John Lampros, Chairman Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman CommissionerMike Lemich CommissionerRichardHowe CommissionerMike Coster

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerkofthe Board

January 18, 2013 

# Wbite Jjine ([ountp**~oath** 

# of (ountp**(onnni~~ioner~**

U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis DocketOperations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: DocketDOT-OST-1995-361 ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY

DearAssistant Secretary Kurland: . ' l,,,o,)

'·,.) "·
..) 953 Campton Street Ely. Nevada 89301 (775) 293-6561 or (775) 293-6562 Fax(775) 289-2066

Pleaseconsiderthis letteras formal objection ofWhite Pine Countytothe Orderto Show Cause ProposingTermination ofEssentialAir Service Eligibilityto Ely, Nevada. This objection is within your requested deadline ofJanuary23,20013. Itis the County's beliefthatEly is attheveryheartofwhatthe Essential Air Servicewas designedto serve, to help rural communitiesfar from a medium orlarge hub. Itwould appearthereis inconsistentequity, asthere are 8 EAS airportsin the US that areless than 75 miles from a hub airportand 16that arelessthan 75 miles from a non-hub thathasjetservice. Threeparticipating airports are lessthan40 miles fromjetservice; Hibbing, MN (nearDuluth), Kingman,AZ (near Bullhead City) andStaunton,VA (nearCharlottesville). Ely shows 237 driving milesto the nearest jethub and 237 milesto the nearestnon-hub. Ely also has no othertransitservice (i.e. bus service). We acknowledge the costcalculations presented intheproposedorderfor termination, butbelieve thatitis nota valid computationsince notall thelegal requirements ofthe BasicAir Service program havebeenmetundertheexisting award. The minimal statutoryobligations ofthe carrier under49 USC 41732(b)(1)(A),two flights perday or49 USC41732(b)(2), reasonableflight times considering connectingflights atthehubterminal Las Vegas McCarran, has notbeenimposed. Duringthe summerschedulethe lackoftwo flights eliminates the same daytravel marketthatonce thrived atthe airport. The4:40 p.m. flight outofEly is a difficulttime for passengerstraveling onwardwith connectingflight opportunities. Enclosed is a letterdatedJune 29, 2010verifYing the County Commission's requestfor two flights perday. Also enclosed, is the "ORDER SELECTING CARRIERAND SETTING FINAL SUBSIDY RATES", where on pages 2 and3 give furtherverification. It is the County's positionthatthe failure ofstatutoryobligationhashindered ourridership, thus drivingup cost.Itis the County's view under49 USC 41733(c)(1)(A), that GreatLakes Airlines has placed Ely atthe bottom ofthemaintenance cancellation schedule. Our planes aretaken for othercityflights (ones withmorepassengercounts) resultingin excessive cancellations. Sometimes cancellations run for two consecutive days, strandingpassengersin Ely or McCarran airport. As a result, the unreliability ofservice is themostfrequently citedreason by discouragedpassengers,thusfurther diminishing ridership. We do nothave the data, butunderstandthruyour office, you wouldhavethe compilations ofmonthlyreports ofnon-service days pertainingto the excessive cancellations. We are diligentlyworkingto expand ourpassengernumbers. Our mines are expanding. Midway Gold is planningon constructingnewresidences for theiremployees, which would addto increased enplanement. Robinson Mine is also expanding and is theCounty's largestemployerwith approximately 500 employees. Our Tourism Boardis workingto puttogethertravel packages to increasevisitors. Ourvisitingphysicians depend on our air service, as do the large numberof federal employees, which is the second largestemployer. Ifthe DOT has otheroptions otherthantermination, wewould appreciate anyconsiderations. Itis the County's wishesto continue inthe EAS program andwe appreciate the opportunitytobeableto showjustcause. Sincerely, 

# /**~** 

# J /) y(l.c«..<-<.__ 

# :11 ' L-

# t:Z~

Laurie L. Carson White Pine CountyCommission, Vice Chairman AirportAdvisoryBoard, MemberJohn Lampros, Chairman Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman CommissionerMike Lemich CommissionerRichardHowe CommissionerMike Coster

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerkofthe Board 

# Wbite ltine <!tountp**~oarb** 

## of 

# Q.Countp Q.Commi£fsioners

U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis Docket Operations, M-30 December 26, 2012

