we are thank you your honor the issue before the court and this is a fascinating case and the issue before the court is going to have tremendous implication for millions of americans going down through the years the process of purchasing a car perhaps the second most important purchase that most americans will ever make in their life and many people will do it on two or three occasions throughout their life the process entails into into a contract for five or six years of tens of thousands of dollars being put on the table dealership understand how important is for people to be to drive vehicles when they're making this very important decision however if a dealership does not provide vehicle and controls to allow people with disabilities to test drive it will be denied that opportunity the up to to participate something that everyone recognizes very important a ruling that requires these hang controls to be provided on a temporary basis for the test drive on behalf of your disabled people but but can the complaint be read to require that a policy or practice of a dealership be changed to permit the prospective purchaser to install those at his or her own expense for the purpose of conducting a test drive well i think that if a person showed up under the eighty eighth person showed up and asked for permission to bring their own hand controls and install it i think that they that the dealership would be obligated to make a reasonable modification in their policies or practice is so long as it didn't work a fundamental alteration so here's my question to be clear i want to know whether please whether your complaint includes that as i understand it includes that we want the dealership to do this for us but are you also asking for a ruling that the dealership policies are practices should permit consumers to do that at their own expense our client wasn't asking for that whether or not injunction when we get down to enjoy the court can fashion injunctions to carry out things whether or not there can be some leeway i remember in a recent case fortan a case for his amc when it got down to the injunction level we were able to craft the court issues something that they found was a balance again it's i'm not trying to lobby your client i want to know if you want me to read your complaint to include that request here that is not part of our complaint all right where it made me it may matter to the answer because some of the portions of the statute you played of that it's cheap and easy and so it if you're pleading is adequate that all may be litigated later but it might matter to the answer it and i agree in that is something that a think and that's what a lot of the should be looking at the architectural provision or the policies and practices provision the department of justice says both right here and i think the prop but i think primarily is the architectural barrier that's that's the way that we looked at it because where  vehicle had controls or identified in the regulation itself is under thirty six point three or four b twenty one it's not that hard go ahead to go ahead that doesn't mean it fits here so i can i can imagine a facility or two where the h under that regulation for example mall of america is selling providing an indoor shopping experience and so we're talking about accessing that facility then in a cart you know for people with mobility issues that has had controls that make some sense to manual deals with the rental car agency that's their primary example that they get every rental car agency is selling the ability to use the car temporarily an auto dealership someone a car right but that's different and we're not sure we're not asking that they should sell a car or a vehicle hand controls i understand that right now we're just saying when they offer a privilege an opportunity to test drive to do something different than the actual sale of the car that they have an obligation that springs to life that's what the d o j is saying right that's we're kind of figure out which prove and you're putting it in under the architectural provision which seems like a really and doors and things that are parts of the old things and it was building building building building building car hand controls it really doesn't fit there twenty one things on that list and twenty of them  with buildings and one of them does not belong on the list in that's and i talked to the d o j about that when we were discussing this case and he said i'm speaking for him but i'll say it it shouldn't be that odd because you have all these facilities and all these to be a path to travel sidewalks that are covered we have building structures we have signs we have all these things and it goes beyond that in the access standards office you know talks about exhilarate aids and communication devices but when it comes to vehicles manufacturers are not required to create accessible vehicles so there's not any scoping requirements  how vehicles are to be created and when it comes to vehicles which is a huge part of american life really the only thing that businesses can do who have already acquired this already built thing is in the most important thing is a provide vehicle had controls and so that's really the only thing this twenty one things bu surprising that the vast majority of them deal with all the other things that are out there you know it was better but even use that same reasoning to say that bedroom furniture is architectural if it's not at the correct height or a desk is architectural it just doesn't fit but i guess i'm not sure why that matters and fundamentally even if we were to say that the regulation doesn't make any sense i mean isn't entitled to deference i'm not sure why that ends up  the general prohibition in the statute prohibits discrimination including the denial of an opportunity to participate in or benefit from good services and privileges and i'm not sure why we don't just go to validate and not worry about whether it's architectural and that's why the d o j says it can fit under both things and i would just say with that's a differently that's a different point the point is the statute talks about includes if it does discrimination includes right but is not limited to so the suggestion is