherwise significantly
reduce competition, for example, by unreasonably restricting each
airline's ability to set its own fares and service levels.
The joint venture agreements submitted by the parties require the
Department to undertake a detailed review of the carriers' submission
and analysis of its impacts to competition, as well as analyzing the
benefits of the transaction. While American and JetBlue submitted
agreements on July 22, 2020, they are still negotiating and finalizing
several alliance agreements material to the transaction. The two
carriers also filed prior to completing their document production
process. We need adequate time to review these documents once they are
filed. Extending the waiting period will also facilitate the Department
coordinating, as contemplated by 49 U.S.C. 41720(f), with the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice, which is responsible for
ensuring that the agreements comply with the antitrust laws of the
United States. We have therefore determined to extend the waiting
period by 90 days, from August 21, 2020, to November 19, 2020.
We understand the need to complete our review as expeditiously as
possible, so that American and JetBlue will know our views on whether
and under what terms they may go forward with the agreements. We may
therefore terminate the waiting period upon earlier completion of our
review.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41720(c)(2).
Dated: August 14, 2020.
Joel Szabat,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2020-18193 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P