Opinion ID: 3170399
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Regulatory Field

Text: Under those principles, “state law is pre-empted . . . if federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field ‘as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.’” Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 516 (quoting de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153); see also Freightliner, 514 U.S. at 287. In determining field preemption, “[f]ederal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes.” de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153. Accordingly, NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 27 “[w]here . . . Congress has entrusted an agency with the task of promulgating regulations to carry out the purposes of a statute, as part of the preemption analysis we must consider whether the regulations evidence a desire to occupy a field completely.” Montalvo, 508 F.3d at 470–71 (quoting R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Durham Cnty., 479 U.S. 130, 149 (1986)) (alteration in original). In particular, we “look[] to the pervasiveness of federal regulations in the specific area covered by the . . . state law at issue.” Martin, 555 F.3d at 809; see also Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721. If the pervasiveness of the regulations indicate that the agency sought to occupy the field, we ask only “whether that action [wa]s within the scope of the [agency’s] delegated authority.” de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 154. With respect to accessibility of airport kiosks, DOT has promulgated two regulations. First, on May 13, 2008, DOT promulgated an “interim” rule, requiring, without significant further elaboration, that if kiosks are inaccessible, the airline must provide “equivalent service.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.57 (2008); see also 73 Fed. Reg. at 27,619–20.12 After oral argument in this case, DOT replaced that brief interim rule with a much more extensive and detailed one, addressing a wide variety of accessibility, technical, and timing requirements specifically applicable to airport kiosks (the “new regulation”). See 14 C.F.R. § 382.57 (2014); 78 Fed. Reg. at 67,900–11. 12 The interim rule provided, in its entirety: “As a carrier, if your automated kiosks in airport terminals cannot readily be used by a passenger with a disability for such functions as ticketing and obtaining boarding passes that the kiosks make available to other passengers, you must provide equivalent service to the passenger (e.g., by assistance from your personnel in using the kiosk or allowing the passenger to come to the front of the line at the check-in counter).” 14 C.F.R. § 382.57 (2008). 28 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES Applying our precedents concerning field preemption, we conclude, first, that the DOT ACAA regulations covering matters other than the use of airline ticketing kiosks are not pertinent to our field preemption inquiry; second, that the new regulation is pervasive and intended to occupy the field of kiosk accessibility; and, third, that DOT acted within its delegated authority in promulgating the new regulation. The essential field preemption inquiry is whether the density and detail of federal regulation merits the inference that any state regulation within the same field will necessarily interfere with the federal regulatory scheme. The first step in determining whether that situation exists is to delineate the pertinent regulatory field; the second is to survey the scope of the federal regulation within that field. In Martin, 555 F.3d 806, for example, a pregnant passenger who had fallen on an airplane’s stairway, injuring herself and her fetus, alleged that the airstairs were “defectively designed because they had only one handrail.” Id. at 808. The “only [DOT] regulation on airstairs,” we noted, provided that “they can’t be designed in way that might block the emergency exits”; the regulation had “nothing to say about handrails, or even stairs at all, except in emergency landings.” Id. at 812. We concluded that “[b]ecause the agency [had] not comprehensively regulated airstairs, the FAA [had] not preempted state law claims that the stairs are defective.” Id. In so ruling, we emphasized the importance of delineating the pertinent area of regulation with specificity before proceeding with the field preemption inquiry: “[W]hen [an] agency issues ‘pervasive regulations’ in an area . . . the [statute] preempts all state law claims in that area.” Id. at 811. But, “[i]n areas without pervasive NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 29 regulations . . . the state standard of care remains applicable.” Id.13 The current version of § 382.57 does pervasively regulate the accessibility of airport kiosks. That regulation, appended to this opinion, is exhaustive. With regard to blind travelers, the rule specifies, among many other matters, the following technical and design requirements for accessible airport kiosks:
an option for speech output,” and meet specified requirements concerning the content, volume, and privacy restrictions on that output, id. § 382.57(c)(5)(i)–(ii);14 and (2) 13 As Gilstrap explained, while our earlier decision in Montalvo, 508 F.3d at 473, had “contained some broad language concerning the reach of FAA preemption[,] . . . Martin clarified that Montalvo should not be read . . . expansively” with regard to the relevant field for preemption purposes. Gilstrap, 709 F.3d at 1004. 14 With regard to speech output, as for other matters, the current regulation provides an extremely fine-cut level of detail. The regulation provides, for example, that, “[w]hen asterisks or other masking characters are used to represent personal identification numbers or other visual output that is not displayed for security purposes, the masking characters must be spoken (“” spoken as “asterisk”) rather than presented as beep tones or speech representing the concealed information.