why does it have to fit under any one of the first sub provisions you're right it doesn't there's a general rule forty two u s c one to any two way there's a general rule that guides everything else and then there are specific provisions that are spelled out but there's been a number of things that we just said we know that so here's the question is there any case law that's ever done that or his laws ever done that there are some cases that deal with the use of facilities for step away i don't know if there's any cases that that would be on all fours with this case i would like to make one point when we talk about bedroom furniture no bedroom furniture has to be created accessible because many factors don't have to do that but hotels that now let people use address the regulation in thirty six point three zero six which says that a public accommodation is not required to provide its customers with personal devices including things like wheelchairs and  i wonder why that wouldn't cover hand controls which are also personal device i think there's two reasons why i would first of all we know this this court said repeatedly that there are that one of the cans construction is that we don't interpret a vision such  there are a number of examples where there is a quid and that has to be provided that the d j does not believe to be personal advice is one of the big one says in the technical assistance manual three dash four point five thousand this is supplement and they give the example body mobility and there's a lot of them they play wheelchair softball leagues they're there paralympics you know there's so many people who just can't use or lower extremities and have been driving my class been driving for ten fifteen years they drive that the a blanket rules and these controls that are put on there are these portable personalized device yes if there was something that the standard universal controls just one work for them then we're into a whole different situation where someone's asking for something very particular ised something is very individualized and and i don't know what level again the department just is never described the personal devices they talk about vehicle had controls not being that they talk about mechanical grabbers to control things not being that there's a bunch of other examples in the federal register says that under these obligations there be many many opportunities they thirty six three o seven the inventory regulations ok you've used cars our cars are generally sold as it is you want to negotiate something different you can negotiate something different but usually you're taking the car as if they're not the you're not going to change the paint they're not going to stall new seats and so on so why is that that that you can require somebody to alter the car in a way that may suggest how they might alter it themselves in the future and not call that a change in the inventory because they're not changing them toward the employee themselves exactly the same they're asking for something temporary importantly put on there so they can make their own assessment and that may not even have either but it's a it's a it's an assessment as to what they are how they would regard the car if they altered in the way they intend altered in the future the i don't think that's true because most people who buy who then end up buying a car they get permanent controls installed and they're different and so these are temporary hand controls that just no want to continue driving afterwards if they buy the vehicle  temporary hand controls there to get the permanent ones installed and so these are just temporary so they can test drive and find out all the other information about the vehicle how to ride how it feels how maneuvers how they like it and so the ultimately when they buy it they're not going to stick with proport portable hand controls they're going to controls with every yes i think that they would have to take some proactive steps to either have just like a rental car agencies do to have a rate of relationship with mechanics to do this they can keep it on hand or not remember there's a there certainly is a difference between going to go to a major used car lot where they're selling certified cars and have mechanics on base on site and the mom and pop used car lot that's got you know twenty cars down on the on the street corner and it's operating out of trailer in the d o j talks about that in this special system manual says first and gives an example you may have a rural rental car agency that's very small but no mechanics on site and it may take three to five days to give them advance notice so they can arrange for something to happen there's this balancing test under the bed of the achievable that we've never done this before we'll look into it my take is that we can you come back and we can test your everything that be totally legitimate might say two weeks and so i guess i want to test drive the subaru and then i want to go back to look at the hondas again people do that back and forth they narrow their scope would you have to put it on each time and there i think you would but there and it might but it meant and it may take a person with a disability weeks to work through this process there's no way to get around all the inconveniences the come with some with disabled right they're not entitled to have immediate or perfect service or what they might want in their mind so we tell clients all the time you may want that you're not  to it but there is something there isn't title to and that's to talk to a dealership and say on with enough notice and working it through saying i like the vehicle had controls portable ones put on so i can test drive your vehicle and we're saying this is an obligation the d o j says exists it's an appropriate interpretation of the statute i think they are entitled chevron deference and even though it may take time they have to work with the size of the company and so forth i think it is an obligation exists and they should be required to do so really this and that this could fall under the policies and practices provision i do because they have business is a have an otherwise legitimate business policy we don't provide vehicle hang controls have