Opinion ID: 376827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Determination of Essential Air Transportation

Text: 44 In challenging the Board's § 419(a)(10) determination, New Haven argues that the Board misanalyzed the issues and misconstrued the statute. We reject both contentions, and therefore uphold the Board's action. 45 New Haven first argues that the Board did not analyze the essential air transportation question as required by the statute. Relying on the language of § 419(f), 26 New Haven argues that the Board failed to consider whether the service offered by the commuter airlines would satisfy New Haven's needs for transportation to one or more communities of interest and would insure( ) access to the Nation's air transportation system at fair prices. It is true that the Board, in its order, did not specifically undertake to define New Haven's needs, or its communities of interest, or what would constitute fair prices. But the Board did explicitly find that the level of air service being provided at New Haven by Pilgrim reasonably appears to meet the essential air transportation requirements of New Haven, Order No. 79-3-98 at 5, and that Pilgrim's service is substantially above the legal minimum for essential air transportation defined in section 419(f)(1). Id. In our view, therefore, although the Board did not use the precise words of § 419(f), it made the finding required by § 419(a)(10) that the noticed terminations did not reasonably (appear) to deprive (New Haven) of essential air transportation. 27 46 New Haven also appears to be arguing that the Board's interpretation of essential air transportation is unduly narrow. It is clear that New Haven's view of what constitutes essential air transportation is substantially more expansive than that adopted by the Board. Thus, New Haven asserts that the Board should have investigated, in this proceeding, New Haven's needs for service to a number of midwestern cities to which New Haven has never had service. 28 The Board, on the other hand, concluded that the present service to New York and Boston was more than sufficient to meet the essential air transportation test. The Board's more modest view of essential air transportation seems more in line with Congressional expectations, see, e. g., 124 Cong.Rec. S5850 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 1978) (remarks of Sen. Cannon), and in any event is entitled to our deference. See C.A.B. v. Carefree Travel, Inc., 513 F.2d 375, 390 (2d Cir. 1975). However, there is no need for this Court precisely to delineate the scope of essential air transportation in this case. The only question before us is whether we should uphold the Board's determination that the instant suspensions did not reasonably appear  to deprive New Haven of essential air transportation. Congress committed this determination to the Board, in the first instance, and clearly contemplated that the Board would act quickly and informally, on the basis of its expertise; accordingly, judicial review of the Board's determination must be a limited one. Cf. S.E.C. v. New England Elec. System, 390 U.S. 207, 211, 88 S.Ct. 916, 920, 19 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1968). It is sufficient to conclude, as we do, that the Board did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, 29 Rombough v. F.A.A., 594 F.2d 893, 896-97 (2d Cir. 1979); Tiger Int'l, Inc. v. C.A.B., 554 F.2d 926, 935-37 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 975, 98 S.Ct. 532, 54 L.Ed.2d 467 (1978), in determining that these suspensions did not reasonably appear to deprive New Haven of essential air transportation. 47 The petition is denied.