West Building, GroundFloor, RoomW12-140 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket DOT-OST-1995-361 ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIALAIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY DearAssistantSecretaryKurland: 953 Campton Street Ely. Nevada 89301 (775) 293-6561 or (775) 293-6562 Fax (775) 289-2066

On behalfoftheWhite Pine County Commission,we arewritingtorequestthattheDepartmentof Transportation continuethe EssentialAir Service (EAS) program for ourrural airporthereinWhite Pine County, Nevada. TheWhite Pine County /Yelland FieldAirportis themostremote airportin the United States because ofourlocation.We arein a veryunique areawiththe closestmajorhub being 250 miles awayin anydirection the closestInterstateto White Pine Countyis 125 miles away. Therefore, we do nothavethe accessibilityofanyotherform oftransportation such as bus ortrain service. Withouthaving anyform ofPublic Transportation,the residents ofWhite Pine County alongwith anystrandedindividuals have no otherwayto reachtheir destinations, shortofhitchhiking, withoutthe EssentialAir Service. We understandthatfunding for all agencies havebecome critical and prioritieshave to shift. However, accordingtothe information providedtous byyou, theridership numbershave steadily increased whilethe subsidyperpassengeramounts has decreased. This is veryconfusingto our constituents as to whyyou wouldterminate ourEAS programwhilethere are,otherrural airports thataremuch closerto majorhubswhich will getto retaintheir EAS programs. We would appreciateyour considerationregardingthis decision and againrequestthatthe EAS program notbeterminated. Respectfully, 

# (fJJPt

# q;**LiJ~VpA6!:: /~**  JohnS. Lampros

### ~- v ChairmanJohn Lampros, Chairman Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman CommissionerMike Lemich CommissionerRichardHowe CommissionerMike Coster

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerkofthe Board 

# Wbite lline <!Countp**~oarh** 

# of {onntp Qtommissioners

U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket DOT-OST-1995-361 953 Campton Street Ely. Nevada 89301 (775) 293-6561 or {775) 293-6562 Fax(775) 289-2066

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY To Assistant Secretary Kurland: To terminate air service to the Ely area would not only be detrimental but would jeopardize our entire airport and service presently provided. Our service area includes East Central Nevada, East South Central Nevada, and Western Utah, an area larger than many states. We would be isolated 240 miles to the nearest air service, and considering the above mentioned areas, the mileage increases dramatically. We are a small community servicing a very large area. The services offered at our airport compliment one another. To lose any would have a devastating effect on all others. Air-med is a very importantfor medical service for locals and a high number ofthe traveling public. With a number of wild fires in this area and Nevada, our airport has been a real asset for fire suppression, smoke jumpers, and other associated purposes. To lose air service would be a real loss and would have a devastating effect on all other services associated with our airport. Considering these issues, I'm sure you could substantiate continued air service to our area. Your consideration would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Mike Lemich White Pine County CommissionerLaurie L. Carson, Commissioner Robin Bell, Commissioner Richard Gamey, Commissioner RaLeene Makley, Commisssioner Gary Perea, Commissioner JoAnn Malone, Ex-Officio Clerk ofthe Board

## ;mll4rh~ 

# Jlin.e Qlount-g lJioarb ofQloutrl-g Qlommizzion.erz

Essential Air Service Division X-5J 

### Office ofAviation Analysis June 29,2010

Department 

### ofTransportation. 

### Room 640 I 400 Seventh Street Washington, DC 20500 Attention: Dennis DeVany and Brian Swanson 

### RE: Docket DOT-OST 19995-361 Dear Mr. Delany and Mr. Swanson: 953 Campton Street Ely, Nevada 89301 (775) 289-8848 or (775) 289-3065 Fax (775) 289-8860

-·'

At our Commission meeting Wednesday, June 23, the White Pine County Commission voted unanimously to accept the recommendation ofour Airport Advisory Board to support the proposal submitted by Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. to provide air service to White Pine County under the l:::sscntia! 1\irService program. The community has been pleased with the service provided by Great Lakes Aviation and the Commission believes that the higher price ofthe subsidy is well worth the added safety. comfort and potential 