to modify their policies when requested in order to accommodate this would fit naturally under that for someone to say look on the sable because of my disability i can't you know push pedals i'd like to get some vehicle which was imposed on there for me so i can participate in the same privilege that you offer someone else why is that different from a bookstore saying it's our policy of practice not to carry books in braille because that's that's the and tory right and so but now if the same if that same business had someone who didn't like and again the bookstore selling what it is selling what it's selling and you can buy what's on the shelf they're not providing you with a reader they're not providing you with a magnifier they're not providing you with a lot of things and the used car dealer says look this is this is what it is it's a two thousand dollar car and you want the car you can have the car yet but what they're saying to a customer saying you can take the car off site you go drive it take it on the highways do this we're offering a specific indiscrete service right people are doing that if it starts to not take it take it take it home try it out do this test it works but it's a bookstore here's a here's a couch over here you want to sit down to browse through the book for ten fifteen minutes two hours we don't care there's a starbucks adjacent to the barnes and noble and you can go sit over there and look at the book and decide whether you want to read it and there's a lot of there's a lot of it to say that this is simply a policy in practice and comes under that almost anything can be characterized as a policy or practice again barnes and noble may say it is not our policy and practice to carry braille books and that would discriminate against certain of your high and unfortunately for businesses bookstores there is actually specifically address where they don't have to go and get specific but it does say that if a person if they normally make requests for customers christmas they can order a special item and they normally do that they don't have to do that the order books to have them come in so there are obligations they have over there and you might have a different argument if you had a particular used car dealer that says we make we make accommodations for some kinds of folks we don't make accommodations for others you might be able to say it wait a minute what once you when you go down that road you've got to be able to help these folks with the hand controls just by the i agree that there is there's there's degrees here and it's sometimes hard where the draw the line but the d o j has drawn a line on this particular issue says this does fit within the mandate it's important enough in that it when you look at the findings and purposes of the eighty eight to make sure that people are that there's not general generalities or stereotypes or outright exclusionary requirements or you know transportation barriers or loosing they talk about they have identified this thing as part of their notice and role making it's actually in the code of regulations that went out there the installing vehicle hand controls and rental car agency i mean putting him on vehicles that are going to be used and i do think by the way that the dealerships are selling that service because part of what they they offer if there's a dealership the doesn't provide test controls driving the deal should that does one gets a commercial advantage and so it is part of what they're offering it is a service a valuable service is possible of that that that number twenty one the vehicle hand controls has an application someplace else besides car dealerships other than car rental agencies and car dealerships i would imagine to be something where maybe perhaps they offer a vehicle for driving around a site a golf cart perhaps what about a huge indoor shop if that's the facility i can imagine or a golf course i can imagine places where provision number twenty one does where the facility is not car a really vast expanse like an indoor shopping facility yeah i understand that but the term facilities been defined by the code and it means conveyances and equipment as well and it's also defined in the tam as meaning of the vehicle so the word facility is defined by code in the regulation itself that went for notice and rule making it's broader than what we typically think of like a facility we can point out we can draw a picture of it i like to reserve the last minute for it but if i may do that thank you very much good morning ma'am please the court line mcintyre on behalf of the apple e d c a commission valley honda dealership i think that courts questions have identified some important issues in this case and it involves the both the what has been alleged in this particular case and what the issue is that is before the court based on those allegations and it also involves an important harmonizing of all of the regulations and making sense of them so that in no way is any one of them completely eliminate really we have to start with the statute not with the regulations and my biggest concern is that everybody is focused on these specific examples but the statute begins with a general rule and general vision against discrimination it in the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the good services facilities privileges advantages or  accommodations of any of that covered entities and without even thinking about those five or six i forget how many specific examples that are in the statute why isn't this squarely with and of the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods services and privileges of a car dealership where the certainly it's either a service or a privilege to be able to test drive a car so why don't we just start there and not worry about all those specific ones at the end well first of all congress enacted a very general and broad statute right and that's my point exactly and provided requested that the department of justice enact regulations to provide guidance on what these general and specific activities  that the statute is intended to address and the regulations answer the question not to your liking i think i can assess but i'm not sure even in the absence of the regulations