U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

Of Transportation 

September 19, 2012 

Mr. Robert E. Cohn 

Mr. Patrick R. Rizzi 

Counsel for Rhoades Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Transair 

Hogan Lovells US LLP 

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2011-0216 

Dear Messrs. Cohn and Rizzi: 

i {~ \ I :>.: 21 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

By letter dated August 23, 2012, the Department issued its ruling on the request of Rhoades 

Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Transair ("Rhoades"), for confidential treatment of various documents filed 

in support of its application for certificate authority. 

Under Rule 12, a Department ruling on motions for confidential treatment will not take effect if, 

within five business days after issuance, the person requesting confidential treatment files a 

petition for reconsideration of that decision, or files a statement that he or she in good faith 

intends to seek judicial review of the decision. Rhoades filed such a petition for reconsideration 

of our ruling on August 29, 2012. This petition was limited to our ruling on the confidentiality 

of certain information contained in Exhibit RDS-7, Page 1, and Exhibit RDS-7, Page 3, 

regarding projected net income as well as revenue and cost analysis statements for Rhoades' 

Boeing 73 7 aircraft. 

Specifically, Rhoades asks the Department to reconsider its ruling with respect to the "Liabilities 

& Equity" section of Exhibit RDS-7, Page 1. Rhoades states that public disclosure of this 

information could allow its projected net income to be determined by subtra,cting certain line 

items from this section. Rhoades also points out that we granted confidential treatment to 

projected net income figures in Exhibit RDS-7, Page 2. In our ruling on August 23, 2012, we 

noted that "the Department typically grants confidential treatment to an applicant's projected 

revenues ... The same standard applies to an applicant's projected future income." Thus, we agree 

with Rhoades that the information contained in the "Liabilities & Equity" section of Exhibit 

RDS-7, Page 1, warrants confidential treatment. It is thus granted. 

In addition, Rhoades states that Exhibit RDS-7, Page 3, was mislabeled in their original request 

for confidential treatment on July 24, 2012. In its petition for reconsideration, Rhoades asks the 

Department to grant confidential treatment to a corrected version of Exhibit RDS-7, Page 3, that 

it concurrently re-submitted to the Department. As noted above, the Department typically grants 

confidential treatment to an applicant's projected revenue statements. This includes revenue 

analysis statements for particular aircraft. However, this treatment does not extend to cost 
2 

analysis statements for particular aircraft. It is not the Department's practice to withhold such 

information from public disclosure when determining that applicant's financial fitness. Thus, 

confidential treatment of the corrected version of Exhibit RDS-7, Page 3, is partially granted, 

solely to the rows indicating projected revenues: confidentiality is granted only from the "737 

Projected Daily Cargo Revenue" row through the "Total Projected Revenue from 737" row. 

Confidential treatment is denied for the rows indicating "Cost per Flight Miles for 12 months," 

"Projected Related Cost for 737," and "Landing Fees." 

Upon reconsideration of our August 23, 2012, ruling, we have decided to partially grant 

Rhoades' request with respect to the information noted in its August 29, 2012, petition for 

reconsideration. 

On August 31, 2012, Rhoades responded to a Department request for additional information 

regarding their application for certificate authority. In connection with that response, Rhoades 

filed a separate motion for confidential treatment under 14 CFR 302.12 (Rule 12) of our 

Procedural Regulations for certain information the company was providing. Rhoades 

specifically requested that the Department withhold a description of "two confidential and 

proprietary inter-company transactions that relate to the amount payable to Trans Executive 

Airlines of Hawaii, Inc." Rhoades states in its motion that "public disclosure could cause 

substantial harm to Rhoades by divulging internal affiliated company transactions that would not 

otherwise be publicly available." 

Rule 12 instructs us to evaluate requests for confidential treatment by the standards of disclosure 

found in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). Information may be withheld from 

disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) if it is (1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a 

person outside of government, and (3) privileged or confidential (Gulf and Western Industries, 

Inc. v. United States, 615 F.2d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 

There is no question that the information for which Rhoades seeks confidential treatment is 

financial or commercial in nature and that it was obtained from a person outside the government. 

The remaining question is whether the information is privileged or confidential-whether 

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

Government's ability to obtain necessary information; or (2) cause substantial harm to the 

competitive position from whom the information was obtained" (National Parks and 

Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). Further, to be 

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

public (Gulf and Western Industries, Inc. v. United States, 615 F.2d 527, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). 

We have reviewed the material submitted and have decided to grant confidential treatment to the 

information for which such treatment is sought. The Department has granted confidential 

treatment to similar information in the past and we see no reason not to do so here. 

Under Rule 12, the information identified above for which confidential treatment is not granted 

will be released to any person requesting it unless, within 5 (business) days from the date of the 

receipt of this letter, the applicant files with this office a petition for reconsideration or a written 

statement in good faith of its intent to seek judicial review of this decision. Please inform us if 

Rhoades wishes to pursue either option. If reconsideration or judicial review of this decision is 
3 

not sought, Rhoades should immediately resubmit the redacted exhibits and those for which 

confidentiality has been denied to the appropriate docket for placement on the public record. 

In the meantime, as is the Department's practice, further processing of your application will be 

deferred pending receipt of this material. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you 

have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Reese Davidson of my staff at 

(202) 366-8161 or via e-mail at Reese.Davidson@dot.gov. 

Laur y J. Remo 

Chief, ir Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2011-0216 

Ms. Mary Ballard 

POI for Rhoades Aviation; Inc. 

FAA Indianapolis FSD0-11 

1201 Columbia Road, Suite 101 

Plainfield, IN 46168 

Mr. Teimour Riahi 

Chief Executive Officer 

Rhoades Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Transair 

100 Iolana Place 

Honolulu, HI 96819