## ror growlh in air services represented by the I9 passenger pressurized Beachcraft 19000 planes and the 11ights to Denver. The County Commission appreciates the interest shown by McCall Aviation, Inc. However. we share our Advisory Board's concerns regarding the limits ofthe aircraft proposed. Because ofour altitude. the unpressurized Piper Chieftain cannot provide a safe and comfortable passenger t1ight. While the Bccchcraft B?.OO King Air is pressurized, the six passenger plane limits our ability to expand use ofair service in our area and is more susceptible to cancellations due to winter weather conditions in northern Nevada and Utah. In the past. we've found that service to Salt Lake City on the smaller planes bas not been successful in attracting air service passengers.RaLeene Makley June 29. 2010 Page 2

In supporting the proposal for one flight per day to Denver 

### by Great Lakes Aviation, the

# J County Commission requests your consideration 

### ofareturn 

### to a schedule 

### oftwo flights per day. Flight schedules were reduced when the County could not provide adequate security. We have modified our airport termination and now have TSA services in place. Historically. air service has been hcltcr utili/.cd when passengers have the option oftwo f1ights. Data on enplanernents shows that when we have had two t1ights per day, we have substantially more usc ofthe air service and more repeat passengers. White Pine County has no other public transportation and no car rental services. Ifthe single flight per day is cancelled, visitors to the area have no other means to travel. With two flights per day, passengers gain confidence that they will have options to travel to and from Ely on schedule. The Denver flight provides a direct link for a substantial percentage ofour traveling public with federal land management agencies and the mining industry. l--Iowe\·er. our community hopes eventually to regain a night connection within the state ofNevada to provide an alternative to the 5 to 6 hour drive each way to participate in state mcctings :cmd work wi !hin 1 he state·s business comn1uni**1~.** White Pine County appreciates your continued support 

### Cor the needs ofvery rural communities such ss ours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the tvvo proposals submitted under Docket DOT-OST 1995-361. and we hope our insights into the needs ofthe travelers in our area are helpful. Ifyou have any questions regarding the County's comments. please don't hesitate to contact rnc or Karen Rajala at 775-289- 3065 or the Chairman ofour Airport Advisory Board. James Adams at 775-289-8804. Thank you.

cc: Laura M. Scott. President McCall Aviation. Inc. Michael 0. Mallhews. CFO Great Lakes Aviution. Ltd. RuLeenc Makley. Vice Chairman

### Essential Air Service at ELY, NEVADA Order 2012-12-8 Served: December 14,2012


### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department ofTransportation on the 141 h 

### day ofDecember, 2012

Docket DOT**~OST**-1995-361 

### under49 U.S.C. 41731 

### etseq.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY 

### Summary 

### By this Order, the Department is directing interested persons to show cause as to why the Department should not terminate the eligibility ofEly, Nevada, under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program and allow Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes), to suspend service at the community. Objections to the Department's tentative decision are due within 20 days ofthe service date ofthis Order. An area map is attached as Appendix A. Background 

### By Order 2010-9-13, September 14, 2010, we re-selected Great Lakes to provide subsidized EAS at Ely utilizing 19-seat Beech 1900D turboprop aircraft, for the two-year period through September 30, 2012, at an annual subsidy of $1,752,067. Subsidized service was to consist ofeither 6 nonstop round trips a week to Las Vegas or 6nonstop or one-stop round trips a weekto Denver. By Order 2012-11-18, issued on November 16, 2012, the Department extended the subsidy rate for Great Lakes, established by Order 2010-9-13, for the period October 1, 2012, until further Departmental action while we examine Ely's long-term eligibility inthe EAS program. The complete public file for EAS at Ely may be accessed online through the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS) at: http://\VW\V.regulations.gov by entering

### - 2-
"DOT-OST-1995-361" in the "SEARCH for: Rules, Comments, Adjudications or Supporting Documents:" field. Recent Developments 

### The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), signed into law on February 14, 2012, amended the definition of "eligible place" for the purpose ofreceiving EAS.I The amendment, among other things, states that to be eligible, a community must have had an average subsidy per passenger of less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Passenger Traffic and Subsidy History 

### Great Lakes has served the community since March 2008. Historical traffic and annual subsidy rates are detailed in Appendix B. For the most recent fiscal year (FY 2012), Great Lakes transported 1,070 total passengers at an annual subsidy rate of$1,752,067. Thus, the corresponding average perpassenger subsidy for FY 2012 was $1,637.45. Decision 

