5 U.S.C. § 552. 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) NA TIO NA L BU SIN ESS A VI AT ION ASSOCIATI ON, INC., ) ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1089 (RM C) ) F ED ER AL AV IA TIO N ADMIN ISTRATIO N, ) ) ) Defendan t, ) ) and ) ) P RO P UBLICA, INC., ) ) Interve nor Defendan t. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION I n th is “ re ve rs e ” F re e do m of I nf or ma tio n A c t ( “ F OIA” ) c a se , N a tio na l B usin ess 1 Aviation Association, I n c. (“ Avi ation Association”) sues to preve nt the Fe dera l Aviation Administration (“F AA”) from re leas i n g a l i st of airc raf t reg istration numbers to Pro Publi ca, I nc. The Aviation Association argues that the re g istration numbers ar e exempt f r o m c o mp e ll e d

d is c losure under F OI A Exempti on 4. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). F AA and inte rv en o r d ef endant Pro Publica disag ree , and all par

ties have mov ed for

summary judgme nt. The F AA’s de cision that the list of airc raf t reg istration numbers must be rele ased be cause the list does not contain commerc ial inf or ma tio n w a s n ot a

rb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or oth e rw ise no t in a c c or da nc e wi th the law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)( A). Thus, summary judgme nt will be gra nted i n favor of t he F AA.Other a ircra ft, not at issue here , operate under Visual Flig ht Rules. Novak Dec l. ¶ 2. 2 -2- I. F AC TS Wit hin the U.S. airspac e sy stem regulated by the FA A, all larg e commer cial air cra ft

a s w e ll a s ma

ny oth e r g e ne ra l a ir c ra ft op e ra te un de r I ns tr

ume nt F lig ht Rul e s. F AA ’s Mo t. f or Sum m. J. [Dk t. # 21 ], Ex. 1 (“No vak De c l.” ) ¶ 2. Th e se ru le s re qu ir e (1 ) t he fi lin g of

a fl ig ht p lan p ri or

to 2 any g iv e nf li g h t t h a t s p e c if ie s th e a ir c r a f

t r e g is tr a ti o nn u mb e r , d e p artu r e p o in t, d e s ti n a ti o n , flig ht route, a nd anticipated time en route; and (2) an operational Mode C transponder , an electronic de vice installed o n t h e aircra ft that sends sig nals to g round-ba sed ra dar sy stems to enable the tr ackingof the airc raf

t by location, altitude, and air speed. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.153 & .169. T he information from flight plans and transponders is incorporated i nto the FAA’s National Airspace Sy stem Status I nformation for

the purpose of

traff ic flow mana g ement. Novak Dec l. ¶ 2. Wit h this data, FA A develope d a Tra ffic Situation Display that visually

depicts Instrument Flig ht Rule aircr aft that a re airborne and re ceivingrada r ser vices in the national airspac e sy stem. Id

. I n 19 92 , the F AAe nte re d in to a c oo pe ra tiv e re se arc h a g re e me nt w iththe Ai r Tr ans po rt As so c ia tio n o f A me ri c a

to d e te rm ine the va lue of pr ov idi ng Tr a ff ic Situ a tio n Di sp lay

data to the aviation industry

. Id . ¶ 3. The r esea rch found that providing such information would offer economic be nefits to airlines by allowing i n cr ease d dispatching flexibi lity and more eff

icient manag ement of a ircra ft and c rew s. Id

. As a result of this finding , in D ece mber of 1997, the F AA
c re a te d th e Ai rc ra ft

Situ a tio n D isp lay

to I nd us tr y (“ ASD I ” ) d a ta fe e d. Th e ASD Ife e d u se s T ra ff ic SituationD is p la

y in f o r mati o n , b u t f

il te r s o u t a ir c r a f

t b e in g u s e d

f o r mi li ta r y an d o th e r s e n s it ive g overnme nt operations. Id

.

