Helicopter Association International v. Federal Aviation Administration
Court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION No. 24-1008 INTERNATIONAL; SAFARI AVIATION, Agency No. Federal Aviation INC. DBA SAFARI HELICOPTERS Administration HAWAI‘I, MEMORANDUM* Petitioners, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Aviation Administration Submitted June 5, 2025** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Helicopter Association International and Safari Aviation dba Safari Helicopters Hawai‘i (Petitioners) petition for review of the final decision * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). implementing an Air Tour Management Plan for Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park (the Volcanoes ATMP) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40128 (the Act). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS) (collectively, the Agencies) issued the Volcanoes ATMP. The ATMP reduces the number of air tours authorized over the Park to 1,548 tours annually and restricts the routes, days, and hours that air tour operators may fly. The decision issuing the ATMP is a final order of the FAA, and Safari Aviation has its principal place of business in Hawai‘i, so we have jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). See also 49 U.S.C. § 40128(b)(5) (“An [ATMP] developed under this subsection shall be subject to judicial review.”). We review the final order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) arbitrary and capricious standard, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). We deny the petition. The Act obligates the Agencies to satisfy the APA’s notice and comment provisions, 5 U.S.C. § 553. See 49 U.S.C. § 40128(b)(4)(B). And the APA requires the Agencies to “consider and respond to significant comments received during the period for public comment.” Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 96 (2015). Petitioners argue that the Agencies violated the APA by failing to respond to certain public comments. Specifically, Petitioners contend that the Agencies did 2 24-1008 not address two significant issues raised in public comments: (1) safety concerns regarding the route, time, and altitude restrictions; and (2) concerns that the reduction in the number of annual air tours will limit Park access for the elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons with mobility impairments. Petitioners cite several public comments located in Appendix J of the final Environmental Assessment (EA)1 and submitted during the public scoping process. Petitioners overlook a key portion of the administrative record: the Comment Summary Report located at Appendix L of the final EA and incorporated into the final decision. The Comment Summary Report responds to the specific categories of comments on which Petitioners base their petition. See Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of the Bay Area v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 792 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting argument that agency did not consider economic impacts as “belied by the administrative record”). The Agencies’ FONSI/ROD also explains that the FAA reviewed all safety-related comments and details how the Agencies modified the draft ATMP to address safety concerns. The Agencies’ decision 1 The Act requires the Agencies to conduct an environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, when developing an ATMP. 49 U.S.C. § 40128(b)(2). As a result, the record of the Agencies’ final action resembles the type of record in most NEPA cases: an EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and several EA appendices incorporated into the Record of Decision (ROD). This case, however, does not involve NEPA claims. Petitioners challenge only the Agencies’ compliance with the APA’s notice and comment procedures. 3 24-1008 “both acknowledged the comments identified by [Petitioners] and provided a reasoned response which de
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Helicopter Association International v. Federal Aviation Administration
Citation: Unknown
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date: June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction: Federal
In this case, the Helicopter Association International and Safari Aviation, Inc. (doing business as Safari Helicopters Hawai‘i) petitioned for review of a final decision by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implementing an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) for Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. The ATMP limits the number of air tours to 1,548 annually and imposes restrictions on routes, days, and hours of operation.
Key Legal Issues
- Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Did the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) adequately respond to public comments during the ATMP's development?
- Safety and Accessibility Concerns: Were significant public comments regarding safety and accessibility for individuals with disabilities properly addressed?
Court's Decision
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, affirming the FAA's decision to implement the ATMP. The court found that the FAA complied with the APA's notice and comment requirements and adequately addressed the public comments raised by the petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
The court reviewed the FAA's final order under the arbitrary and capricious standard as outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). The court emphasized that:
- The FAA is required to consider and respond to significant comments during the public comment period, as mandated by the APA (5 U.S.C. § 553).
- The petitioners claimed that the FAA failed to address two significant issues:
- Safety concerns regarding the operational restrictions.
- Accessibility concerns for the elderly and individuals with disabilities due to the reduction in air tours.
However, the court noted that the Comment Summary Report included in the final Environmental Assessment (EA) addressed these issues, demonstrating that the FAA had considered the comments and made adjustments to the ATMP based on safety considerations.
Key Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit found that the FAA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, as it had adequately responded to public comments.
- The court confirmed that the FAA's responses to safety and accessibility concerns were sufficient and did not neglect significant aspects of the issues raised.
Precedents and Citations
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) - Established the arbitrary and capricious standard for judicial review.
- Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92 (2015) - Clarified the requirement for agencies to respond to significant public comments.
- Safari Aviation Inc. v. Garvey, 300 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2002) - Affirmed the need for agencies to provide reasoned responses to public comments.
Practical Implications
This ruling has significant implications for air tour operators and regulatory agencies:
- Operators must adapt to the new restrictions imposed by the ATMP, which could impact their business models and operational strategies.
- Regulatory Agencies are reminded of their obligations under the APA to engage with public comments meaningfully, ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.
- The case underscores the importance of thorough documentation and response to public concerns in regulatory actions, particularly in environmental contexts.
This decision serves as a precedent for future cases involving administrative agency compliance with public comment requirements and the balancing of safety, accessibility, and environmental considerations in regulatory frameworks.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools