o 

UL&D«partmMi»of 

TVontportoHon 

Office of the Secretary 

ofTransportofion 

1^1 •:;![[ OF. 

n A ;: so 

1200 New Jers«y Avenue, SE 

Wajhington. DC 2059 0 

May 27, 2011 

Mr. Edward P. Faberman 

Wiley Rein LLP 

1776 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2011-0032, Application of 

Twin Cities Air Service, LLC, for Commuter Air 

Carrier authority 

Dear Mr. Fabermaii: 

On May 9, 2011, Twin Cities Air Service, LLC (*Twin Cities") requested confidential 

treatment under 14 CFR 302.12 ("Rule 12") of our Procedural Regulations for certain 

information provided to support its application in Docket DOT-OST-2011-0032. The 

purpose of this letter is to rule on that motion and to explain our policy regarding Rule 12 

submissions. 

Twin Cities requests that the Department withhold from public disclosure the following 

information. In support of its request for confidential treatment. Twin Cities states that 

these documents include sensitive fmancial and commercial information, including 

financial information for activities other than the projected flights, the public disclosure of 

which would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Twin Cities or the 

individual from whom the information was obtained. 

Exhibit S-8: True and correct copy of loan agreements between Twin Cities and 

Machias Savings Baric for a $150,000 line of credit effective January 12, 

2007 

Exhibit S-9: True and correct copy of loan agreements between Twin Cities and 

Machias Savings Bank for a $250,000 line of credit effective February 2, 

2007 

Exhibits-10: True and correct copy of loan agreements between Twin Cities and 

Machias Savings Bank for a term loan of $570,000 effective July 1, 

2010 

Exhibit S-11: True and correct copy of executed agreements between Twin Cities and 

Northeast Trading Corporation 

Rule 12 instructs us to evaluate requests for confidential treatment in accordance with the 

standards of disclosure found in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. section 552). 
By this standard, information may be withheld from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) if 

it is (I) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person outside the government, and 

(3) privileged or confidential. [Gulf and Western Industries, Inc. v. United States, 615F.2d 

527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979)]. 

There is no question that the information for which confidential treatment is sought is 

financial or commercial in nature and that it was obtained from a person outside the 

government. The remaining question is whether this information is privileged and 

confidential - whether "disclosure of the information is likely to have the following effects: 

(1) impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information; or (2) cause 

substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was 

obtained" {See National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton^ 498 F.2d 765,770 

(D.C. Cir. 19740)). Further, to be privileged or confidential, information must not be the 

type that is usually released to the public {See Gulf and Western Industries, Inc. v. United 

States, 615 F.2d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 

We have reviewed the applicant's request and have determined it necessary to grant 

confidential treatment to Exhibits S-8, S-9, S-10, and S-11. The Department has granted 

confidential treatment to similar documents in the past and we find no reason not to do so 

here. However, this grant of confidentiality is dependent upon Twin Cities submitting a 

summary of Exhibits S-9 and S-10 in the public docket, including the total value of each 

line-of-credit, the current available balance of each line-of-credit, and any conditions 

placed by the lender on the use(s) of the line(s)-of-credit. We also ask that Twin Cities 

provide an updated summary for Exhibit S-11, similar to that provided in its letter of April 

6,2011.' 

Under Rule 12, the Department's ruling on a motion for confidential treatment will not take 

effect if, within five (5) business days after issuance, the person requesting confidential 

treatment files a petition for reconsideration of that decision, or files a statement that he or 

she in good faith intends to seek judicial review of the decision. If Twin Cities elects to 

petition the Department as to this confidentiality determination, we expect diat it will 

provide a statement explaming how the items fall widiin the exceptions under the Freedom 

of Information Act and is not otherwise required to be filed publicly by all applicants for 

commuter authority. Responses shall be due within five calendar days of the filing of such 

a petition. If Twin Cities elects not to file a petition, we direct that it file the 

aforementioned information in the public docket in this proceeding within five business 

days of the date of this letter. 

In the meantime, as is the Department's practice, further processing of your application will 

be deferred pending receipt of this material. In addition, once this matter is satisfactorily 

resolved. Twin Cities can expect to receive a request for additional and/or clarifying 

information needed in connection with its application. 

The applicant submitted a summary of Exhibit S-8 in the public docket as Exhibit S-12. 
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free 

to contact Aleta Best at (202) 366-9721 or by e-mail at aleta.best@dot.gov. 

Since 

LauraiTM}. Remo, Chief 

Air Carrier Fimess Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2011-0032 

Mr. Nathan Humphrey 

President 

Twin Cities An Service, LLC 

81 Airport Drive 

Auburn, ME 04210 

Mr. Gary Readio 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

FAA Portland FSDO-65 

Portland, ME 04102 

Ms. Katrina A. Skowron 

Wiley Rein LLP 

1776 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

? i 

11.