## Facts

- Air One Helicopters, Inc., a California corporation, purchased a Sikorsky S-58T helicopter in 1990 from a Spanish company and applied to register it in the United States.
- At the time of purchase, Spain’s registry listed the helicopter as registered in Spain and reflected a lien in favor of “Sameiet Heli Invest I,” a purported Norwegian entity.
- The FAA refused registration because Spain still listed the helicopter, citing the Chicago Convention’s prohibition on dual registration and demanding a statement from Spain’s aviation authority (DGAC) that the Spanish registration was no longer valid.
- Air One sought deregistration from the DGAC, but the DGAC refused, insisting on a corporate document from Sameiet even though evidence showed the lien had been satisfied and Sameiet had never been a legally registered entity and no longer existed.
- Air One submitted affidavits and other documentation to the FAA showing its ownership, discharge of the lien, and the practical impossibility of obtaining the DGAC statement.
- The FAA continued to refuse registration, asserting it lacked authority to register until Spain issued a deregistration statement and indicating its position would not change.
- Air One petitioned for judicial review of the FAA’s refusal.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA’s refusal letters and insistence on a Spanish deregistration statement constituted reviewable final agency action.
2. Whether the FAA acted contrary to law or arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing registration solely due to the absence of a formal Spanish deregistration statement.
3. Whether the FAA (and the reviewing court) could determine, based on the record, that the Spanish registration was no longer valid without a formal act of deregistration by Spain, consistent with the Chicago Convention.

## Decision

- The court held the FAA’s repeated refusals and stated position constituted final agency action because the agency had taken a definitive stance and further efforts would be futile.
- The court granted the petition for review and reversed the FAA’s denial of registration.
- The court held the FAA’s refusal was contrary to law and arbitrary because the record showed the Spanish registration was no longer valid in substance and the FAA improperly treated foreign registry formality as dispositive.
- The court directed the FAA to register the helicopter showing Air One as the owner.

## Legal Principles

- Agency communications may be final, reviewable action when they reflect a definitive position and further administrative efforts would be futile.
- The Chicago Convention’s bar on dual registration prevents simultaneous valid registrations but does not require the FAA to ignore record evidence that a foreign registration is no longer valid.
- The FAA must make its own determination, based on evidence, whether foreign registration remains valid for purposes of U.S. registration eligibility.
- An agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it conditions relief on compliance with an impossible requirement, particularly where the record establishes entitlement and no competing claim is shown.

## Conclusion

The court treated the FAA’s repeated refusal to register the aircraft as final agency action, found the refusal unlawful and arbitrary because it depended on unattainable foreign documentation despite strong evidence that the foreign registration had effectively ended, and ordered the FAA to register the helicopter in Air One’s name.


Air One Helicopters, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 86 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 1996)