I n order t o s u b s cribe to the FAA ’s ASDI data f eed, a company must enter into aAn a ir c ra ft re g istratio n numb e r, su c h a s “ N1 23 4S, ” a lso kn ow n a s a “ ta il n umb e r, ” is a

kin 3 to a li cense plate number on a car. The numbers are assig ned by the FA A. See 14 C.F.R. Part 47. Th is n umb e r, N1 23 4S, is c ite d o nly by wa y of e xamp le and

do e s n ot a

pp e ar o n th e B loc k L ist

. Th e Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n r e fe rs to t he BAR R (B loc k A ir c ra ft Re g ist ratio n Re qu e st) 4 Prog ram in its briefs. See, e .g. , Pl. ’s Mo t. fo r Sum m. J. [Dkt. # 19 ] at 3- 4. Th e B ARR Pr og ra

m is operated by

the Aviation Association and not the F AA. Unde r this Progr am, an a ircra ft owner can ask the Aviation Association to filter an air cra ft reg istration number fr om the ASDI data fee d. The Aviation Prog ram compiles and forwa rds the BA RR list to the FAA , and the FAA cre ates the B lock L ist from this information. -3- M e mo r an d

u m o f A g r e e me n t w it

h th e F A A
. T h e M e mo r an d u m o f A g r e e me n t s e ts f

o rth the conditions a

nd limit ations by which a direc t subsc riber can make the ASDI fee d available to users and by which the dire ct subscribe r ca n marke t the data to sec ondary subscriber s. Id . ¶ 6. Subscriber s can obtain one of two ty

pes of ASDIdata stre ams: (1) a near rea l-time display ; or (2) a n historical display that is delay ed by

at least five minutes. Id . ¶ 5. The Aviation Association decided that it w a nte d th e o p ti o n o f b lo c k in g c e rtain airc raf

t from the ASDI

fee d. Bloc king the information at its orig in — the FAA ’s hub site — would prec lude any possibili ty

of information about t h e location of those blocke d airc raf t from eve r re achingan ASD Ipr ima

ry or se c on da ry su bs c ri be r. Ac c or din g ly , th e Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n a sk e d th e F AAif it could provide to the F AA a list of air cra ft reg istration numbers to be filtere d out of t he ASDI fee d; the FA A ag ree d. Id . ¶

8. Th e Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n n owpr ov ide s su c h a lis t, c a lle d th e B loc k L ist , to the FAAon a monthly

basis. Id . ¶ 9. Th e B loc k L ist c on ta ins on ly

a ir c ra ft re g ist ratio n numb e rs . 3 Id . The FAA enters t he numbers from the Bloc k L ist into its sy stem, and prog ram softwa re f ilters out those aircr aft fr om the ASDIdata f eed. Id

. 4 The F AA does not solicit Bloc k L ists. Id

. ¶ 10. When it rec eives a reque st f rom the private se ctor to block a n airc raf t fr o m t h e ASDI fee d, it directs the re quester to the A viationPro Publi ca is a non-prof it news org anization. I t assert s an intere st in investigating and 5 report i n g o n p o l iticians’ use of pr ivate air cra ft, the use of private je ts by

corpor ations that have acc epted taxpay er dollar s from th e U. S
. go vernme nt during the re cent r ece ssion, and the environmenta l impact of airc raf t use. Pro Publica’s M ot. to Dismiss or for Summ . J . [Dkt. # 29] at 1-2. -4- Association. Id

. The FAA filters airc raf t desig nated on the Block L ist for free and does not require
or re ceive any

showing of ca

use for blocking the re g istration number for any airc raf t. Id . ¶ 11. The FAAreta ins only

the most rece ntly

monthly Bloc k L ist at an y gi v en time and does not re tain the Bloc k L ist from past months. Id . ¶ 12.

On De c e mbe r 1 0, 20 08 , Pr o Publ ic a se nt a le tte r to the F AA re qu e sti ng a lis t of “ a ll
re qu e sts to b loc k th e pu

bli c ’s a bil ity to t ra c k a n a ir c ra ft or fl ig ht fr om ASD I and [En ha nc e d T ra ff

ic Manag ement Sy stem] databases since J an. 1, 2008.” Administrative Record ( “AR”) at 1. The F AA 5 cont ac t ed the Aviation Association by telephone a

nd advised that the F AA had ma de an initial deter mination that the Block L ist was rele asable i n re s p o n s e to Pro Publ ica’ s reque st. Decl. & Certification of AR [ Dkt. # 18] ¶ 3. The FA A aske d for input from the Aviation Association bef ore making a fina l decision. Id . T he Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n o bje c te d to the pr op os e d re le a se on the ba sis of F OI A Exempti on 4. AR at 2-4. Subsequently , the FA A deter mined that the B lock L ist was not prot e c te d f

r o m d is c lo s u r e u n d e r E xe mp ti o n 4 b e c a u s e it w a s n o t a tr a d e s e c r e t o r c o mme rcia l or financ ial information. The F AA explained:

