Order: 2010

- 6

- 22

Served: June 24, 2010



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 24 th day of June , 20 10

Ess ential Air Service at

AUGUSTA/WATERVILLE, MAINE

BAR HARBOR, MAINE

ROCKLAND, MAINE Docket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2 784

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq.



### ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary

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

essential air service (EAS) at Augusta/Waterville

, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, Maine

, for

the two

- year p eriod beginning November 1, 2010

, with or without subsidy

. Proposals are

due by July 22

, 2010

. (See Appendix A for a map.)

Bac kground

These three communities are served by two carriers under two different contracts. By

Order 2008

- 9

- 7

, the Department selected Colgan Air Inc.

, opera ting as US Airways

Express (Colgan) to provide three nonstop round trips each weekday over a Bar Har bor

Augusta/Waterville

- Boston routing and four over each weekend (19 a week)

, for a

combined a nnual subsidy rate of $4,172,501. By Order 2008

- 7

- 35, the Department

selected Hyannis Air Service, Inc., operating as Cape Air (Cape Air) to provide three

nonsto p round trips per day (21 per week) from October through May, four nonstop round

trips per day (28 per week) for June and September, and five nonstop round trips per day

(35 per week) for July and August between Rockland and Boston for an annual subsidy

ra te of $1,522,770.- 2

-

Special discussion concerning Augusta/Waterville

Based on the most recent 12

- month period for which data are available (April 1, 2009

, through March 31, 2010), 7,008 passengers were enplaned and de planed at

Augusta/Waterville . The an nua l subsidy amount for Augusta/Waterville is $2,086,251.

Therefore, the s ubsidy per passenger at Augusta/Waterville is $298 . The Department is

prohibited from subsidizing air service at a community where the subsidy per passenger

exceeds $200, unless the c ommunity is more than 210 highway miles from the nearest

large or medium hub airport

. 1 Augusta/Waterville exceeds the $200 per passenger cap and

both are fewer than 210 miles from a large or medium hub. Augusta is 167 miles and

Waterville is 186 miles fr om Boston Logan International Airport

. Rather than termina te

the community’s eligibility

, at this stage, the Department will s olicit proposals for EAS

, and evaluate all proposals submitted before committing to a two

- year contract or making a

final determi nation on Augusta/Waterville’s continuing eligibility. During the 30

- day

window for proposals, we expect both communities to work aggressively with all potential

applicants to mitigate some of the risks that the carriers may face in an attempt to lower

th eir subsidy levels.

Request for Proposals

As the end of the curre nt contract approaches on October 31 , we are here requesting

proposals for a ne w t wo

- year period beginning November 1. Interested carriers should

prepare their proposals with every expectat ion that their initial proposals will represent

their final and only proposals. However, we retain the discretion to negotiate proposals

with car riers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to reject outright all

unreasonable or unreali stic proposals and resolicit a new round of proposals. However, we

anticipate that negotiation or rejection will remain only occasional exceptions to the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to assist them as

they p repare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for their

preparation. Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical levels

of traffic. We expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed and the

annual amount of subsidy being requested. Applicants can make their own judgments as to

the level of detail they wish to present; however, they might want to include proposed

schedules, as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as pr ojected block

hours, revenues, and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, well

- documented proposals

that will facilitate their evaluation by the community and the Department. 2

1 Congress first established the $200 ceiling under P.L. 101

- 164 for fiscal year 1990, and reestablished it in

fiscal years 1994

- 1999. The ceiling was made permanent by P.L. 106

- 69, the Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000.

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

four factors: (1) scheduled service reliability; (2) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier

to ensure service beyond the hub; (3) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a larger c arrier

at the hub; and (4) 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 to provi de EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy

requirements, thus codifying a factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. Interested

carriers should also be aware that our general provisions governing essential air service will be included in- 3

-

With specific respect to Augusta/Waterville

, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, the De partment

expects proposals for two round trips a day (18 a week) with 15

- seat or larger aircraft to

Boston or another suitable hub with connections to the national air transportation system

. If the communities are served over linear routes such as the cur rent on the same flights, we

would proposals for four round trips on weekdays and weekends, or two round trips on

weekdays and weekends with larger aircraft. We would also consider proposals for four

round trips a day with eight

- or nine

- seat aircraft. I n that regard, we note that Cape Air has

been serving Rockland successfully with seasonal service of five, four and three round

trips a day during the peak, shoulder, and off

- peak seasons. Should t he communities agree

to aircraft with fewer than 15 passen ger seats, in effect waiving their right to 15

- seat or

larger aircraft, we would consider the waiver to apply only to the two

- year carrier

- selection

at hand, i.e. we would not assume that the communities waive their rights for all time. Of

cours e, we will formally solicit the communities’ views on any service options we receive

before making a long

- term carrier selection decision. The communities and air carriers are

encouraged to work together in advance of the due date for proposals to craft service

pat tern s that are desirable to the communities and that meet the operational needs of the

airline.