that appear to cover this or at least arguably coverage i'm not really sure how you don't fall within this general rule well i don't see how we nor the regulations at that are very specific and in particular the regulations that recognize a a balance between guaranteeing access and the cost to businesses of providing certain things and the right to have isn't that later in the in the because the complaint says this is cheap and easy and it may be that in your answer you end up saying no it's expensive and it's hard and it's an undue burden and it fundamentally alters what we're providing in which case you win but it were that we provide a vehicle with hand controls for him to use and he also alleges not that they are universal and in the u s that the universal design design but they did not allege that they can be universally installed on any vehicle for any person for it no matter what that seems to simulating to cover that that's why i'm saying doesn't that belong later in the in the sort of procedural posture of the case because right now we have a complaint that says i'm denied the privileges and services of test driving a vehicle that is being sold and people who don't have my physical condition yet that privilege and are given that service and it's easy for them to fix this and it's cheap and that all may be wrong later on but why doesn't that state a claim i don't think that it's enough to state a very general claim based on general language in the statute while at the same time disregarding the regulations inactive by the department of justice that was in power too by the by congress to interpret with that very vague general broad standard and we have specific regulations that are interpret ing that standard and the specific claims that we're looking at in this particular case and as was conceded this morning during oral argument is that the lack of vehicle hand controls is an architectural barrier so i don't think our an simply sweep the statement of the claim specifically within the generally agree with you about architectural barrier what if we agree with you that that might work for a different situation but not for the sale of a car off of a car lot the other argument is that it may fall within some provision to policies and procedures what is your argue the response about place well my response to that is if the policy or procedure that they're asking for requires something that's not required by the regulations in other words it requires us to provide personal devices that requires us to alter our inventory those things are not within the reach of the a b a so now the words i'm understanding you  say that the statutes very broad the statute says discrimination includes bunch of stuff and then and then whatever we might fit within that are or might be fitted fall within that certainly can include something that specifically excluded by a rig that's your position that is a kind of like that and you think that regulations knockout plaintiffs claim both because it seeks modification of inventory is that right yes and it requires provision of the modification of a personal device his response to inventory is that it's temporary and when i ask you to permanently modify your inventory but to adapt it just so they can participate in the privilege right the privilege of taking a test drive ok and you response to that is you still think it's a modification of your inventory absolutely because the experience that they're having in driving that vehicle is a modified experience and there is no language in in the requirement in that in the regulation that exempts inventory from alteration that has any kind of temporal quality not it doesn't say you're not you know except for temporary modification and it's also possible to read this modification of inventory regulation is talking about the actual goods that are for sale not temporary modifications of inventory that is you know they don't have to stock cars for sale that already have particular special devices in them but i think that's what the reg regulation appears to be any well i understand the distinction that you're making but i also have to go back to the premise that there is no limitation on that language and the fact that what plaintiff is asking for is us to provide a vehicle with hand controls install and that is a modification of our inventory just as with a bookstore you're not required to provide a couple of pages in braille so that a person can have the privilege of previewing the book like that somebody who doesn't need braille it would be if you if you offer services such as reading to small children small part of a book so that they can tell if they want to buy it but you decline to read to a blind adult that might be more equivalent well actually i think that the thing that makes it different is that you're offering services that are covered by other stand this have a serious negotiations and there are very specific regulations that talk about providing communicative overcoming communication barriers but there this is a sale we're in the business of selling inventory right away and i have one more question though it seems quite obviously i think as my colleague described a square peg in a round hole or vice a versa i say that this is but the regulatory definition of facility includes rolling stock or other conveyances and what to stand do to this concept that it's about a facility even though that's not the normal terminology that we would use to describe a vehicle well i think it really that that trying to fit a vehicle for sale within those definitions illustrate it is the definition it's it's not correct but it is it is not a rolling stock is a railroad car the convenience is so broad i'm not even sure exactly what it means but it doesn't mean inventory modest layout of a car right because that's you're selling the transportation business and you have to modify i think you have to modify if it's an indoor shopping experience or a golf course you're selling that experience suit so the facility has to be modified to allow access to to that that's why there's a real difference i think between a car rental agency and a car lot of sellers saluki i think but but it's and it's any it's easy to think of a lot of