Th e F AAha s c are fu lly re vie we d th e [Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n’ s] objections to the rele ase of the [B]l ock [L ]i st a nd has dete rmined that the re quested infor

mation does not fall within a ny exemption under FOI A. The r equeste d information is simply a list of airc raf

t re g istratio n numbe rs that are blo c ke d f ro m th e ASD I , w hic h p re ve nts the re al-time or near rea l-time trac king of such airc raf t. Although the FAAhas ag ree d to block the re al-t i m e o r near rea l-time display

of reg istration numbers fo r airc raf t on the [Block] [ L ]i st, it has never a g re e d to wi thh old

any oth e r d isc los ur e of

su c h r e g istra

tio n numb e rs ,-5- inc lud ing the dis pla

y of su c h r e g istra

tio n n umb e rs in o the r t

ha n r e a ltime or nea

r re al-time.

. . . T o b e w it h h e ld u n d e r e xe mp ti o n 4 o f F O I A , in f o r mati o n must be either a trade secr et or c ommercia l or financ ial information obtained fr om a pe rs on that is pr ivi le g e d o r c on fi de nti a l. .

. . Th e [B loc k L ist ] is not a trade se cre t, nor is it commercial or f inancial infor

mation within th e m ea n ing of

FOIA. Fur

ther, ther e is no evidenc e that the [Aviation Association] , which is the submitter, has any protec ted int e re st i n th e lis t. AR at 5. Af

te r r e c e ivi ngthi s le tte r, the Av ia tio n As so c ia tio n fi le d thi s su it s e e kin g to e njo in the FA A’s re lease of the Block L ist, and the FA A ag ree d to withhold the Block L ist unti l the Court ruled in this matter. See Ag ree d Orde r & Stipul ation [Dkt. # 9]. The FOIA reque ster, Pro Publica, moved to inter

vene. The Court g rante d Pro Publi ca’ s motion t o intervene , see Orde r [ Dkt. # 28], and
no w a ll p art ie s h a ve mov e d f or su mma ry jud g me nt. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Sum m ar y J udgm e nt Under Rule 56 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, summary judgme nt must be g rante d when “ the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og a to r ie s , a n d a d mi s s io n s o n

f ile , toge ther with the aff

idavits, if any , show that ther e is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the
mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a ma tte r of law. ” F e d. R. Civ . P. 56 (c ); An de rso n v . Li be rty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 24 2, 24 7 (1 98 6)

. Mo re ov e r, su mma ry jud g me nt i s p ro pe rl y

g ra nte d a g a ins t a par ty who “a ft er adequa

te time for discove ry

and upon motion . . . fails to make a show ing sufficie nt to establish the exi stence of an e lement essential to that par ty ’s ca s e, an d on which that-6-

party will bear the burden of

proof at trial.” Ce lot e

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). I n r uli ngon a mot ion fo r s ummary

jud g me nt, the c ourt

mus t dr aw a ll j us tif

ia ble infere nces in the no n m o ving pa rty ’s favor and a cce pt the nonmoving pa rty ’s evidenc e as true
. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 2 5 5
. A n o n m o ving pa rty , howeve r, must establish more than “ the mere exis tence of a scintilla of evidenc e” in support of its posit ion. Id. at 252. I n addition, the nonmoving party may not rely solely on alleg ations or conc lusory statements. Gree ne v. D alton , 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Rather , the nonmoving party must pre sent specific fac ts that would enable a
rea sonable jury

to find in its favor. Id. at 675. I f the e vidence “is merel y co l o ra b l e, or is not signific antly

p ro b at i ve, summary

judgme nt may

be g rante d.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).