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.57(c)(5)(i)(A). As to the volume of speech output, the regulation instructs: Where sound is delivered through speakers on the automated kiosk, incremental volume control must be provided with output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, a volume gain of at 30 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES “[a]t least one input control that is tactilely discernible without activation must be provided for each function,” and meet specified requirements regarding the arrangement and tactile indication required, id. § 382.57(c)(6).15 The regulation also requires that the kiosk’s “[o]perable parts must be tactilely discernible without activation,” id. § 382.57(c)(3)(i) and that “Braille instructions for initiating the speech mode must be provided.” Id. § 382.57(c)(8). Finally, the regulation imposes a backup requirement of “equivalent service,” similar to the general accommodation language that appeared in the interim rule. Id. § 382.57(d).16 least 20 dB above the ambient level must be user selectable. A function must be provided to automatically reset the volume to the default level after every use. Id. § 382.57(c)(5)(ii)(B). 15 Again demonstrating its extreme precision, the regulation specifies the particular symbols to be used for “function keys”: “Enter or Proceed key: raised circle; Clear or Correct key: raised left arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add Value key: raised plus sign; Decrease Value key: raised minus sign.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.57(c)(6)(iv)(B). 16 “You must provide equivalent service upon request to passengers with a disability who cannot readily use your automated airport kiosks (e.g., by directing a passenger who is blind to an accessible automated kiosk, assisting a passenger in using an inaccessible automated kiosk, assisting a passenger who due to his or her disability cannot use an accessible automated kiosk by allowing the passenger to come to the front of the line at the check-in counter).” Id. § 382.57(d). NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 31 The new regulation thus informs airlines with striking precision about the attributes their accessible kiosks must have. In doing so, the new regulation speaks directly to the concerns raised by the Federation’s suit. In its complaint, the Federation alleged that, because United’s kiosks “use exclusively visual computer screen prompts and touch-screen navigation to guide a customer through a transaction without translating the prompts into a medium accessible to the blind, such as audio output[,] . . . vision is required to successfully use” the kiosks. Furthermore, the Federation alleged, “[t]echnology exists for United’s [k]iosks to be accessible to the blind, including but not limited to an audio interface, a tactile keyboard, and/or interactive screen reader technology for use with touch screens.” The new regulation instructs United exactly what it must do to address this problem, from the general — namely that its accessible kiosks must, as the Federation suggests, incorporate both speech output and at least one tactile input method — to the granularly specific, including the specific decibel levels for speech output and the particular tactile symbols to be used. Thus, “a number of specific federal [regulatory provisions] govern” the particular standards at issue here, namely what level of accessability for blind individuals is required for airport kiosks. Montalvo, 508 F.3d at 472 (emphasis added). Further, the regulation is unmistakably pervasive in the pertinent sense, in that it exhaustively regulates the relevant attributes of accessible kiosks. Given its great detail and pervasive extent, the new regulation preempts any state regulation of that same field. See id. 32 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES As the Federation notes, the regulation does not require that airlines make such accessible kiosks immediately available. Rather, the regulation establishes a timeline, gradually increasing the availability of accessible kiosks. First, all kiosks installed on or after December 12, 2016, must meet the accessibility specifications defined by the regulation, until 25% of the kiosks at each location at an airport are accessible. 14 C.F.R. § 382.57(a)(1). Second, airlines must ensure that at least 25% of kiosks at each location meet the regulation’s accessibility specifications by December 12, 2022. Id. § 382.57(a)(2).17 In other words, the regulation envisions that 25% of kiosks at each location will be accessible by the end of 2022, and requires in the mean time only that any new kiosks installed after December 12, 2016, be accessible until that 25% goal is reached. That federal and state regulatory schemes “may require different . . . deadlines” for compliance does not always establish a conflict between those schemes. Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., 742 F.3d 414, 430 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, however, DOT has very precisely dictated not only the substance of the accessible kiosk requirement, but also when airlines must come into full compliance with those substantive requirements, and what steps the airlines must take in the interim. The detail concerning timing demonstrates that the 17 Both rules apply only to kiosks at airports with “10,000 or more enplanements per year.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.57(a). The regulation specifies that “location” refers to “each cluster of kiosks and all stand-alone kiosks at the airport.” Id. § 382.57(a)(1). Finally, the regulation imposes these requirements both as to kiosks a particular airline owns, leases, or controls, id. § 382.57(a), and as to “shared-use” kiosks that an airline jointly owns, leases, or controls, id. § 382.57(b). NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 33 regulation is pervasive not only as to what standards apply, but also as to when compliance is required. Moreover, DOT carefully calibrated the phase-in period for kiosk accessibility. First, while DOT initially considered a compliance deadline of only 60 days, it ultimately decided that such a short timeline would not be “feasible” given the time that would be required to develop, test, and market new accessible kiosks. 