Order 2011

- 7

- 3 Served: July 5 , 2011



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT O F TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 1 st day of July , 20 11

ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary By this order, the Department is requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing

essential air service (EAS) at Vernal and /or Moab

, Utah

, for a new two

- year period, beginning January 1 , 201 2

, with or without subsidy. (See Appendix A for a service area

map )

. Carriers should file their proposals no later than August 16

, 2011

.

Background By Order 200 9

- 12

- 9

, Decem ber 1 4 , 200 9 , the Department selected Great Lakes Aviation

, Ltd. (Great Lakes) , to provide subsidized EAS at Vernal and Moab utilizing 19

- passenger Beech 1900D aircraft , through December 3 1, 20 11

. Under that order

, Great Lakes provide s 12 weekly nonstop trips from each community to Denver for an annual subsidy rate of $1, 421

, 478 at Ver nal and $1, 798,370 for Moab

. The combined annual subsidy

rate for both communities totals $ 3

, 219

, 848

.

Request for Proposals

As the end of the current contract approaches, the Department is requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing servic e at Vernal and/or Moab with or without subsidy, for the two

- year period beginning January 1, 2012. Carriers should file their proposals no later than August 16

, 2011

. Staff will then docket proposals, thereby making them public, and shortly afterwards will provide a summary of the proposals to

the communities and ask them for their final comments. We will give full consideration to all proposals that are timely filed. 1

1 In cases where a carrier proposed to basic provide essential air service without subsidy and we determine that service can be pr ovided reliably without such compensation, we typically do not proceed with the

carrier

- selection case. Instead, we generally rely on that carrier’s subsidy

- free service as proposed. Essential Air Service at :

VERNAL

, UTAH MOAB, UTAH

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. D ocket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2706
Docket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2827- 2

-

Interested carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial proposals will represent their final and only proposals. However, we retain the discretion to negotiate proposals with carriers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and re

- solicit a new round of proposals. However, negotiation and rejection are only occasional exceptions to

the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to serve as guidance when they prepare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for their proposals. We expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed and the annual amount of subsidy being requested. The applicants can make their own judgments as to the level of detail they wi sh to present; however, they might want to include proposed schedules as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block hours, revenues and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, well

documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected communities and the Department. 2

With specific respect to the two communities, the Department expects proposals consisting of two nonstop or one

- stop round trips a day between each community and Denver utilizing 19

- seat ai rcraft. Such service is consistent with what the communities currently receive. However, we note that while Vernal is guaranteed service with 15

- seat or larger aircraft by virtue of its historical enplanement levels, Moab is not. 3 Nonetheless, in order to attract as broad an array of proposals as possible, we would entertain proposals for three round trips a day (18 a week) with eight

- or nine

- seat
aircraft. We encourage proposals that meet these guidelines in an efficient manner.

Carriers are also wel come to propose more than one service option, if they choose; they need not limit themselves to those requirements if they envision other, potentially more attractive service possibilities

-- different hubs, for example

-- with subsidy requirements

that re main competitive.

Service and Traffic History

Great Lakes returned to Vernal and Moab in 2008

, and historical traffic is detailed in Appendix B. During the year ended December 31, 20 10

, Vernal averaged 14 .0 enplanements a day

, and Moab 8.8

. B oth communi ties ’ enplanements are trending

up ward since the year ended December 31, 200 9

.

2 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service, 49 U.S.C. 41733(c) (1) directs us to

consider four factors: (a) scheduled service reliability; (b) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier to ensure service beyond the hub; (c) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a

l arger carrier at the hub; and (d) community views, giving substantial weight to the views of the elected officials representing the users. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110

- 161, provides that when selecting a carrier t o provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy requirements

, thus codifying a factor that we have considered sinc e the inception of the program

. 3 See 49 U.S.C. § 41732(b ) (3).- 3

-

New Filing Procedures Carrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials compiled into a single document. In addition, because the document will be p ublished on Regulations.gov, each page should be formatted to be viewed online.