B. R e ve r se F OIA a n d Re v i ew u n d er th e A PA “A p er s o nwh o s e i n fo rm at i o ni s ab o u tt o b e d i s cl o s edp u rs u an tt o a F OIA r eq u est may file a ‘ reve rse- FOIA ac tion’ and see k t o en j o i n t h e Gove rnment fr om disclosing it.” Canadian Commercial Corp. v. De

p’t of Air Force , 514 F.3d 37, 39 ( D.C. Cir. 2008). Reverse FOIA ca ses
se e k r e v ie w o f in f

o r ma l a g e n c y a d

ju d ic a ti o n s , an d th

u s ar e r e v ie w a

b le u n d e r Se c ti o n 7 0 6 o f the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (“APA” ), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Occ idental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC , 873 F.2d 325, 337 ( D.C. Cir. 1989). Acc ording ly , the Court must dec ide whethe r F AA’s de termination — that the B lock L ist must be di s cl o s ed b ec au s e it is not protected by Ex emption 4 — was

“ arb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, a n a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or oth e rw ise no t in a c c or da nc e wi th t he law. ” 5 U .S. C. § 7 06 (2 )( A) ; see also CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan , 830 F.2d 1132, 1154- 55 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

I n ma kin g thi s in qu ir

y , th e re vie wi ngc ourt

“ mus t c on sid e r wh e the r the [ag e nc y ’s ] decision wa s based on a

consideration of the rele vant fa ctors and w hether there has been a cle ar e rror-7-

of judg ment.” Ma rsh v . O re . Na tural R es. Cou nc il , 490 U.S. 3 6 0 , 3 7 8 (1 9 89) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). At a minimum , t h e agency

must have consider ed re levant data and articulated an e x planation establishing a “r ational conne ction betwee n the fa cts found and the choice made.” Bowen v. Am. Hosp. Ass’n , 476 U.S. 610, 626 (1986). F urther, “ the scope of re view under the ‘a rbitrar y and ca pricious’ standa

rd is narr ow and a court is not to substi tute its judgment for that of the a g ency .” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm M u t
. A u t o . Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)

. The a g ency

action under

revie w is “entitled to a pre sump t i on of re g ularity ” and the court must consider only

whether the ag ency

decision was based on rele vant fa ctors and w hether there has been a clea r er ror of judgme nt. Citi

zens to Pres. Ov erton Park, Inc . v. Volpe , 4 0 1 U.S. 402, 415 (1971), ab ro ga te d o n o the r g ro un ds by Cal ifa no v . S

an de rs , 430 U.S. 99 (1977). III . A NA LY SIS The FOI A m andate s the disclosure of ag ency rec ords unless the re cords a re e x empt from compe lled disclosure by one of nine exemptions

. See NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 4 21 U. S. 132, 136 (1975); 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). A submitter of information to a g overnme nt a g ency who see ks to preve nt a FO I A disclosure be ars the burden of justify ing nondisc losure. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Dalton , 974 F. Supp. 37, 40 n.4 (D.D .C. 1997). The pa rty who objects to the re lease of re cords must submi t specific f

actua l and evidentiar

y mater i al t o s u p port its posit ion. Nat ’l Pa rk s & Conservation Ass’n v. Kleppe , 547 F.2d 673 ( D.C. Cir. 1976).

The Aviation Association contends that the B lock L ist is protec ted from disclosure by Ex emption 4, which protec ts information that is “(1) commerc ial or financ ial, (2) obtaine d fromRecords a re c onsidered to be “obtained f rom a pe rson” a s long a s they wer e submitted by 6 a “pa rtnership, c orpora

tion, association, or public or pr ivate org anization other than an ag ency .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2). This element is not in dispute. Exe mpt ion

4 a lso pr ote c ts tra de se c re ts fr om dis c los ur e . Tr a de se c re ts a re no t a t is su e in 7 this case. The pa rties also dispute whethe r the infor mation was voluntarily

provided to t he F AA and 8 whether the information is confide ntial. Be cause the C ourt holds that the FA A was not a rbitrar y or capr icious in f

inding that the Bloc k L ist is not c ommercia l a nd beca use this is a threshold issue, the C o u rtn e e d

n o ta d dr e s s t h e i s s u e s o f

v o l u n t ar i n e s s o r

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y. -8- a person, and (3) privileg ed or c onfidential.” Pub. Citiz en He alth Research G roup v. FDA , 704 F.2d

6 12 80 , 1 29 0 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 3) ; see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). The pa rties dispute whethe r the a ircra ft 7 reg istration numbers that comprise the Bloc k L ist are “ commerc ial.” 8

Th e Av ia tio n A sso c ia tio n f ir st a rgue s th a t th e a ir c ra ft

re gis tr a tio n numb e rs mus t constitute commerc ial information bec ause “the information at issue per tains to airplanes use d by
c omp anie s, in c omm e rc e , a nd is thu s p art

of a c omm e rc ia l e nte rp ri se . T hu s, the inf or ma tio n it se lf is commercia l.” Pl.’s Opp’n [Dkt. # 24] at 7-8. Def ining “commer cial” to inc lude ever y thing use d by a compa ny eng ag ed in commer ce is ove rly expansive, espec ially

in light of the Circuit’s

a dmo nit ion

tha t “ no t e ve ry bit of inf

or ma tio n su bmi tte d to the g ov e rnme nt by a c omm e rc ia l e nti ty qualifies for

protec tion u nder Exemption 4 . . . .” Pub. Citiz en He alth Research G roup , 704 F.2d at 1290. The te rm “c ommercia l” must be g iven its ordinary meaning , id ., bu t it

is n ot c on fi ne d o nly to rec ords that re veal c ommercia l operations or the income-pr oducing aspec ts of a busi ness. Bake r & Hostetler LLP v. Dep’t of Comme rce , 473 F.3d 312, 319 ( D.C. Cir. 2006).

The F AA’s de cision that the Bloc k L ist doe s not inc lude any commerc ial information is “entitled to a pre sumption of r eg ularity ” and this Court should consider only whether the dec ision was based on rele vant factors and whether there has been a cle ar e rror of judg ment. Citi

ze ns to Pre

s.-9-

Ov e rto n P ar

k , 401 U.S. at 415. I n revie wing the FAA ’s decision, it is helpful to look to CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan , 830 F.2d 1132, a reve rse FOIA action ana logous to this one. The re, a g overnme nt contrac tor (CNA) soug ht reviewof a de cision of the Of fice of F eder al Contract Com pli anc e Pr og ra

ms t o r e le a se a ff

ir ma tiv e a c tio n inf

or ma tio n tha t the c on tr a c tor ha d p ro vid e d to the g overnme nt as a re quirement of its fede ral contra ct. 830 F.2d at 1134. The ag ency decide d, over CN A’ s o bje c tio n, that F OIA E xemp tio n 4 did no t ba r d isc los ur e . O n a

pp e llate re vie w, the D. C. Circuit considere d whether the age ncy ’s prediction of the c ommercia l impact of the disclosure was
rea sonable in the fa ce of

CNA’s plausible alter

native pre diction. For e x amp le , CNA c omplained that rele ase of information reg arding job applicants would allow i ts competitors t o direc t their rec ruiting eff orts to the best source s of potential employ ees. The ag ency found that the data would “not be of any particula r help to competitors since the e mploy ee- source and employ ee- position categ ories ar e broad, a nd the applicant pool is a function of the la bor marke t and beyond an individual competitor’s control.” Id

. a t1 1 5 5
. T h e C i r c u i th e l d t h a tt h e a g e n c y d i d

n o ta c tar b i t r ar i l y: These a nd other similar co n tentions presente d no more than two co n tr a d ic to r

y v ie w s o f w h a t li k e ly w o u ld e n s u e u p o n r e le a s e of i n f o r m a t i o nt h a tC N A s o u g h tt o p r o t e c t
. I n e a c h c a s e , [ t h e a g e n c y] retorte d with rea sonable and thoroug h prog noses of its own. We are thu s conf ro nte d b y

the ty pe of jud g me nts and

fo re c a sts c ourt s traditionally

leave larg ely

to ag ency

expertise, with judicial review limit ed by

the nar

row standard s an ctioned. Af ter c are ful c on sid e ratio n o f [the a g e nc y ’s ] de c isi on , w e are satis fi e d th a t it cannot in any

way be cha rac terize d as arbitrary , capr icious, or an abuse of discretion. Id

. I n this case, the A viation Administ ration spec ulates that if the B lock L ist is released, competitors will be able to disc overy sensitive commerc ial information. Robert L amond, Dire ctor-10-

of Air Tr aff

ic Service s and Infra structure for the Aviation Association, contends that rele ase of the Bloc k L ist will result in the re lease of ASDI data whic h in turn “ca

n lead to knowledg e of se nsitive
ne g oti a tio ns , li ke ly

bu sin e ss t ra ns a c tio ns or

futur e mov e me nt of se nio r c omp any le a de rs hip po ssi bly jeopar dizi ng their secur ity as well as propr ietary business information. Not only does this disclosure place an individual’s per sonal secur ity at risk but [it] can a lso inappropriate ly influence the value of

a p u b li c c o mp an y

an d h a v e a d v e r s e c o mp e ti ti v e e f f e c ts
. ” Pl

. ’ s M o t. f

o r Summ . J. [D kt. # 1 9 ], E x. 1 (L amond Dec l.) ¶ 5.

Contrary to the Aviation As s o ciation’s conte ntions, the FAA de termined that the airc raf t reg istration n u m b er s themselves do not constitute commerc ial information. The F AA’s deter mination was rea sonable, a s the Bloc k L ist is a l i s t o f n u mbers only , unacc ompanied by

na rr a tiv e . Th e re le a se of B loc k L ist inf or ma tio n wou ld not

pr ov ide the re qu e ste r w ithany re a l- tim e
or ne ar r e a l- tim e data re g ard ing a ir c ra ft loc a tio n. A F OIA r e qu e st t a ke s d ay s o r w e e ks to p ro c e ss. See Novak De cl. ¶ 20. The n, the recipient of t he information would have in ha nd only reg istration numbers; i t w o u ld

h a v e to ta

k e f u rth e r s te p s to o b ta in

an y a d d it io n a l i n f

o r mati o n . T h e r e c ip ie nt could use a

n airc raf t reg istration numb er s to obtain the owner ’s name a nd the make a

nd model of the airc raf

t via an in t er n et s ear ch on the F AA’s publica lly available website. See http:// reg istry .faa .g ov/aircr aftinquiry (last visited Fe b. 19, 2010, 11 : 0 0 a.m. EST). The r ecipient
c ou ld a lso us e the numbe r t o o bta in h ist or ic a l f lig ht t ra c kin g data , inc lud ing a fl ig ht’ s pla c e of or ig in

a nd de sti n a t i o nan d

i t s e s t i m a t e d

t i m e s o f d e p artu r e an d

ar r i v a l

. S u c h h i s t o r i c a l t r a c k i n g d a t a is publicly available via a FOIA reque st f or a sear ch of FAA rec ords in the Traf fic F low Manag ement Sy stem. Novak Dec l. ¶ 17. I n sum, the rele ase of the reg istration numbe rs w h o s e l o cation information was bloc k ed fr o m the ASDI data stre am in day s and we eks past would ena ble the-11-

rec ipient to determine the ow ner of the airc raf t, a desc ription of the airc raf t, and historical location information. I t w ould not enable the rec ipient to: (1) deter mine the identity of the occupa nts of any particula r flig ht; (2) discover

the business purpose of any flig ht; (3) trac k the flig ht in real-time or
near rea l-time; or (4) disce rn the re asons why the airc raf

t owner soug h t t o b l o ck the flig ht information from the ASDIdata f eed. Id

. ¶¶ 21 & 23. The Aviation Association’s speculation that the re g istration numbers m i gh t b e used to obtain hist orica l location information and that loca tion information might be used for insight into the natur e o f a company ’s business dea lings doe s not
con v er t t h e aircraft registrat ion numbers themse lves into commercia l information. The Aviation Association’s pre diction of the dire c onsequenc es of rele ase of the aircraf t reg istration numbers was
c ounte re d b y

the F AA ’s re a so na

ble de te rm inatio n th a t the B loc k L ist sim ply do e s n ot c on ta in
commerc ial info rm ati on. The F AA’s de cision that the Bloc k L ist does not contain commerc ial information was not a