We encourage proposals that meet those requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers are

also welcome 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 or seasonal service , for example

-- with subsidy requirements

that remain competitive.

New Filing Procedures

Carrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials merged into a

single document. In addition, because the document will be published on Regulations.gov,

each page should be formatted to be viewed online

.

Historical Traffic

In or der to assist prospective applicants in making traffic and revenue forecasts, we have

included historical passe nger data from the second quarter of 2006 through the first quarter

of 2010 in Appendix B.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsi ble for implementing various Federal statutes governing

lobbying activities, drug

- free workplaces, and nondiscrimination. 3 Consequently, all

the selection order as part of our authorization of subsidy for the selected service. Appendix C of this order

contains those general provisions.

3 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 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; 49 CFR Part 27

-- Nondiscrimination on the basis of

disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance; and

14 CFR Part 382

-- Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29

--- 4

-

carriers receiving Federal subsidy for essential air service must certify that they are in

compliance with Departm ent regulations regarding drug

- free workplaces and

nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of the

rate term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing

lobbying activities. Becau se 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 expected to complete the required

certificati ons. Interested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these

requirements as well as copies of the certifications should contact the Office of Aviation

Analysis at (202) 366

- 5903. 4

Community and State Comments

The communit ies and the stat e are welcome to submit comments at any time. We

encourage prospective applicants to contact the communit y before they submit their

proposals in order to tailor them to the communit y ’ s needs. As noted earlier, we will

provide a copy of the proposals to t he civic parties and ask them to submit their final

comments shortly after Ju ly 22 , the deadline for filing carrier proposals.

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

- delegated to the

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at

Augusta/Waterville

, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, Maine

, submit their proposals, with or

without subsidy requests, no later than July 22 , 2010

. The proposals should be e

- mailed to

EAS@dot.gov , with the title: “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at

Augusta/Waterville

, Bar Harbor, and/or Rockland, Maine, Docket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2784 ”; 5

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 Mayor s of Augusta

, Bar Harbor, Rockland and

Waterville, the airport manager s of the Augusta/Waterville

, Bar Harbor, and Rockland

airports, the governor of Maine

, Colgan Air, Inc.

, Hyannis Air Service, Inc., and the

c arriers listed in Appendix D.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s

Aviation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.50, must file such petitions within ten

(10) days after the date of service of this or der.

Government

- wide debarment and suspension (non

- procurement) and governmen t

- wide requirements for

drug

- free workplace (grants).

4 The certifications are also available on the World Wide Web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html

. 5 Questions regarding filings i n response to this orde r may be directed to Michael Martin at ( 202) 366

- 6494

or michael.f.martin@dot.gov, and proposals should be emailed to EAS@dot.gov

, no later than July 22, 2010

.- 5

-

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 ava ilable on th e World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.govAppendix A



## AREA MAPAppendix B

Page 1 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### Augusta /Waterville , Maine

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplane ments

per Day 2

2 2006 958 1,087 2,045 13

3 2006 1,468 1,715 3,183 21

4 2006 804 865 1,669 11

1 2007 815 899 1,714 11

2 2007 1,145 1,084 2,229 14

3 2007 1,249 1,391 2,640 17

4 2007 786 828 1,614 10

1 2008 615 634 1,249 8

2 2008 791 71 8 1,509 10

3 2008 1,119 1,148 2,267 15

4 2008 797 747 1,544 10

1 2009 670 696 1,366 9

2 2009 971 848 1,819 12

3 2009 1,273 1,297 2,570 17

4 2009 656 650 1,306 8

1 2010 641 672 1,313 9

1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Aver age enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.Appendix B

Page 2 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### Bar H arbor, Maine