### After careful consideration of this matter, the Department has tentatively decided to terminate the subsidy eligibility ofEly under the EAS program and allow Great Lakes to end service at the community because the community is no longer eligible to receive EAS. We will give interested persons 20 days after the service date of this Order to submit objections. Objections should be fully documented and contain complete information on the data used by the persons objecting. Ifwe later finalize the tentative findings in a subsequent Order, the Department would make the Order effective 30-45 days thereafter to allow for an orderly shutdown. In that event, ifGreat Lakes decides to suspend service upon the effective date ofthat Order, we will expect itto contact all passengers who hold reservations for flights that will be suspended to inform them of the suspension, and assist them in arranging alternative transportation or to provide a refund of the ticket price, withoutpenalty, ifrequested. This Order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFRPart 1.56a(f). ACCORDINGLY, 

### 1. The Department tentatively finds that Ely, Nevada, is no longer an eligible EAS community; 2. The Department directs all interested persons to show cause within 20 days ofthe date of service of this Order why we should not make final the tentative findings and conclusions set forth above. Objections should be filled with Docket Operations, M-30,

l See 49 U.S.C. § 41731

### - 3-
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.2 3. The Department directs Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. to retain all books, records, and other source and summary documentation to support claims for payment, and to preserve and maintain such documentation in a manner that readily permits its audit and examination byrepresentatives ofthe Department. Such documentation shall be retained for seven years from the service date ofthis Order or until the Department indicates that the records may be destroyed, whichever comes first. Copies offlight logs for aircraft sold or disposed ofmust be retained. The carrier may forfeit its compensation for any claim that is not supported under the terms ofthis order; 

### 4. We will afford full consideration to the matters and issues raised in any timely and properly filed objections before we take further action. 3 

### 5. This docket will remain open until further order ofthe Department; and 6. 

### Docket Operations will 

### serve copies ofthis Order onthe parties listed in Appendix D. By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND 

### Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (SEAL) An electronic version of 

### this document is available on the World Wide Web at: 

### http://wl1!}V.regulations.gov/

2 In addition, copies of comments may be e-mailed to dennis.devanv(c[),dot.gov, scott.faulk@dot.gov, eas@dot.gov, or faxed to the Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, at (202) 366-7638. Regardless of**wh~ther** copies are faxed to the EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, all objections should be filed with Docket Operations, M-30, at the above address. 3 Since the Department is providing for the filing ofobjections to this Order, we will not entertain petitions for reconsideration.

# AREA MAP

J

··----
·, 

# -- -
...... ,



### __ -.._.-



## -----



## • Merced

...,j 

## I


# • Visalia Appendix A



## • Ely



# • Las Vegas

\t,) 

### /

### Year Ended 9/30/2010 9/30/2011 9/30/2012 

### Appendix B
PassengerTraffic and Annual Essential Air Service Subsidy at Ely, Nevada 

### Enplaned Deplaned Enplaned+ Annual Subsidy Passengers Passengers Deplaned Federal Per Passengers Subsidy Passenger 204 222 426 $1,864,717 $4,377.27 433 418 851 $1,752,067 $2,058.83 540 530 1,070 $1,752,067 $1,637.45 Source: BTS T-100 MarketAppendixC NOTE:



### The carrierunderstands that 

### itmay forfeit its compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements ofthe required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing· at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; absent an explanation supporting subsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, ifthe carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it mayjeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. Ifthe carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope ofthe order during the applicable period ofthese rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack oftraffic will not be compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the Department will consider the extent to which the goals ofthe program are met and the extent of access to the national airtransportation systemprovided to the community. Ifthe Department unilaterally, either partially or completely, terminates orreduces payments for service or changes service requirements at a specific location provided for under this order, then, at the end ofthe period for which the Department does make payments in the stipulated amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice ofsuch cessation. Those adjustments in the levels ofsubsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total orpartial reduction or cessation ofpayment. Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvertthe foregoing paragraph. Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond March 31, 2013. The Department's obligation for performance under this order beyond March 31, 2013, is subject to the availability ofappropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part ofthe Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond March 31, 2013, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond March 31, 2013, the Department will provide notice inwriting to the carrier. All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days ofthe last day of service provided under this order.Great Lakes, ChuckHowell Great Lakes, Michael Matthews Ely Airport, Patrice Lytle SERVICE LIST Appendix DOrder 20 I0-9-13 Served: September 14.2010



