Opinion ID: 1401759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The TAM as the DOJ's Own Interpretation of the Access Board Guidelines

Text: As in Lara, a decision we declined to follow in Regal Cinemas, the Speedway argues that the DOJ's position is an after-acquired view, one that did not arise until well after the DOJ promulgated section 4.33.3. Lara, 207 F.3d at 788-89. Indeed, the Speedway argues not just that the DOJ's position is an after-acquired view, but that the DOJ's position on lines of sight in the 1994 TAM supplement substantially departs from the Access Board's original commentary on lines of sight. Asserting that the Access Board's commentary must be imputed to the DOJ, the Speedway contends that the DOJ's subsequent position is not entitled to substantial deference because it was not promulgated according to notice and comment rulemaking. The district court in this case agreed that the board's commentary must be imputed to the DOJ, although it also observed that if it were to write on a clean slate, [it] would be tempted to hold that § 4.33.3 requires lines of sight over standing spectators. 453 F.Supp.2d at 1203-04. In Caruso, the Third Circuit took a similar position, relying on the following factors: 1) the DOJ referred all comments to the Boards; 2) the DOJ relied on the Board to make adequate changes based on those comments; 3) the Board specifically changed the language of 4.33.3 in response to comments and explained that change in its commentary; 4) the DOJ was a `member of the board' and `participated actively ... in preparation of both the proposed and final versions of the [guidelines]'; and 5) the DOJ's commentary stated that the final guidelines promulgated by the Board adequately addressed all comments. Caruso, 193 F.3d at 736 (citations omitted). The district court's point, supported by Caruso, is a fair one. See Thomas Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381 (we must defer unless an alternative reading is compelled by other indications of the Secretary's intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation ) (emphasis added; citation omitted). After all, in its notice of proposed rulemaking, the DOJ stated that it propose[d] to adopt [the Access Board's] guidelines as the accessibility standard under this rule. 56 Fed. Reg. at 7478-79. The same day as the Access Board published its standards, the DOJ formally adopt[ed] the ADAAG as the accessibility standard as its own. 56 Fed.Reg. at 35,585, and on that day, the Access Board stated that the issue of lines of sight over standing spectators will be addressed[in the future] in guidelines for recreational facilities. 56 Fed.Reg. at 35,440. We understand why a reasonable reader might conclude that as of July 1991, the DOJ's new ADA regulations did not address lines of sight over standing spectators. We do not think, however, that such a reading is compelled by the record. See Thomas Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381. When the DOJ adopted the Access Board's guidelines as its own standards, it literally adopted the guidelines. 28 C.F.R. § 36.406(a) (New construction and alterations subject to this part shall comply with the standards for accessible design published as appendix A to this part (ADAAG).). It did not adopt any other Access Board commentary, notices of proposed rulemaking, or internal memoranda. Whatever the Access Board thought of its own guidelines, the Department of Justice adopted the text of the guidelines themselves, not the Access Board's interpretation of that text. The DOJ made the Access Board's guidelines its own, and, having done so, it assumed responsibility for interpreting the standards. [3] As the Access Board has explained: The Board's guidelines serve as the baseline for standards used to enforce the ADA and the ABA. These standards, which are maintained by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice under the ADA, will be updated according to the new guidelines. It is these standards, not the Board's guidelines, which the public must follow.  U.S. Access Board, Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines n.p. (2004) (Introduction) (emphasis added). There was good reason for the DOJ to adopt the text of the Access Board's guidelines. The ADA instructed the Access Board to issue minimum guidelines within nine months of enactment and ordered the Attorney General to issue regulations within one year. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12186(b), 12204(a). By Washington standards, this required quick work. The Access Board's dutiful response to the mandate enabled the DOJ to get its own regulations into print on time. More importantly, the ADA mandated that the DOJ's regulations be consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the [Access Board]. 42 U.S.C. § 12186(c). By formally adopting the Access Board's guidelines, the DOJ ensured that its own regulations were consistent with the Access Board's guidelines. It seems like an easy call for the Attorney General to piggyback on the Access Board's hard work at getting the ADA up and running. Those guidelines, however, were only a launching point for the DOJ, which had to take care that its own regulations complied with the Access Board guidelines at a minimum. Id. Nothing in the ADA or in the DOJ's own regulations bound the Attorney General to the Access Board so long as the DOJ's regulations satisfied some minimum level of equivalence. The Attorney General was free to interpret the regulations in a manner that was more strict than contemplated by the Access Board. Therefore, the Access Board's commentary should not be imputed to the DOJ. Once we admit that the line-of-sight regulations are ambiguous, that the DOJ did not bind itself to the Access Board's interpretation of the guidelines, and that the Attorney General was free to interpret the regulations in a manner that was more strict than the Access Board's guidelines, we have no difficulty in concluding that the Attorney General could resolve any ambiguity in the DOJ's regulations by taking a stricter view of § 4.33.3 than the Access Board did when it adopted its guidelines. The DOJ did not have to wait for the Access Board to act. Indeed, the DOJ demonstrated its independence at a very early stage. The DOJ's regulations became effective in January 1993, and it issued its first TAM that year, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(3). The first TAM did not address the standing spectator problem. The following year, in 1994, the DOJ published a supplement to the TAM and offered its first formal interpretation of the line-of-sight rule in § 4.33.3: in assembly areas where spectators can be expected to stand during the event or show being viewed, the wheelchair locations must provide lines of sight over spectators who stand. TAM § III 7.5180 (1994 Supp.). The guidance in the TAM itself is plain; its relationship to § 4.33.3, obvious.