Other Carrier Requirements The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying activities, drug

- free workplaces, and nondiscrimination. 4 Consequently, all carriers receiving Federal subsidy for essential air service must certify that they are in compliance with Department regulations regarding drug

- free workplaces and nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 o ver the life of

the rate

- term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing lobbying activities. Because the Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these documents, all carriers that plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should be aware that the selected carrier will be required to complete the required certifications. Interested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these requirements should contact the Office of Av iation Analysis at (202) 366

- 5903. 5

Community and State Comments The communities and State are welcome to submit comments at any time. We encourage prospective applicants to contact the communities before they submit their proposals so that they can tail or them to the communities’ needs, as they will not be able to amend them after the due date. As noted earlier, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to submit thei r final comments shortly after August 16 , the

end of the deadline for carrier proposals.

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f) and re

- delegated to the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

4 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Pa rt 20

-- New Restrictions on Lobbying; (2) 49 CFR Part 21

-- Nondiscrimination in Federally

- Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation

-- Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) 49 CFR Part 27

-- Nondiscrimination on the B asis of Disability in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance; (4) 14 CFR Part 382

-- Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; and (5) 49 CFR Part 29

-- Government

- Wide Debarment and Suspension ( Non

- Procurement) and

Government

- Wide Requirements for Drug

- Free Workplace (Grants).

5 The certifications are also available on the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html.- 4

-

ACCORDINGLY, 1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service a t Vernal and /or

Moab

, Utah

, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, no later than August 16

, 2011 . The proposals should be e

- mailed to: EAS@dot.gov with the title with the title “Proposal to Provide E ssential Air Service at Vernal and /or Moab

, Utah ” with the docket number corresponding to the communit ies as shown on the first page of this order; 6

2

. Th ese docket s will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3 . We will serve copies of this order on the partie s listed in Appendix D

.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) days

after the date of service of this order.

This order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available

on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov

6 Questions regarding filings in response to this order may be directed t o Brian Swanson at (202) 366

- 5392

or brian.swanson@dot.gov

.Appe ndix A



### AREA MAPAppendix B

Notes : 1. Source: US DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Form s T

- 100 Market Report between each community and DEN, PH X and SLC

. 2. Origin

- destination passengers divided by two.

3. Average annual enplanements divided by 313 effective annual service days, except for annu al periods ended 12/31/2000, 12/31/2004 , and 12/31/2008 (314 effective annual service days). Year Ended Origin &

Destination Passengers Annual
Enplanements 2 Average Enplanements Per
Service Day 3

31-Dec-03 4,380 2,190 7.0

31-Dec-05 2,740 1,370 4.4

31-Dec-06 4,007 2,004 6.4

31-Dec-07 5,892 2,946 9.4

31-Dec-08 10,482 5,241 16.7

31-Dec-09 7,572 3,786 12.1

31-Dec-10 8,767 4,384 14.0

Year Ended Origin &

Destination Passengers Annual
Enplanements 2 Average Enplanements Per
Service Day 3

31-Dec-03 3,503 1,752 5.6

31-Dec-05 2,572 1,286 4.1

31-Dec-06 3,548 1,774 5.7

31-Dec-07 5,524 2,762 8.8

31-Dec-08 5,788 2,894 9.2

31-Dec-09 3,756 1,878 6.0

31-Dec-10 5,489 2,745 8.8 

### Historical Enplanements 1


### Moab, Utah Historical Enplanements 1


### Vernal, UtahAppendix C

Example of Gener al Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

The carrier understands that it may 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 of the 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 su bsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with th e order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Offic e 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 carrie r must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic 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 of the program are met and the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or completely, terminates or reduces payments for

service o r changes service requirements at a specific location provided for under this order, then, at the end of the 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 of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or p artial reduction or cessation of payment.

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 there to shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph.