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department ofTransportation on the 9th day ofSeptember, 20 I0
Essential Air Service at MERCED, CALIFORNlA VISALIA, CALIFORNIA ELY, NEVADA Docket DOT-OST-1998-3521 Docket DOT-OST-2004-19916 Docket DOT-OST-1995-361 Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. ORDER SELECTING CARRIER AND SETTING FINAL SUBSIDY RATES Summary By this order. we are reselecting Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes). to provide subsidized essential air service (E:\S) with 19-passenger Beechcraft B-19000 aircraft at Merced and Visalia, California. and Ely, Nevada, for the tvvo-year period from October 1. 20 I0. through September 31. 2012. The annual subsidy rates will be set at $1,96 L174. $L746. 507. and $1,752.067 for Merced. Visalia and Ely. respectively, for a combined total of$5.459.748. See Appendix A for a map. Background By Order 2008-6-26. June 23. 2008. the Department selected Great Lakes to provide subsidized EAS at Merced and Visalia. California. and Ely, Nevada. for the two-year period beginning October I. 2008. at a combined annual subsidy of$4.900.40I with 19-seat Beech 19000 turboprop aircraft. In anticipation ofthe end ofthe rate term on September 30, the Department issued Order 2010-5-4 on May 4, 2010. soliciting proposals to provide efficient EAS. with subsidy suppon ifnecessary. at Merced. Visalia and Ely. The Request for Proposals also noted that passenger levels at both fv1erced and Visalia are very IO\\. Proposals The Department received proposals from two carriers in response to its solicitation. Great Lakes submitted a proposal that is similar to the service it currently provides. McCall- 2-

Aviation Inc.'s (McCall) proposal contained three different service options for service at Ely**on~v.** These proposals are summarized below. Each carrier's proposal and comment letters may be accessed online through the Federal Docket rvlanagement System at: http://www.regulations.gov, by doing a search on the docket numbers listed on the first page. Great Lakes Great Lakes· proposal for each community. as summarized in the table below, could be selected on a stand-alone basis (i.e., it is not a three-city all or nothing proposal). The carrier would utilize I9-passenger Beech 19000 aircraft and its code-share agreements where applicable. Hub(s) Served/ Daily Annual Community Round Subsidy Service Pattern Trips Requirement Nonstop to Las Vegas or one-stop to Denver; Merced No up]ine restrictions on one round trip: 2 $L96U74 Upline service routing would be one-stop to Ontario. (14 weekly) Los Angeles or Orange County Nonstop to Ontario. Los Angeles or Orange County; Visalia No upline restrictions on one round trip; 2 $1.746,507 Upline service routing would be one-stop to Denver (14 weekly) or Las Vegas No upline restrictions; 

# I& 7'\ Ely Service routing would be nonstop to Las Vegas or

# w~ekw $1.752,067 one-stop to Denver Total (all three communities) $5.459.748 McCall As summarized below, McCall submitted a proposal with three different options, all for nonstop service between Ely and Salt Lake City, utilizing 8-seat aircraft. Service j Weekly Annual

### Op~on 

### I Round Aircraft Type Subsidy trips Required I 

# I 7 Piper PA3l-350 $1,081,360 Navajo Chieftain 2 J 7 Beech-200 I $1,756,822 " 

# I 12 Piper PA31-350 $1.602.627 .) Navajo Chieftain Community Comments On June 4. 2010. the Department sent correspondence to the civic officials ofthethree communities summarizing several important statutory 1imitations imposed on the EAS Program, 1how they would affect the carrier-selection process at the three communities, 2 and requesting comments on the carrier-selection decision.

