[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19351]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8256]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3214-000]

XO Energy MW, LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
XO Energy MW, LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 19, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8256 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 42076]
[DOCID:fr20au09-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0030]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Investigational New Drug Regulations

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Investigational New Drug
Regulations'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-
796-3792.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 8, 2009 (74
FR 21690), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0014.
The approval expires on August 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: August 13, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-19972 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48847]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20152]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FFP Project 47 LLC; Project No.12932-002]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2011, FFP Project 47 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, in Mississippi
County Arkansas and Tipton County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Williams Point hydrokinetic project would consist of
the following: (1) Up to 3,550 SmarTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 142,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 310,980,000
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12932-002) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20152 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Comments on the Fish Lifecycle DRP Richard A. Becker, Ph. D., DABT American Chemistry Council 2 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Work Needed ° Clarify goals & objectives of the protocol to be developed as this will affect the measurement of successful validation.

° Compare efficiency and predicitivty of 2 gen versus partial life cycle protocols, and consider partial life cycle ( PLC) test in rainbow trout.

° Adapt protocol for use of 4 species, or substantiate empirically that fat head minnows ( FHMs) are superior to other species.

° Address serious statistical concerns regarding type 1 errors, group sizes and endpoint redundancy.

° Remove redundancy and address lack of mechanistic specificity for various recommended endpoints.

° Address irrelevance of water column exposure for some chemicals and incorporate flexibility for using food route. 3 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 General Comments On The DRP ° Reproduction in a 2 gen test can be affected by non endocrine mechanisms. The DRP should discuss the specificity of the recommended responses for endocrine mechanisms versus frank toxicity ( e. g., narcosis), if known.

° Apical tests, e. g., full life cycle 2 gen or partial life cycle ( PLC) tests, should incorporate a dose level targeted as a No Effect concentration. 4 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Premature Selection of Test Species ° Focusing validation on one species  the fathead minnow ( FHM)  may be more economical than validating 4 species, but a premature choice may trade short term economy for long term expense.

° Multigeneration and partial life cycle test periods would likely be weeks or months shorter in sheepshead minnow ( SHM), medaka or zebrafish than in FHM. 5 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Species Selection: Key Issues ° No indication that one species yields the most consistent, sensitive and specific test for hormonally active agents ( HAAs)

° The longer reproductive cycle of fathead minnows may result in additional assay costs.

° The greater variability in fathead reproductive parameters likely requires larger group sizes for adequate statistical power.

° The proposed 2 gen protocol should allow use of any of the 4 species ( FHM, SHM, zebrafish, medaka). 6 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 What is Gained from a Two Gen Versus One Gen Test?

° For non endocrine effects, Partial Life Cycle ( PLC) tests appear to be nearly as useful and more efficient than Full Life Cycle ( FLC) tests, e. g. Macek & Sleight ( 1977); Dionne & Kiamos ( 1994).

  Reported that early life stage exposure correctly predicted effects for 80% of chemicals tested.

  Were the remaining 20% predicted within an order of magnitude dose? 7 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 PLC Versus FLC ° Partial life cycle ( e. g., OECD) versus multi gen tests have not been rigorously compared for ability to detect HAAs or for predicting effects in the field.

° Endocrine endpoints can be routinely measured in standardized PLC protocols ( e. g., OECD) and may identify HAAs as effectively and more efficiently than multigeneration tests.

° A PLC test also measures endpoints relevant to the population, such as the number of eggs/ female/ day, fertilization, hatching success, and GSI. 8 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 PLC Test in Rainbow Trout ( RT) deserves consideration ° RT have a long history of regulatory use and acceptance.

° Endocrine feedback control is better understood in salmonids ( e. g., RT) than in species considered in DRP.

° Synchronous reproduction strategies are important for many species ( e. g., RT) but ignored in species considered in DRP.

° VTG analysis is fully developed in RT. 9 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Statistical Considerations ° Great variability in egg production reduces the statistical power of the 2 gen test. The DRP should give greater consideration to the use of regression analysis to determine percent Effective Concentrations ( e. g., EC20) and incorporate such methods into the final protocol.

° The DRP should discuss the type 1 error rate expected at typical a values ( e. g., 0.05 or 0.01) given that 60  80 NOEC determinations are recommended for the 2 gen test in FHM. 10 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Exposure Considerations ° Exposure via the food should be considered for hydrophobic, bioaccumulative chemicals.

  Many suspected HHAs are hydrophobic and bioaccumulative ° Maintenance of constant exposure concentrations in a long term test is environmentally unrealistic, especially for chemicals that hydrolyze rapidly. Flexibility should be incorporated into the protocol to allow environmentally relevant exposures. 11 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 Endpoint Considerations ° Sperm quality, egg viability, and spawning behavior are redundant with hatching success or egg production  those endpoints should only be assessed if there is a specific indication that these mechanisms of action are important.