Funds are not currently available for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE] . The Department’s obligation for perform ance under this solicitation beyond [DATE] is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Department for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond [DATE] , until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond [DATE] , the carrier will receive notice in writing by the Department.

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of se rvice provided

under this order.Appendix D

SERV ICE LIST

Air Greco/Wings Air Era Aviation, Lori Goodman Pacific Aviation Group, Craig Garrick

Air Sunshine, Inc. Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Pacific Aviation Group, Ron Rye

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Frontier Airlines, Daniel Shurz Pacific Wings , Frank Ford

Air West, Inc., John Raatz Frontier Flying, Bob Hajducovich Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf

Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly Frontline Aviation Penn Air, Danny Seybert

Air Wisconsin, Jim Rankin Gem Air, Dan Schroeder Penn Air, Scott Bloomquist

Ai rline Associates, Bill Mishk Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters Pinnacle Airlines, Jennifer Gammill

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Great Lakes Airlines, Chuck Howell Pinnacle Airlines, Megan Rosia

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Great Lakes Airlines, Doug Voss Pinnacle Ai rlines, Phil Reed

Allegiant Air, Brian Davis Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Planemasters, Inc., John Kessler

American Airlines, Carl Nelson Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman Planemasters, Inc., Paul Berliner

American Eagle, Gary Foss Gulfstream, T. Cooper Planemaster s, Inc., Todd DeSimone

American Eagle, Robert Emrich Homeland Security, Bill Ragan Raytheon, Mike Schiedt

Atlantic Southeast, Jon Lindlief Homeland Security, David Bernier Rectrix, Aviation, Scott LaForge

Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston Horizon Air, D an Russo Saab Group, Polly Prelinger
Aviation Technologies/Charter Air Transport, Jim Gallagher Horizon Air, Jennifer Thompson Scenic, Mary Schneider

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger Horizon Air, Mike McQeen Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Bemidji Aviation, Co ri Rude Horizon Air, Jeff Cole Seaborne Airlines, Shawn Lewis

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney ICEPR, Luis Irizarry SeaP ort Airlines , Daniel Helland

Cape Air, Dan Wolf Intrepid Internatl Air, Rick Eyk SeaPort Airlines. Rob McKinney

Cape Air, J. Flaherty Island A ir Charters, Linda House Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano

Chautauqua, Josh Pascoe Jet Air, Daniel Wolford SkyWest, Brad Rawson

Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott McCall Aviation, Dan Scott SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan McCall Aviation, Michelle Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

CommutAir, Andy Price Mesaba, John Spanjers Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Mesaba, Max Shemesh Tatonduk, Robert Everts

Con sultant, Mike Mooney Michigan DOT, Matt Brinker Tatonduk, Robert Ragar

Consultant, Robert Silverberg Midstar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner Tradewind, Eric Zipkin

Continental, Bruce Keiner Republic Air Line , Greg Aretakis Transport Azumah, Joel Anabilah

Azumah

Continental, Dan Weiss MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado Trans States, Fred Oxley

Continental, Lorry Halloway Multi Aero, Darnea Trans States, Gerry Wigmore

Delta Air Lines Anthony Canitano Multi Aero, Shane Storz United, Alicia Gabriel

Delta Air Lines, Dan Shuman Northern Air Cargo, David Karp United, James Starnes

Delta Air Lines, Dana Debel Northern Air Cargo, Eric Van Andel US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Delta Air Lines, Jeff Davidman NYDC, Henok Araya US Airways, Howard Kass

Delta Air Lines, Jeff Morga n OST, Brian Swanson US Airways, Jason Reisinger

Delta Air Lines, Joe Esposito OST, Dennis DeVany Warbelows Air Ventures, Art

Warbelow
Delta Air Lines, Kristal Murphy OST, Kevin Adams

Delta Air Lines, Sally Veith OST, Kevin Schlemmer

Delta Air Lines, Sascha Vanderbellen OST, Michael Martin

Delta Air Lines, Stephen A. Hedden

Dorado Jets

Dorado Jets, Mark McKenna