Q 

ULS. Departmen t o f 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Ttansportdtio n Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of me Secretary 

of Transportation 

February 22, 2010 

Mr. John T. Vito 

President 

Craig Air Center, Inc. 

855-14 St. Johns Bluff Road 

Jacksonville, FL 32225 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0001, Ruling on Motion 

of Craig Air Center, Inc. for Confidential Treatment 

of Documents 

Dear Mr. Vito: 

By letter dated February 2, 2010, the Department issued its ruling on the request of Craig 

Air Center, Inc. ("Craig"), for confidential treatment of various documents filed under 14 

CFR 302.12 ("Rule 12") in support of its application for commuter authority. After 

reviewing Craig's motion, we denied in totality Craig's request for confidential treatment. 

As stated in our letter (see attached), under Rule 12, a Department ruling on motions for 

confidential treatment will not take effect if, within five (5) 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. To date, Craig has not filed such a petition for reconsideration, nor has it 

submitted to the public docket the application exhibits outlined in our February 2 letter, as 

directed. 

It is not the Department's policy to keep incomplete applications open indefinitely. 

Therefore, unless Craig provides a complete response to our February 2, 2010, ruling within 

five (5) business days of the date of this letter, we intend to dismiss its application without 

further notice. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free 

to contact Michael Price of my staff at (202) 366-9721. 

Remo 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 
Attachment 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0001 

William H. Edwards 

POI for Craig Air Center, Inc. 

North Florida FSDO ASO-15 

5950 Hazeltine National Drive 

Suite 500 

Orlando, FL 32822-5023 
f;^ 

as . Department of 1200 New jersey Avenue, SE 

Transportation Washington, DC 20590 

Office of tile Secretary 

of Transportation 

February 2, 2010 

Mr. John T. Vito 

President 

Craig Air Center, Inc. 

855-14 St. Johns Bluff Road 

Jacksonville, FL 32225 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0001, Ruling on Motion 

of Craig Air Center, hic. for Confidential Treatment 

of Documents 

Dear Mr. Vito: 

We are currently reviewing the commuter application of Craig Air Center, Inc. ("Craig"), in • 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0001. The purpose of this letter is to rule on your request for 

confidential treatment under 14 CFR 302.12 ("Rule 12") of docurhents filed in support of 

the referenced application. 

Specifically, Craig requested that the following material be withheld from public 

disclosure: 

1. Exhibit 1, List of Shareholders, Summary of Assets, Cash/Securities Statements 

2. Exhibit 2, Bahamas Certificate - License to Provide Air Charters 

3. Exhibit 3, Florida Certificate of Incorporation 

4. Exhibit 4, OST Form 4507 Air Taxi Operator Registration 

5. Exhibit 5, Florida Restated Articles of Incorporation 

6. Exhibit 6, Projected Balance Sheet 

7. Exhibit 7, Projected Income Statement 

8. Exhibit 8, OST Form 4523 Insurance and Limits of Liability 

9. Exhibit 9, Narrative History of Craig Air Center, Inc. 

10. Exhibit 10, Resumes of Key Personnel 

In support of your request for confidential treatment of the noted documents, you stated that 

these documents include sensitive financial and/or commercial information the public 

disclosure of which would provide competitors with a potential financial advantage and 

could adversely affect Craig's commercial and financial interest. 

Rule 12 instructs us to evaluate requests for confidential treatment in accordance with the 

standards of disclosure found in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. section 552). 

By this standard, 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 the government, and (3) 

privileged or confidential. [Gulf and Western Industries, Inc. v. United States, 615 F.2d 

527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979)]. 

The documents identified above clearly meet the first two requirements. The remaining 

question is whether the information is privileged or confidential, that is, 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 of the person from whom the information was obtained." [National 

Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974)] 

Furthermore, 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)] 

After reviewing Craig's motion, we have decided to deny in totality Craig's request for 

confidential treatment of the above-referenced exhibits. Applicants for commuter authority 

are required by Part 204.3 of the Department's regulations (14 CFR 204.3) to provide us 

with sufficient information upon which to determine whether an applicant is "fit, willing, 

and able" to provide the public with the proposed service. We note also that the application 

process is a public proceeding and evidentiary material submitted in support of an 

application must be filed in the public docket in accordance with Part 302 of our rules, 

except where exemptions are granted. As such, we find that the aforementioned supporting 

documentation submitted under a motion for confidentiality is the type of information that 

is normally released to the public. Further, Craig has provided no extenuating information 

that persuades us to deviate from our normal requirement of placing the evidentiary 

material required by Part 204.3 in the public record. 

Under Rule 12, the Department's ruling on a motion for confidential treatment will not take 

effect if, within five (5) 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. If Craig elects to petition 

the Department as to this confidentiality determination, we expect that it will provide a 

statement explaining how the items fall within the exceptions under the Freedom of 

Information Act and is not otherwise required to be filed publicly by all applicants for 

economic authority. Responses shall be due within five business days of the filing of such 

a petition. 

If Craig elects not to file a petition, we direct that it file the exhibits noted above in the 

public docket in this proceeding within five (5) business days of the date of this letter. In 

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

deferred pending receipt of this material. 
Thanlc you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free 

to contact Michael Price of my staff at (202) 366-9721 or by e-mail at 

Michael.B.Price@dot.gov. 

milyn J. Remo 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0001 

William H. Edwards 

POI for Craig Air Center, Inc. 

North Florida FSDO ASO-15 

5950 Hazeltine National Drive 

Suite 500 

Orlando, FL 32822-5023