rbitrar y , capr icious, or an a

buse of discr etion. Despite the f

act that the r elea se of airc raf t r eg istration numbe rs would not provide the identity of the oc cupants of a

ny airc raf t, the Aviation Association argues that rele ase of the B lock L ist wi ll c omp ro mis e the pr iva c y and se c ur ity of the blo c ke d a ir c ra ft and the ir of te n hig h prof

ile occupa nts. These a

rg uments d o n o t s u pport the Aviation Association’s contention that the inf or ma tio n is e xemp t f

ro m d i s c l o s u

r e u n d e r E xe m p t i o n 4 , wh i c h d e a ls w ithc on fi de nti a l comme rcial information and not with per sonal privac y or sec urity . “Persona l privacy conce rns ar e not a r eleva nt
conce rn under

[Ex emption 4] , but are under Ex emption 6 [5 U.S.C. § 552( b)(6) ].” Mu ltiAG Me dia LLC v. De

p’ t of Ag ric ult ur e , 5 1 5 F. 3 d

1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 8 (D

. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Nat’l Parks , 547 F.2d at 686)) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Exemption 6, however, does not extend to protec t the privac y interests of businesses or corpor ations. Id

. at 1228. Thus, privac y conce rns ar e not re levantFOIA re quires that an a g ency disclose reas onably

seg reg able por

tions of a re cord, a fter 9 reda ction of all exempt portions. 5 U.S.C . § 552(b). This ca se does not pre s en t an i s sue of seg reg ability , as t h e B lock L ist may be re lease d in its entirety . No portion of the L ist is protected by Ex emption 4. -12- in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r E xemp tio n 4 app li es. F ur the r, be c a

us e the B loc k L ist

c on ta ins on ly reg istration numbers and r elea se of the information only permits investigation of historical and not
re a l- tim e loc a tio n d a ta , it

is h ig hly un lik e ly that the dis c los ur e of the L ist wo uld imp a c t th e se c ur ity of airc raf t or airc raf

t passeng ers. Cer

tainly , the FA A was not arbitrary or ca pricious in reje cting the

argume nt. The Aviation Association also contends t h a t t h e B lo c k L is t i s c o mm e r c ia l i n f

o rmation beca use it is a list of numbers simil ar to zip code data that a district cour t found to be commer cial information in Ce nte r fo r P ub lic In te gr ity v . FCC , 5 05 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 06 (D .D .C. 20 07 ). Th is i s a false compar iso n . I n Ce nte r fo r P ub lic In te gr ity , th e c ourt

no te d th a t an a

na ly sis of c us tom e r zi p
c od e s f or a bu sin e ss re qu ir e d to f

ile wi th t he F e de ra l Co mmunic a tio ns Com mis sio n “ ov e r t ime c ou ld
re v e a l w h e r e c u s to me r s h a d b e e n a c qu ir e d o r lo s t” an d “ c o u ld a ls o p r o v id e v a lu a b le information about w h e r e [a ] f

il e r is f o c u s in g it s e f

f o rts to a c qu ir e c u s to me r s an d [a b o u t] th e o v e r a ll financ ial health of the FCC filer.” 505 F. Supp. 2d at 116-17. Di s cl o s u re of the B lock L ist, as expl ained above, w ould only

reve al airc raf

t reg istration numbers — and further rese arc h using suc h numbers could re veal limited information, i.e ., t h e n am e o f t he owne r who soug ht to block data fr om the ASDIstream, the ma

ke and mode l of the air cr af t , an d historic location trac king data. The F AA
rea sonably conclude d that none of the information reve aled by the disclosure of the B lock L ist has
commerc ial signific ance . 9-13- IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , the F AA ’s mot ion fo r sum mary jud g me nt [D kt. # 2 1] w ill be g rante d, and the Aviation Association’s motion for summary judgme nt [Dkt. # 19] wil l be denied. Pr o Pu bli c a ’s mot ion

to d ism iss or fo r su mma

ry jud g me nt [Dk

t. ## 29 & 32 ] w ill be de nie d a s mo ot. A memorializing Or der a ccompa nies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date : F e br

ua ry 26 , 2 01 0 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge