U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

June 2, 2015 

Mr. Paul A. Lange 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590 

Law Offices of Paul A. Lange 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615 

Re: Docket DOT -OST -2015-0037 

Motion of Liberty Helicopters, Inc. for Confidential Treatment of Documents 

Dear Mr. Lange: 

We are currently reviewing the application of Liberty Helicopters, Inc. ("Liberty"), in 

Docket DOT-OST-2015-0037 for commuter authority. The purpose of this letter is to notify you 

of our intended ruling on your requests for confidential treatment of documents filed in support 

of this application. 

Liberty filed a motion requesting that the following material be withheld from public disclosure 

by letter dated February 20, 2015: 

1. Exhibit 9 

2. Exhibit 10 

3. Exhibit 19 

4. Exhibit 22 

5. Exhibit 23 

Ownership information of entities related to Liberty. 

Shareholders list for Sightseeing Tours of America, Inc. ("STA") 

Information about the proposed service including forecasted expenses 

Consolidated financial statements of Liberty's parent STA 

Liberty's accounts payable report 

On April20, 2015, Liberty also filed a motion requesting that the following material be withheld 

from public disclosure: 

1. ExhibitE Notes to Liberty's forecasted expenses 

2. ExhibitF Aircraft lease agreement between Liberty and an affiliated company 

In support of your request for confidential treatment of the specified documents, you state that 

the documents Liberty requests to withhold from public disclosure are (1) commercial or 

financial, (2) obtained from a person outside the government, and (3) privileged or confidential. 

Moreover, you state that disclosure would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of 

Liberty or the individual from whom the information was obtained and serve no public interest if 

released. Further, you contend that the information in Exhibit 19 and Exhibit E contain financial 

and commercial information that could be used by competitors to impede the applicant's plans to 

undertake the proposed air service. 
.2 

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 if it is "(1) commercial or financial, (2) 

obtained from a person outside the government, and (3) privileged or confidential." [Gulf & 

Western Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 615 F.2d 527,529 (D.C. Cir. 1979).] 

The information sought to be withheld from disclosure clearly meets the first two requirements. 

The only question, therefore, is whether the information is privileged or confidential--whether 

"disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) to impair the 

government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial 

harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained." 

[National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974).] 

Furthermore, to be privileged or confidential, the information must not be of the type that is 

. usually released to the public. [Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. v. U.S., supra, 615 F.2d at 530.] 

Absent extenuating circumstances, it is not the Department's practice to withhold from public 

disclosure information regarding an applicant's current or historical financial condition, 

pre-operating cost forecasts, proposed operating plans and related statistics, first-year operating 

cost forecasts, and forecast balance sheets reflecting these forecasts. When requested, however, 

the Department will generally grant confidential treatment to information pertaining to a 

company's forecast revenues (and related statistics). It is also our practice to grant confidential 

treatment to specific agreements between an applicant and vendors, potential customers, etc. 

Under the circumstances, our decision as to confidential treatment with respect to Liberty's 

application is as follows: 

1. With respect to Exhibit 9 - Ownership information of entities related to Liberty, and 

Exhibit 10- Shareholders list for STA, we have decided to deny confidential treatment. 

Exhibit 9 & 10 contains the ownership information necessary to determine the applicant's · 

U.S. citizenship as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 40102 (a)(15). 

2. With respect to Exhibit 19 -Information about the proposed service including forecasted 

expenses, we have decided to deny confidential treatment. The Department finds that the 

information related to Liberty's service and the forecasted expenses for the proposed 

operation are necessary to determine Liberty's financial fitness test. 

3. With respect to Exhibit 22 - Consolidated financial statements of Liberty's parent 

company STA, we have decided to deny confidential treatment. Since the air carrier is 

dependent on STA to support its financial condition, the fmancial information of STA is 

necessary to enable the Department to determine STA's financial wherewithal to extend 

financial support to Liberty. 

4. With respect to Exhibit 23 -Liberty's accounts payable report as of February 12, 2015, 

we have decided to grant confidential treatment. The Department finds that this exhibit is 

not necessary to make a fitness determination. 
3 

5. With respect to Exhibit E- Information about the proposed service including forecasted 

expenses, load factors etc., we have decided to deny confidential treatment. The 

Department finds that the forecasted expenses for the proposed operation are necessary to 

determine Liberty's fitness. 

6. With respect to Exhibit F - Aircraft lease agreement between Liberty and an affiliated 

company, we have decided to grant confidential treatment. The Department has, in the 

past, afforded confidential treatment to agreements and we see no reason not to do so 

here. 

Under Rule 12, a Department ruling on motions 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 Liberty elects to petition the Department as to 

this confidentiality determination, we expect that it will provide a statement explaining how the 

item falls within 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 Liberty elects not to file a petition, we direct that it file the exhibits noted above 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. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me or Shabu Thomas of 

my staff at (202) 366-9721. 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2015-0037 

Mr. Dennis Kaskovich, FAA 

POI for Liberty Helicopter, Inc. 

FAA