78 Fed. Reg. at 67,907. Second, DOT settled on the ultimate 10-year deadline for airlines to ensure that 25% of kiosks are accessible at every location after considering the average life span of kiosks, indicating that “it is reasonable to conclude that well before the end of the 10-year period after the effective date of this rule virtually all airport kiosks will have reached the end of their life span” and will be replaced with accessible kiosks until the 25% threshold is reached. Id. at 67,908. Third, DOT initially raised the possibility of requiring airlines to retrofit existing kiosks as an interim measure, but ultimately rejected the idea as “an expensive, and in some cases, technically infeasible means to accomplish” the “more rapid near-term availability of accessible machines.” Id. at 67,909. In this regard, the regulation resembles the airbag standard at issue in Geier. Rejecting the view, urged in that case, that DOT had “set[] a minimum airbag standard” but allowed state regulation to accelerate requirements because “the more airbags, and the sooner, the better,” Geier observed that DOT’s view was to the contrary: The [DOT’s] comments, which accompanied the promulgation of [the rule], make clear that the standard deliberately provided the manufacturer with a range of choices among 34 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES different passive restraint devices. Those choices would bring about a mix of different devices introduced gradually over time; and [the rule] would thereby lower costs, overcome technical safety problems, encourage technological development, and win widespread consumer acceptance–all of which would promote [the rule’s] safety objectives. 529 U.S. at 874–75. Because the rule “deliberately sought a gradual phase-in of passive restraints,” id. at 879, a rule requiring more immediate implementation would conflict with federal law and was therefore preempted, id. at 881. Here, we consider not conflict preemption but field preemption. But the essential point is the same regarding phasing in the accessibility requirements: In promulgating its regulation, the DOT made deliberate choices and devised nuanced, detailed phase-in requirements, thereby occupying the field of airport kiosk accessibility for the blind with regard to timing as well as substantively. Any accelerated state-law requirement is therefore preempted. Finally, our conclusion that the new regulation occupies the field of kiosk accessability is bolstered, but only marginally, by DOT’s assertions that it does. As a general matter, although we may give “‘some weight’” to “an agency’s explanation of how state law affects the [relevant] regulatory scheme,” we do “not defer[] to an agency’s conclusion that state law is pre-empted.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576 (2009). “The weight we accord the agency’s explanation of state law’s impact on the federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency, and NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES 35 persuasiveness.” Id. (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234–35 (2001) and Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). Here, we give DOT’s statements minimal weight. DOT’s position is that, even before the current kiosk regulation was promulgated, “States [we]re already preempted from regulating in the area of disability civil rights in air transportation under the [ADA] and the ACAA.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 67,910 (emphasis added). The government has echoed that view before us, filing a supplemental amicus brief in this case maintaining that the DOT’s new regulation “further demonstrates that the federal government’s regulation of the accessibility of air transportation is so pervasive as to ‘occupy the field.’” The government’s view that the field of air carrier accessibility is broadly preempted has the virtue of being consistent over time. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Air Travel, 55 Fed. Reg. 8008, 8014 (Mar. 6, 1990); cf. Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 579–80 (rejecting the agency’s “newfound opinion” in part because it represented “a dramatic change in position”). As noted, however, under our precedents, the pertinent field for purposes of field preemption analysis is not “air carrier accessibility” in general; it is airport kiosk accessibility for the blind. DOT’s statements do not, as our case law requires, delineate the specific field within which the federal ACAA regulations are preemptive, or explain why § 382.57 in particular occupies the field at issue here. We therefore find them unpersuasive. Nevertheless, we do give some weight to DOT’s specific rejection of a saving provision in adopting the final kiosk regulation. In its regulatory commentary, DOT considered 36 NAT’L FED. OF THE BLIND V. UNITED AIRLINES comments, including one submitted by the Federation, urging it to include a saving clause in 14 C.F.R. Pt. 382 to ensure the viability of concurrent state-law claims. 78 Fed. Reg. at 67,910. The comments had pointed out two district court decisions, including the decision on review in this case, holding preempted certain state law suits challenging inaccessible kiosks. Id. DOT refused to adopt a saving provision, concluding that “the detrimental impacts resulting from the concurrent operation of State/local disability non-discrimination laws on passengers with disabilities and on air transportation overall are serious and foreseeable.” Id. DOT’s rejection of the saving provision, which was proposed and rejected in the context of the exact issue raised here, confirms that DOT meant to leave no space for concurrent regulation of kiosk accessibility by the states. To that extent, DOT’s regulatory discussion bolsters our conclusion that the agency occupied the field of kiosk accessability.