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplanements

per day 2

2 2006 2,602 2,132 4,734 31

3 2006 4,986 5,025 10,011 65

4 2006 1,593 1,597 3,190 21

1 2007 1,073 1,106 2,179 14

2 2007 2,804 2,441 5,245 34

3 2007 5,557 5,530 11,087 72

4 2007 1,797 1,803 3,600 23

1 2008 1,003 1,019 2,022 13

2 2008 2,437 2,162 4,599 30

3 2008 4,979 5,270 10,249 67

4 2008 1,492 1,572 3,064 20

1 2009 686 715 1,401 9

2 2009 2,163 1,689 3,852 25

3 2009 5,427 5,420 10,847 70

4 2009 1,692 1,793 3,485 23

1 2010 837 902 1,739 11

1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.Appendix B

Page 3 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### Rockland, Maine

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplanements

per day 2

2 2006 1,785 1,064 2,849 19

3 2006 2,723 2,604 5,3 27 35

4 2006 1,267 1,189 2,456 16

1 2007 885 1,062 1,947 13

2 2007 1,631 1,435 3,066 20

3 2007 2,715 2,616 5,331 35

4 2007 982 1,030 2,012 13

1 2008 760 837 1,597 10

2 2008 1,265 1,158 2,423 16

3 2008 2,575 2,475 5,050 33

4 2008 1,00 4 1,045 2,049 13

1 2009 712 771 1,483 10

2 2009 1,321 1,219 2,540 16

3 2009 2,685 2,728 5,413 35

4 2009 1,251 1,265 2,516 16

1 2010 824 932 1,756 11

1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, re spectively, then by 2.Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

The carrier understand s 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 subsidy eligibility

for a flight that has not been completed, such as certa in 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 the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire

subsidy cl aim 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 Office of

Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the D epartment 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 ove rfly 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

ac cess to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the 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 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 regards 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 partial 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 thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph.

Funds are n ot currently available for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE]

. The

Department’s obligation for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE] , is contingent

upon the availability of appropriated funds from which pa yment for services can be made. No

legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performanc e under

this order beyond [DATE]

, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If

funds are not made availab le 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 service provided

under this order.Appendix D

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Aaron Goerlich Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Charles Mintz Mesa Air Group, Jonathan Ornstein

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Robert Rupard Mesa Air Group, Michael Lotz

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Mesa Air Group, Mike Hol comb

Air Wisconsin, Barbara Jones Mesaba, Max Shemesh

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Mesaba, John Spanjers

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia

Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft Midwest Airlines, David Reeve

Alliance Air, Paul Be rliner Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis

American Airlines, Carl Nelson MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado

American Eagle, Jeff Hartz Multi Aero, Darnea

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude NYDC, Henok Araya

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney OST, Dennis DeVany, Kevin Adams

Cape Air, Dan Wolf OST, Michael Martin, Kevin Schlemmer

Cape Air, J. Flaherty OST, Brian Swanson , Renee Williams,

Caribbean Sun Airlines, John Rupert Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

Colgan Air, Mike Col gan Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams

CommutAir, Andy Price Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Public Charters, Jim Gallagher

Continental, Bruce Keiner Salmon Air, Dan Schroeder

Con tinental, Dan Weiss Salmon Air, JoAnn Wolters

Continental, Lorry Halloway Scenic, Mary Schneider

Delta Air Lines

, Amy Martin Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Delta Air Lines, Jeff Morgan Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D’Amico

Delta Air Lines, Dan Shuman SeaPort Airlines

, Rob McKinney

Delta Air Lines, Joe Esposito Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano

Delta Air Lines, Sascha Vanderbellen SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Delta Air Lines , Karen Zachary SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Great Lakes Airlines, Chuck Howell Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Great Lakes Airlines, Doug Voss Tradewind, Eric Zipkin

Great Lakes Airlines, Greg Stephens Trans States, Bill Mishk

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Trans States, Gerry Wigmore

Gulfstream, Micke y Bowman United, Alicia Gabriel

Gulfstream, T. Cooper United, James Starnes

Homeland Security, Michael Duffy US Airways, Howard Kass

Homeland Security, Randy Webb US Airways, Jason Reisinger

Horizon Air, Dan Russo US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Horizon A ir, Jennifer Thompson Vintage Props and Jets, Nate Vallier

Horizon Air, Jeff Cole

ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Island Air Charters, Linda House

Jet Air, Daniel Wolford