339 P.3d 1056
Haw. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dillingham Airfield (federal land, leased to Hawaiʻi DOT) is operated by DOT Airports Division; plaintiffs Pofolk Aviation and Hale ʻŌlele base operations there and were billed landing fees.
- DOT informed plaintiffs in early 2013 they owed landing fees dating back to 2005; plaintiffs paid $50,837.99 under protest and sued for refund, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs argued HRS § 261-12(a) bars DOT rules from applying to U.S.‑owned airports, so DOT could not impose HAR § 19-16.1-3 landing fees at Dillingham.
- DOT argued it imposes landing fees via internal ‘‘procedures’’ (DOT Procedure 4.5 and related procedures), which it contends are authorized by HRS § 261-12(a) and HRS § 261-7(e), and that procedures include public informational hearings.
- The circuit court denied preliminary and permanent injunctions, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits, harm was economic (not irreparable), and public interest favored DOT; the court concluded DOT procedures lawfully impose landing fees.
- On appeal, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reviewed denial of permanent injunction for abuse of discretion and affirmed, deferring to DOT’s longstanding construction and practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRS § 261-12(a) prohibits DOT from imposing landing fees at a federal‑owned airport | §261-12(a) forbids the director’s "rules" from applying to U.S.‑owned airports; because DOT enforces HAR landing fees at Dillingham, fees are barred | DOT says fees are imposed via internal "procedures," not rules, and §261-12 authorizes adoption of procedures; long‑standing DOT practice supports this construction | Court upheld DOT’s interpretation and practice; §261-12(a) did not bar DOT from assessing landing fees at Dillingham via procedures |
| Whether DOT procedures are subject to chapter 91 rulemaking or are separate and include public notice/hearings | Plaintiffs contend procedures are effectively applications of DOT rules (HAR) and thus barred or require chapter 91 process | DOT contends procedures are separate, adopted under §261-12, and its process includes informational hearings as required by §261-7(e) | Court found the stipulated offer of proof supported that procedures include public informational hearings; finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied elements for a permanent injunction (merits, irreparable harm, public interest) | Plaintiffs argued likelihood of success and irreparable injury from enforcement/fees | DOT argued plaintiffs could obtain monetary relief later, fees needed to sustain airport operations; public interest favors keeping the airfield open | Court concluded plaintiffs failed the merits element; economic harm was reparable; public interest favored DOT; injunction denial affirmed |
| Standard of review for agency statutory interpretation | N/A | N/A | Court applied de novo review but deferred to agency construction where statute ambiguous; DOT’s interpretation was not palpably erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Hous. & Comm. Dev. Corp. of Hawaii, 117 Hawai‘i 174, 177 P.3d 884 (2008) (three‑part test for permanent injunction: merits, irreparable harm, public interest)
- Vail v. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 75 Haw. 42, 856 P.2d 1227 (1993) (deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous statute unless palpably erroneous)
- Gillan v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 119 Hawai‘i 109, 194 P.3d 1071 (2008) (statutory interpretation generally reviewed de novo; deference to agency where ambiguous)
- Farmer v. Admin. Dir. of Court, State of Haw., 94 Hawai‘i 232, 11 P.3d 457 (2000) (definition of ambiguity in statutes)
- Treloar v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 65 Haw. 415, 653 P.2d 420 (1982) (weight given to contemporaneous administrative construction and longstanding agency practice)
- Chun v. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 61 Haw. 596, 607 P.2d 415 (1980) (practical construction by those charged with carrying out a statute is entitled to much weight)
- Fratinardo v. Employees’ Ret. Sys. of State of Hawaii, 129 Hawai‘i 107, 295 P.3d 977 (2013) (agency construction and deference principles)