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

Heading: Partial Rescission of Part 252

Text: 23 An agency's obligation to explain its actions is not reduced when it rescinds rather than promulgates a regulation. The APA clearly contemplates judicial review of agency rescission of a regulation. 46 Moreover, rescission typically involves promulgation of a new regulation rescinding the old one. The new regulation changes the legal rights of interested parties and is reviewable in the same manner as earlier regulations on that subject. 47 The statement of basis and purpose must address, with some precision, the major comments received and, of course, explain why the old regulation is no longer desirable. These requirements do not prevent an agency from altering its course when circumstances or attitudes shift: they merely ensure that those changes reflect reasoned consideration of competing objectives and alternatives. 24 ER-1245 rescinded, inter alia, the following three provisions of Part 252: the requirement of special segregation of cigar and pipe smokers, the ban on smoking when ventilation systems are not fully functioning, and the protections given to nonsmokers against the burdens of breathing drifting smoke. 48 The Board's sole explanation of its action consisted of the following short paragraph: 25 After considering the outstanding proposals and reviewing the existing provisions, we have decided to replace the current rule with a less detailed regulation. In our view, carriers should still be required to provide separate seating for nonsmokers, but should be free to decide most other aspects of inflight smoking, policy. Decisions regarding the minimum size of the no-smoking section, pipe and cigar smoking, and banning smoking when the air conditioning system is not operating are therefore left to carrier discretion under the new rule. References to the burden of breathing smoke (former Sec. 252.2) and sandwiching (former Sec. 252.2(e)) have also been removed. 49 26 On its face, this explanation is palpably inadequate. The agency offers no reasoning to support its conclusion that the matters covered by the rescinded provisions are better left to carrier discretion. 50 We are told that the decision was made [a]fter considering the outstanding proposals, yet no evidence of that consideration is given. To accept the Board's action would render judicial review of informal rules meaningless. 27 The Board defends the stark absence of explanation by downplaying the status of the rescinded regulation. It characterizes the earlier rule, ER-1091, as an interim decision in an extended consideration of smoking policy. 51 By describing the decision in that way, the Board claims that it needs to provide only minimal explanation for rescinding the rule. That argument is seriously flawed, however, for it ignores ER-1091's status as final agency action following extensive notice and comment rulemaking. The fact that the Board has considered additional smoking protections is of little consequence. The Board has intolerably ignored its responsibility to explain its action. We therefore vacate that portion of ER-1245 which rescinded protections provided in ER-1091.