° Continuous monitoring of embryonic development is unnecessary in a 2 gen test. Significant effects on egg hatchability and larval survival would be immediately apparent.

° Sex steroid and thyroid hormone production are not useful in a FLC test; emphasis should be on reproductive results. 12 American Chemistry Council 12/ 4/ 02 International Cooperation ° Must have international cooperation working through OECD EDTA ° Internationally harmonized standardized & validated methods   Mutual acceptance of data   Animal welfare


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14404-14405]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06339]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1301]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2013, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice at 78 FR 20340 that
contained a table which included a Web page address through which the
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for the communities listed in the
table could be accessed. The information available through the Web page
address has subsequently been updated. The table provided here
represents the proposed flood hazard

determinations and communities affected for New Orleans/Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1301, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 78
FR 20340 in the April 4, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled ``New Orleans/Orleans Parish, Louisiana.''
This table contained a Web page address through which the Preliminary
FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for the communities listed in
the table could be accessed online. A Revised Preliminary FIRM and/or
FIS report have subsequently been issued for some or all of the
communities listed in the table. The information available through the
Web page address listed in the table has been updated to reflect the
Revised Preliminary information and is to be used in lieu of the
information previously available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  New Orleans/Orleans Parish, Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans/Orleans Parish.............  Public Library, Archives
                                          Division, 219 Loyola Avenue,
                                          3rd Floor, New Orleans, LA
                                          70112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: February 25, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-06339 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 23, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-16945

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN) and its affiliate
AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN EAGLE) filed 11/23/04 for:

XX  Amended statement of authorization under CFR Part 212 to:

Engage in additional transborder codesharing services with Compania
Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A.  Under the amendment, the Mexicana “MX”
designator code will be displayed on flights operated by American or
American Eagle between Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas and San Luis Potosi,
Mexico, beginning January 5, 2005.  American requests that the amended
authorization be granted for an indefinite period.

Application of COMPANIA MEXICANA DE AVIACION, S.A. DE C.V. (MEXICANA)
filed 11/23/04 for:

XX  Amended exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between San Luis Potosi, Mexico, and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas.  Mexicana
proposes to operate this service only by a code-share arrangement with
American Airlines and its affiliate American Eagle.  Mexicana intends to
place its “MX” designator code on flights operated by American Eagle
beginning January 5, 2005.  Mexicana requests that this exemption be
granted for at least a one-year period.

Applicant reps: Carl B. Nelson, Jr. (AA)<PHONE_NUMBER> and Charles F.
Donley II (MX)<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst: Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted in part (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Deferred in part (specifically, the portion of Mexicana’s
application involving Aerocaribe, see footnote 2)

The above action granting statements of authorizations to American and
American Eagle was effective when taken: December 23, 2004 , and will
remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the conditions below.

The above action granting new exemption authority to Mexicana was
effective when taken:  December 23, 2004, through December 23, 2005.

The above action deferring on Aerocaribe was effective when taken:
December 23, 2004.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX   Mexicana’s foreign air carrier permit

	XX   Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions (attached)

Conditions:   The exemption authority granted to Mexicana to serve the
Dallas/Ft. Worth-San Luis Potosi market is limited to operations
conducted on a code-share basis only.

The Statement of Authorization granted to American and American Eagle is
subject to the following conditions:

(a) The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long as
American or American Eagle and Mexicana  continue to hold the underlying
authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and the
code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations remains in
effect.

(b) American or American Eagle and/or Mexicana  must promptly notify the
Department (Office of International Aviation) if the code-share
agreement is no longer effective or if the carriers decide to cease
operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services. (Such
notice should be filed in Docket OST-2004-16945.)

(c) The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected.

(d) The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither American or American Eagle nor Mexicana shall give any force or
effect to any contractual provisions between themselves that are
contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

5/04

 American and American Eagle already hold the underlying authority to
serve the Dallas/Ft. Worth-San Luis Potosi market (see Department action
dated September 29, 2004, (undocketed), for American and Notice of
Action Taken on September 24, 2004, Docket OST-2004-19024, for American
Eagle).

 Mexicana’s application as filed also requested authority for
Mexicana’s affiliate Aerovias Caribe de C.V. d/b/a Aerocaribe.
However, Mexicana has since advised us, via email on December 23, 2004,
that Aerocaribe does not currently intend to operate or market seats
between San Luis Potosi and Dallas/Ft. Worth.  Mexicana indicates that
Aerocaribe will advise us when it is ready to engage in San Luis Potosi
- Dallas/Ft. Worth service.  Under these circumstances, we are deferring
the Aerocaribe portion of Mexicana’s application.

 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.