reasons why plaintiffs run into a whole lot of problems when we get to reasonable accommodation about when we really talk about the feasibility of this and the cost was going to cost and you've you've briefed that you've talked about insurance and technicians and on and on but we're not there yet so i really struggle with this notion that the statute says just discrimination includes but is not limited to what about that well i guess and i think we have to go back to what is before the court in this particular lawsuit and what's before the court is a request that this the dealership provide a vehicle with hand controls right so i don't know what if i think that i what if i think that's not modifying them and torrie because i'm not asking you to sell a modified car  so so so if that's the that's the case that's the case and we're not talking about architectural then what's your what's your best argument they should lose at the twenty six level well well if you if we look at the allegation of the complaint what they've requested is that facility are dealership provide vehicle hand controls and that's that's at fourteen and that they provide vehicles with hand controls and so on any level we're looking at  at these three regulations that potentially applicable and provide having a dealership being requested to provide vehicle hand controls violates the personal device section thirty six point three zero six it also does not constitute an architectural barrier and we made our arguments about why this is not an architectural barrier it's not a a facility a rolling stock it cetera we're in the business of selling good but what about the personal device exception his response to that is that they're not talking about it individually tailored personal device they're talking about something is much more universally applicable and if anybody shows up in the individual consumer shows up and those don't work for him or her for the deal doesn't she the ship doesn't have to go that far that's his response well i think that's a an interesting response but the reality is and amicus will speak to this is that and he has not alleged that they're universally usable by any disabled person the reality that's the point he's saying that you wouldn't have to go that far you don't have to go as far as hertz or avis but but his claim is that we failed to provide a vehicle hand control and he didn't claim that he would be able to use the vehicle and control their very personal devices when you look  at you know we're just talking past each other i understand his allegation to be that you wouldn't have to do that any kind of a personal ad individualized adaptation but why shouldn't a car dealership be required to do what hurts or avis has to do what's the response to that because a car dealership is not in the business of providing temporary use of a vehicle for that's the only thing that a rental car offers and without the vehicle you are your hero offering the special service or privilege of test driving a car temporarily and so you know usually the sales person goes with you to make sure you don't steal it and don't get lost and don't get into an accident it's part of the service that is provided by a car dealership but the only way that there is that statutes clear that you don't have to provide and it is this is where the balancing comes in of you do not have to provide personal devices and they call it for example they say wheelchairs now up without a wheelchair a person cannot even access the goods that you're talking about getting to you're not required to provide it that's personal a personal device just as with the vehicle hand control is personal to that person if they c use it then it wouldn't be of any use to them it's the person the foreign the ads or the wheelchairs this is interesting that they would include that because things like the eyeglasses or hearing aids are the kinds of things that you don't want to pass on from one consumer to another maybe eyeglasses not so much hearing aids you know i mean we use three d glasses if we go to the movies and they get passed on and between people that wheelchairs is a really interesting omission from that from that regulation because we because at other facilities like disneyland you have wheelchairs that are available have wheelchairs and little electric carts at the supermarket for people who want to who want to use them to run up and down the aisles so how was this how is this more like a wheelchair them so that's what makes it so so personal i mean if it was like if you could tell me it was like a hearing aid that would be a powerful argument i'm not sure you can well and i think it makes us will address this but they are highly personal because there are so many different kinds of but that's not the allegation in the complaint allegation in my complaint is that there are universally available ones that are cheap and easy and that may turn out to be false later on but we're looking we have to take the complaint has true for purposes of a motion to  well if in reading the complaint what do you what they allege is that companies sell and will install vehicle hand controls that are universal in design meaning that they can be used on any vehicle he does not allege that and they can be used by any individual that needs a hand convenient alleges that he could have used them i mean where at the pleading stage we have to take everything he says is true and it doesn't matter if it actually turns out to be so it may be hard it may be expensive it may be that these things don't even exist even as they are being alleged but none of that matters at the pleading stage at the complaint stage it's all i need might win at the next step but it's those are you might win at the next step but going back to the three provisions that we're talking about personal devices alteration of inventory in the architectural device if he has his allegation is that there are there's a set of uniform controls out there and th car rental agencies use them and sometimes they don't fit for some people and i think probably sometimes they don't fit for some cars but to the extent he's talking about a uniform set and that's what is it upon complaint says what is your client's best response  