1 First. the three communities are guaranteed to receive air service with twin-engine. two-pilot aircraft. Second, the communities are guaranteed service with at least 15-passenger aircraft by virtue ofthe fact that they"



### - .) -

In response, the Department received community comments from: Merced Regional Airport Authority, the Mayor ofVisalia, and White Pine County Board ofCounty Commissioners (representing Ely). All ofthe commenting pat1ies endorsed Great Lakes. Merced's official also made note offive areas- aircraft reliability. desire for larger aircraft, preference for continued service to Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport. more community involvement, and financial contributions in marketing the service- that either need improvement or focused consideration from Great Lakes. The 1\layor ofVisalia made note ofhis community's preference for service to Los Angeles International Airport. Ely's official affirmed the community's preference for the aircraft utilized by Great Lakes (when contrasted to McCall's). and requests that the Department consider returning to a two round trip a day service pattern. The Vice Chairman ofthe Board ofCounty Commissioners argues that additional service would result in substantially more enplanements. Decision on Carrier Selection After careful consideration. including the comments oflocal otTicials. the Department has decided to reselect Great Lakes to provide EAS at thethree communities, in accordance with its proposal summarized above, for the two-year period from October I, 2010, through September 30. 2012. The annual subsidy rate for Merced will be set at $1,961, I74, $1,746,507 at Visalia, and$ 1.752,067 for Ely. or a combined total of$5,459,748, up from the current rate of$4.900,40I. At Merced and Visalia. the carrier-selection decision is straightforward. Great Lakes was the only carrier to submit a proposal and the communities support the carrier. Great Lakes is a well-established carrier and we find both the service and subsidy levels to be reasonable. At 

### Ely, Great Lakes' proposal meets all ofthe statutory carrier-selection criteria. The carrier has a long history ofproviding reliable EAS. Its code-share agreements at Denver with United Airlines and Frontier Airlines will provide the community online connections to more than 150 domestic and international destinations. The community supports there-selection ofGreat Lakes. Moreover. vve find both the service and subsidy levels to be reasonable. In contrast, McCall's service options at Ely did not receive any support from the community. McCall also indicated that it has not finalized agreements with any code-share partners at Salt Lake City. nor does it have even the basic interline baggage agreements in place. Thus, the selection ofGreat Lakes at Ely is clear. The Department ful !y expects that passenger traffic \\iII continue to grow at the three communities. and expects the communities and Great Lakes to continue to work together to towards reducing the subsidy per passenger to ensure the sustainability ofthe continuation of the existing service levels. In this regard, we note that Great Lakes recently switched the hub for Merced's service from Ontario to Las Vegas, advanced bookings increased significantly
generated more than II enplanements per day in any calendar year from 1976-1986. Third, the Department is prohibited from p<Oying subsidy for EAS ilt any community where the per-passenger rate exceeds $200, unless the community is greater than 210 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub. 2 In this case. Merced and Visalia are clearly less than 210 highway miles from a large or medium hub and, therefore. are subject to the $200 subsidy-per-passenger ceiling. In contrast, Ely is not within 210 highway miles ofa large or medium hub. and. therefore. is exempt from this limit.- 4-

and actual enplanements more than doubled. We would expect similar results at Visalia if service was provided to a major connecting hub airport. Although we are selecting Great Lakes to serve Merced and Visalia for a tvvo-year period, we remain concerned that both communities are currently over the $200 cap. We are confident that with a s>vitch ofservice at Visa!ia to a major connecting hub airport, Great Lakes will increase passenger levels substantially. However, ifwe find that the subsidy level still exceeds the statutory $200 per passenger cap, we will take appropriate action. We encourage the communities and Great Lakes to work together to maximize use ofthe service awarded under this Order to avoid exceeding the $200 per passenger cap, which could result in the termination ofeligibility for subsidy under the E,\S program. 'vVe appreciate McCall's interest in participating in the EAS program and encourage the carrier to continue its efforts towards finalizing its full interline arrangements and look fonvard to receiving proposals hom the carrier in the near future. The Department shall make this selection at the three communitiescontingent upon the Department's receiving properly executed certifications tl·om Great Lakes that it is in compliance with the Department's regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination, as \veil as the regulations governing lobbying activities. Carrier Fitness
·49 U.S.C. 41737(b) requires that we find an air carrier fit. willing, and able to provide reliable service before we may subsidize it to provide essential air service. Great Lakes is subject to the Department's continuing fitness requirements. and no information has come to our attention that would cause us to question the carrier's fitness at this time. We have contacted the Federal Aviation Administration. and it has raised no concerns that would negatively atTect our fitness finding. We therefore conclude that the carrier remains fit to conduct the operations proposed here. This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR l.56a (f). ACCORDINGLY, l. We reselect Great Lakes Aviation. Ltd

