Opinion ID: 414311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: board authority to regulate smoking

Text: 7 Where the empowering provision of a statute states simply that the agency may 'make ... such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act' ... the validity of a regulation promulgated thereunder will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.'  14 Because the Board has broad rulemaking authority under the Act, 15 its regulations are valid so long as they reasonably advance the purposes of the Federal Aviation Act. For authority to regulate smoking, the Board relies on its responsibility to insure that carriers both provide safe and adequate service 16 and observe just and reasonable ... practices. 17 Because these two requirements differ somewhat in their applicability, 18 we consider them separately. 8
9 While the present case was pending, the Fifth Circuit held that the adequate service provision of section 404(a)(1) of the Act provides Board authority to regulate smoking. 19 According to the intervenors, that interpretation of the Act is incorrect because Congress intended to commit only economic regulation to the Board, and to leave details of passenger comfort to the absolute discretion of each airline. We disagree. 10 The phrase adequate service is not defined by statute, nor is there any specific reference to its meaning in the Act's legislative history. The historical context of the Board's creation, however, supports a broad interpretation of the Board's regulatory authority. 20 Congress established the Board in response to chaos in the industry during the 1930's, 21 which had resulted primarily from economic instability and fierce competition. 22 In 1934, Congress established the Federal Aviation Commission to provide recommendations of a broad policy covering all phases of aviation and the relation of the United States thereto. 23 11 The Commission envisioned the creation of an agency with broad power to regulate both the quality and quantity of service provided by carriers. 24 Its report recommended that [c]ertificates of convenience and necessity should be issued under proper safeguards and specifications. Provision should be made to specify a minimum quality of service and a minimum frequency of schedule on airlines. 25 The Commission recognized, however, that some competition would improve the service offered. 26 Accordingly, it suggested that Congress articulate a general desire for both regulation and competition, and entrust the new agency to strike the proper balance between them. 27 12 Congress appears to have followed that suggestion. In instructing the Board to regulate in the public interest, it directed the Board to consider both [t]he promotion of adequate ... service and [c]ompetition to the extent necessary to assure the sound development of an air-transportation system.... 28 Thus, it appears that Congress gave the Board authority to determine minimum quality standards when balancing the need for regulation against the benefits of competition. 13 Board authority to regulate quality of service does not conflict with section 401(e)(4) of the Act, 29 which provides that certificates issued by the Board may not restrict the right of an air carrier to add to or change schedules, equipment, accommodations, and facilities for performing the authorized transportation and service as the development of the business ... shall require .... On its face, this provision admittedly seems to preclude regulation of quality of service by the Board. But that interpretation proves too much, for it is clear that the Act authorized the Board to regulate several aspects of airline service that such an interpretation would prohibit. 30 Thus, the section cannot be taken as an absolute restriction on actions the Board may take to further other statutory goals. 31 Instead, the provision gives guidance in evaluating whether a particular regulation ignores the congressional desire for competition. 32 It makes clear that the Board cannot require agency approval of every change in an airline's service consistent with that already certified. The section does not, however, prohibit Board regulation of quality of service. 14 Our interpretation of the interplay of sections 401(e)(4) and 404(a) is supported by interpretations of analogous provisions of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 33 after which Congress modeled the Federal Aviation Act. 34 The Motor Carrier Act authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to require carriers to provide adequate service: that authority enables the ICC to specify the quality of service that a carrier must provide. 35 The Motor Carrier Act's analogue to section 401(e)(4) of the Act does not, moreover, severely impair that authority. Congress added that section to the Motor Carrier Act to allay fears that certification procedures would thwart the natural growth of operations. 36 Thus, the provision assured that certified carriers would not have to reapply to the ICC every time they sought to expand or change the details of their business. Given the marked similarities of the Motor Carrier Act and the Federal Aviation Act, we would need specific justification to interpret the two Acts' analogous provisions differently. No such justification exists here. 15 Finally, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-504, did not diminish the Board's authority to regulate smoking. To the contrary, although that Act deleted most of section 404, it specifically retained the portion relied upon by the Board to regulate smoking. 37 Legislative history indicates that the desired reform was not aimed at regulation of quality of service, but at the certification procedure that had retarded entry into the industry, expansion of service, and competition over fares. 38 There is absolutely no indication of congressional intent to remove the Board's authority to regulate smoking. Thus, although the Deregulation Act reflected a congressional desire to rely more heavily on competition, it did not disturb Board authority to regulate quality of service. 16
17 The adequate service requirement of 404(a)(1) does not apply to air carriers in foreign air transportation and therefore cannot provide Board authority to regulate smoking on such transportation. For such authority, the Board relies on section 404(a)(2), which requires air carriers in foreign air transportation to follow just and reasonable classifications, rules, regulations and practices. 39 18 This statutory provision is a tenuous source for Board authority to regulate smoking. Congress enacted the provision in 1972 to protect American air carriers from the cut-throat competition of foreign air carriers receiving subsidies from their governments. Legislative history strongly suggests that Congress meant the provision to apply only to regulations affecting fares and other economic matters. 40 Moreover, because the Board was not regulating smoking at all when Congress enacted the section, it is unlikely that Congress intended the section to provide the Board broader authority to do so. Had the Board's authority been challenged when the Board initially regulated smoking, we would have had serious doubts about the Board's authority to regulate smoking on foreign air transportation. 19 For nine years, however, the Board has interpreted the provision to provide that authority. We assume that Congress was fully aware of Board practices concerning smoking when it passed the Airline Deregulation Act. It would be inappropriate to overturn an interpretation that Congress has acquiesced in for nine years, during which it has closely reviewed the statutory scheme under question. As the Supreme Court has said: 20 In addition to the importance of legislative history, a court may accord great weight to the long-standing interpretation placed on a statute by an agency charged with its administration. This is especially so where Congress has re-enacted the statute without pertinent change. In these circumstances, congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress. 41 21 It follows that the Board has authority to regulate smoking in interstate, overseas, and foreign air transportation. We turn to consider whether the promulgation of ER-1245 was valid.