doesn't exist factually well my response is that that the complaint does not allege enough and what he's asking you to do is it is is make a very broad rule under a very general kind of up concept and  argument that first of all he has an alleged the right to secondly that he cannot state a claim to under it as an architectural barrier and he cannot state a claim to as a policy practice or procedure because it would require fundamental alteration of this business and the inventory and the personal devices exemptions so paragraph sixteen course numerous companies that sell them will install vehicle and controls that are universal in design meaning they can be used i think that it is very relevant the fact that in reality which we do need to consider when making these rulings that he that there are no allegations and there can't be that every that there's a single vehicle hand control that can  every disability need and that's a very important distinction because you're also in being asked to formulate this rule that you have to have on hand vehicle hand controls there is that he's asked are you actually think i asked to the so it's actually a pretty narrow question yes and you're being asked to rules a matter of law that he has stated the claim that this is an architectural barrier under the a t a i and we've put forth our arguments why it's not and i think you know that's pretty plainly stated and that he has asked for that the nature of the denial that he's asked for and or bases the premises his claim on is not within the the a t a i or the regulations that have been set forth by the department of justice so i think that the fundamental question that is that's before the court is whether to allow a claim to go claim under the a d f a for discrimination there there are specific regulations that we have to consider in making that determination we have to harmonize them there are ways to harmonize them i think the rental car agency where it's provides a to and that's all that it is providing it's in the business is an entirely distinguishable business and i think that it's very telling that in the illustrations that the d o j sets forth in describing what might mean what what the  statute means it talks only about rental car agencies there's no mention of a car dealership as an illustration there's no mention anywhere of what should apply to a car dealership is in the business of selling vehicles end is not required to modify even there's no no limitation whether it's temp kemper you're not permanent they're not required to make any modifications to their inventory that the plaintiff has that access to the goods has access to the there's no architectural barrier to that access and for those reasons i would request the and encourage the court to affirm the district court's ruling thank you thank you very much letter from let me just now morning judge graber judge by the judge kristen felicia reed of hirschfeld kramer for amicus curiae i national automobile dealers association the california new car dealers association and the national mobility equipment dealers association thank you first of all for giving us the opportunity to address the court on this issue in our briefing we've offered quite a bit of detailed factual information about modification of vehicles so that disabled can use them in their daily lives to encourage their mobility and inclusion in the society and that is very important to me but i or on it to emphasize this morning as as the court has has recognized this is a legal issue that is being decided on the pleadings and think that it can be decided on the pleadings based on the two regulations that have been cited the personal device regulation three s thirty six three of sex and the controls alleged in the complaint are personal devices there is no requirement in the regulation that a personal device be individually prescribe you know how is that you know a part of the problem here is trying to reconcile all the various regulations and clearly by including hand controls and the list of architectural barriers whether it's a square peg in a round hole or not it would seem that the government does not think that is inconsistent with the regulations that you've cited and therefore implicitly at least views those others  not relevant so what do we make of that well i think we need to harmonize here the personal device regulation and the inventory modification regulation that we have to because then i see it also with  other regulation that says you've got to do hand controls maybe deal jay just put it in the wrong place well i think it's kind of in this defying regulation but certainly personal devices are not just things that are personally prescribed they are devices that a disabled individual uses in their daily life to enable them to carry out the activities of daily living and certainly driving would be an activity of daily living that an individual who cannot use feet to drive would need to need hand controls in order to perform so if they are universe so they're still a personal device and there are certainly people people who use that but you know the the handicapped but much a push to open the open the doors might also be described as a personal device it's an aid that other people don't have to use in order to gain access to the building and why but that would be required under the under both the statute and the regulations pretty clearly but the disabled individual does not carry that button with them in their daily life so this does this the plaintiffs here once they once he buys a car we're not asking to carry these hand controls in their daily life either they're asking that a seller of cars have one on hand to allow them to share in the service or privilege of test driving it's not the the disabled individual will need to modify that vehicle once purchased you know order to operate it and the test drive we're talking about is a test drive of a modified vehicle in order to see how it works how it drives so there is a modification the dealerships here do not sell modified vehicles that happens after privilege of test driving very immature in no problem they're allowing it for some customers if it's feasible and we're not at the feasibility stage much as