.. to provide essential air service at Merced and Visalia. California. and Ely. Nevada, and establish the subsidy rates. as described in Appendix 

### C. for the period from October I. 20l0, through September 30, 20 12; 2. The Department directs Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., to retain all books, records, and other source and summary documentation to support claims for payment, and to preserve and maintain such documentation in a manner that readily permits its audit and examination by representati\"es ofthe Department. Such documentation shall be retained for seven years or until the Department indicates that the records may be destroyed. whichever comes first. Copies offlight logs for aircraft sold or disposed ofmust be retained. The carrier may forfeit its compensation for any claim that is not supported under the terms ofthis order;- 5 -

3. We find that Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., continues to be fit willing and able to operate as a commuter air carrier and capable ofproviding reliable essential air service at Merced and Visalia. California. and Ely, Nevada; 4. These Dockets will remain open until further order ofthe Department; and 5. Docket Operations will serve copies ofthis order on the parties listed 

### in Appendix D. 8 ,..

.} .

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (SEAL) An electronic 1·ersion**(~/this** document is available on the World Wide J!Veb at: htre:**'~** ''>Fll'.regulor

### itiiiS. gor'

# AREA MAP 

# r ------------. I 

# \ I
\ I**~.** 

## Oakland

# "'~, San Francisco

''\,,, 

## • Fresno • Visalia**~** · 

### ..

···vb:>

# ~ Los Angeles
""' "t:,

### Mile~es 

## Visalia

- Los Angeles 173 Visalia

- San Francisco 188 Visalia

- Las Vegas 237 Visalia

- Fresno 35 \ Appendix A



# • Lgts Vegas '"·.Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. Provision of Essential Air Service at Merced, California Calculation of Compensation Requirement
Two Round Tnps
- B1900**98.b~'~** completion factor
Departures: Block Hours: Revenuf! Passenger Miles· Av<lii<Jble Seat Miles·
Operilling Revenues: Passenger: /v1CE 1·4.000 psgrs at

Other· (al 0.62% of passenger revenue) Total Operatmg Revenues:
Operating Expenses· Direct: Aircraft

..md Hull Insurance Fuel and Oil F:ying Operations Maintenance Total Direc: Expenses: Tolallnd1rect Expenses: Total Operatmg Fxpenf.es: Operating Loss Prof.! Elemen: (5.0% of Total Opera\ing Expenses) Annual Compensation Requirement: S110.41 $1,545,740

$9,584

$338.f10 $1,088,614

$353,345 $476.805 Appendix B Page 

### 1 of 3

1.434 2.151 4,312.000 8,391,768

$1,555.324

$2.257,473 $1,091.572 $3,349.045 {S1 /93.1:?, l $167.452 $1,961,174Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. Provision of Essential Air Service at Visalia, California Calculation of Compensation Requirement
hvo Round 7rips- 81900 98.5% CQmp!c!ion factor
Departure:;: Block Hours: Revenue Passenger Miles: Available Seat M1les.
Operating Revenues: Passenger: VIS 10,500 psgrs at

Other: (at 0.62% of passenger revenua) Total Operating RevemH::s:
Operating Expenses: D1rect: A1rcraft and Hu:l Insurance Fuel and 011 Flying Operations Maintenance Total 01recl Expenses. Totallnd1rect Expenses: Total Operating Expenses:**Op~'rating** Loss Profit Element (5.0% ofTotal Operating**Expens~.;S)** Annual Compensation Requirement: $97.55 $1,024,275

$6.351

,· $338.710

$756,299 $220,779 $372,121 Appendix B Page 2 of 3

1.434 1,344 1.953.000 5,067.756

$',030,626

$1,687,908

$956,980 $2,644,888 ($1,614,263) $132,244 $1,746,507Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. Provision of Essential Air Service at Visalia, California Calculation of Compensation Requirement

Departures: O:ock Hours:

Opernting Revenues: Passonger: ELY One Round Trip- 81900 98 

### so·, completion factor

1,000 psgrs at $144.22

Other: (at 0.62'% of passenger revenue) Total Operating Revenues:
Operating Expen.::;es: Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance Fuel and Oil flying Operations fvlaintonance Total Direct Expenses: Total lndirec! F.xpenses: Total Operating Expenses: Operating Loss Profit Element (S.or;c, ofTotal Operating Expenses) Annual Compensation Requirement $144.220