whether they have to make adaptation so other customers who are disabled camp participate in that privilege right there there are many the privilege of using the vehicle before trying it out before driving it right so thank you before buying or buying it is why i mean i just feel like we keep skirting the issues that's what it's about you allow that privilege of of trying on the dress test driving the car why don't they have to make a reasonable accommodations so disabled people can do that too what's your best argument well i know their accommodation would be enabling the disabled individual to ride along in the car as it's driven by someone else that's a different accommodation he wants the experience of driving it what's your best argument that the twelve be sixty eight your your team wins we don't so modif vehicles we don't have to make a modification so you can try out a modified vehicle that's not a service we offer in fact telstra you know there's what's the service you don't offer we don't offer privilege is we're just selling cars that's our inventory if you want to go drive it you want to test drive it knock yourself out we'll allow you the privilege of taking it well a disabled person can't do that so his argument is if you allow that privilege of test ride you need to accommodate so that we can participate too and i'm still waiting to hear well what's your very best argument in fact test drives are not offered universally is a privilege ok right right but but isn't the dealerships that do at the twelve b six stage what's the barrier for this complaint to go forward dealerships deny members of the public trust drs when they believe that they are not able to operate the vehicle safely or are not the a legitimate purpose or there are other indicia that this is not a serious customer is your butt but that's that strikes me to be i don't think you're taking a position that these disable who are not serious customers that's not no that's not at all i am i saying that it's not a universal privilege offered to the public ok you know i i'm not sure why that makes any difference if i have if i'm a dealership and i've been i someone the ability to test drive because they look shady and they're in shabby clothes and i think they're going to try to steal the car or they're intoxicated or they're under age or something i don't see how that has any bearing on it where you have you know two equally responsible adults with valid driver's licenses one disabled and one not i guess i don't understand how that even bears on it that someone who has a specific legitimate reason not to be loaned to the car for a few minutes i don't understand how that even has any bearing on it i think you know i  think we address the issue of of access to vehicles to try them out to examine them to see how they operate in our proves there are many ways to do that without getting behind the wheel and modifying the vehicle to enable operation it's like the customer who comes into best buy who is unable to use her hands she's disabled she wants to buy a computer and she wants to try out how the e mail and word processing program works and she says can you install some voice activated software on that so i can test drive the computer and see how it works is best it's not because because when we get into the devil's in the details and we get to the next step i as i said i think we can easily envision all kinds of problems that the next step why this might prove to be an accommodation that that asks too much because it's just not feasible it's too expensive you know you've given a long laundry list of those reasons at the twelve b six stage we're struggling to figure out why this complaint shouldn't get to that next step because it's both a modification and a personal device that the purchaser will have to buy themselves in order to operate the vehicle they are test driving thank you very much eight with my one minute left i'd just like to go back to one issue i think of course we have to deal with when we're not reaching his decision and that is the level of deference that we give the partner of justice because the court's already indicated that the statutory language the congressional language seems to fit the situation right to provide equal access and opportunity to services privileges accommodation and so forth it's very tough then to say that their partner just has come up with a regulatory scheme that says when it comes available have the tools you need to install them in order so they can do all barry thing is directly under the generator that you talk about that the rig that hand controls are you not talking to the hand i am talking about the hand control rag i'm saying the hand control regulation is what carries out the general rule and my argument is that this court would have to say put that reg in the wrong in the wrong place but want to put that under the section that is architectural and under a long line of cases going back to china we are supposed to defer to the agency and if we decide that that is not architectural we don't get to second guess that the agency really meant to put it someplace else it would have to go back to the agency and allow them to decide whether they thought it fit under personal devices or policies and practices or something else right and so i guess my arguing would be the vehicle handles would be just as much it would be just as much not architectural for the rental car agencies as it would be for a dealership right it's either architectural or it's not and what i'm saying is that yes they put under the their languages has to remove barriers or architectural nature or communication barriers as language barriers and says it's any physical impediment and this is a physical impediment to the bill you something i know or potentially think a swing a hammer i get that and that's why i've often thought is around peg in a square hole as well but you can read broadly enough where it fits there and my only point is that fit under the policy of procedure section as well planned paragraph eighteen of your complaint and you seem to be pulling away from it as fast no can i'm not i'm not eighteen and twenty one a by the way both discuss policies and procedures so it's an alternative arg