$894

S338,710 S529.787 $102.504 $167,007 Appendix B Page 3 of 3

614 624

$145,114

$1,138,008

$668,831 $1,806,839 ($1.661,7:'5) $90,342 S1 .752,067Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

### Appendix C Page 1 of 2

Provision of Essential Air Service at Merced and Visalia, California and Ely, Nevada Summary of Service To Be Provided Effective Period: October I, 2010 through September 30,2012. Scheduled Service: Merced: Fourteen nonstop round trips each week to Las VegasMcCarran International Airport or one-stop round trips each week to Den\'er. Visalia: Fourteen nonstop round trips each week to Ontario, Los

.\ngeles, or Orange County. Elv: Six weekly nonstop round trips each week to Las Vegas or one-stop round trips each week to Denver. Intermediate stogs and ugline Merced: points upline from Merced (via Ontario. Los Angeles oi· service: Orange County) may be served on one daily subsidized round trip. Visalia: points upline thm1 Visalia (via Denver or Las Vegas) may be served on one daily subsidized round trip. Elv: No upline restrictions. No service to any intermediate point is contemplated under the terms ofthe cnrrier's proposal: accordingly. no such service may be provided on subsidized 1lights without prior Department approval. Aircraft tyQe: Beechcraft B-19000 (I9 passenger seats). Timing oftlights: Flights must be well-timed and well-spaced in order to ensure full compensation. Annual comgensation: Merced: ·$1.961.174 Visalia: $ !.746.507 Elv: $1.752.067 This rate assumes an annual completion factor of98.5 percent. A compensation ceiling is to be applied per calendar week such that service above that ceiling in one week cannot make up for service shortfalls in another week. Subsidv Rate ger Flight: Merced: $L367.62 1 Visalia: $1.217.932 Ely: $2,853.533 Weeklv Com12ensation Merced: $38.293.364 Ceiling: Visalia: $34.102.045 Ely: 34.242.366

I $1.961.174 divided by 1.434 annual departures: 4 flights x 7 days x 52 weeks x .985 (completion factor}= 1.434.**~** S1.746.507 divided by I,434 annual departures: 4 flights x 7 days x 52 \\eeks x .985 (completion factor)= 1.434. 3SI.752.067divided b: 614 annual depanures: 2 fli!:'hts x 6 days x 52 weeks x .985 (completion factor)= 614

·128 flights per week multiplied by S1.367.62 per !light. 5 28 flights per week multiplied by $1.2170.93 per flight. 6 12 !lights per week multiplied by $2.853.53 per flight.

### NOTE: Appendix C Page 2 of 2

The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations ofthe rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements ofthe required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-offand landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight: absent an explanation supporting subsidy eligibility for a tlight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition. ifthe carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period. it mayjeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. Ifthe carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope ofthe order during the applicable period ofthese rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated: tlights that overfly points for lack oftraffic will not be compensated. In determining \Vhether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed. the Department will consider the extent to which the goals ofthe program are met and the extent of access to the national air transportation system pmvided to the community. Ifthe Department unilaterally, either partially or completely. terminates or reduces payments for service or changes service requirements at a specific location provided for under this order, then, at the end ofthe period for which the Department does make payments in the stipulated amounts or at the stipulated service levels. the carrier may cease to provide service to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice ofsuch cessation. Those adjustments in the levels ofsubsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation ofpayment. Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations. as they may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not operate to contmvert the foregoing paragraph. Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond September 30,2010. The Department's obligation for performance under this order beyond September 30. 20 I0. is subject to the availability ofappropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part ofthe Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond September 30.2010, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. Iffunds are not made available for performance beyond September 30, 20I0, the Department vvill provide notice in writing to the carrier. All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days ofthe last day ofservice provided under this order.The Honorable Bob Link Mayor ofVisalia 425 East Oak Avenue, Suite 301 Visalia, California 93291 Ms. RaLeene Makley Vice Chairman SERVICE LIST

White Pine Count:; Board ofCommissioners**9~3** Campton Street Ely, Nevada 89301 Ms

. .Janet Young Chair Merced Regional Airport Authority 20 Macready Drive Merced. California Appendix D