Opinion ID: 414311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: regulation er-1245

Text: 22 The Board promulgated ER-1245 pursuant to the notice and comment rulemaking procedure prescribed by Sec. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 42 Accordingly, the Board must furnish a basis and purpose statement that complies with the requirements of Sec. 553(c) as interpreted and applied by the courts. The purpose of requiring a statement of the basis and purpose is to enable courts, which have the duty to exercise review, to be aware of the legal and factual framework underlying the agency's action. 43 An agency need not respond to every comment, but it must respond in a reasoned manner to the comments received, to explain how the agency resolved any significant problems raised by the comments, and to show how that resolution led the agency to the ultimate rule.... The basis and purpose statement is inextricably intertwined with the receipt of comments. 44 Thus, while the standard for review is whether the agency acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, 45 the detail required in a statement of basis and purpose depends on the subject of regulation and the nature of the comments received.
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merely ensure that those changes reflect reasoned consideration of competing objectives and alternatives. 24 ER-1245 rescinded, inter alia, the following three provisions of Part 252: the requirement of special segregation of cigar and pipe smokers, the ban on smoking when ventilation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.
28 In addition to rescinding several aspects of part 252, ER-1245 rejected several proposed regulations. Among them was a ban on smoking on small aircraft, a ban on smoking on short flights, and a requirement that airlines provide special protections for persons unusually susceptible to ill effects of breathing smoke. ASH contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of basis and purpose for rejecting the proposals. We agree. 29 The Board offers several reasons to justify its minimal discussion of individual proposals. First, the Board claims that even though it did not explicitly discuss each proposal, there can be little doubt that the Board was aware of the pros and cons of each alternative. 52 Thus, the Board suggests that as long as the record contains evidence to support its conclusion, it need not explain its action. Precisely the opposite is true. The APA guarantees the public an opportunity to comment on proposed rules. That opportunity is meaningless unless the agency responds to significant points raised by the public. 53 The need for discussion is paramount precisely because evidence was presented in support of, and in opposition to, most of the proposals. In order to uphold the agency's action, it must be shown that the Board rationally considered the relevant evidence. 30 Second, the Board argues that the specific proposals supported by ASH are not matters of policy, but alternative means of implementing a policy the Board rejected. Because the Board decided to impose only a bare minimum of government control, it claims it need not discuss more interventionist alternatives. That argument is specious: ER-1245 not only considered whether to regulate smoking, it also determined an appropriate degree of regulation. A general desire for a bare minimum of regulation cannot justify rejecting specific regulatory proposals. The Board must explain why a particular proposal is inconsistent with the balance between regulation and competition sought by the Board. 31 Finally, the Board's assertion that its decision was necessary to obtain support of a majority of Commissioners is patently irrelevant. 32
33 EDR-377 proposed a requirement that airlines provide special accommodations for persons who are unusually susceptible to physical ill-effects from breathing tobacco smoke. This proposal aimed to protect persons with respiratory, cardiovascular and other health conditions, for whom proximity to smoke is a significant health hazard. Although the Board requested and received practical suggestions from commenters concerning eligibility for such accommodations, it offered no explanation for its rejection of the proposal. 34 The Board's only consideration of the health effects of smoking related to a proposed total ban on smoking. The Board found that [t]he evidence of a link between 'passive smoking' and cancer is ... slight and controversial, 54 and concluded that a total ban on smoking would be inappropriate. That consideration does not, however, justify rejection of the proposed protections for passengers with special health conditions. Health hazards of passive smoking are presumably much greater for people with conditions such as emphysema than for normally healthy persons: 55 The Board recognized that fact when it proposed the special protections. It follows that the Board's failure to address those serious health concerns is arbitrary and capricious.
35 EDR-377 also proposed a rule to ban all smoking on aircraft with thirty seats or less. The rationale for such a ban is that segregation of smokers on a small plane is not feasible and that small planes are generally used for short flights in which a ban would be less objectionable to smokers. The Board received considerable comments on that proposal, including favorable comments by two airlines that had instituted such a ban on their own initiative. 56 36 Nevertheless, the Board offered no reasons for its rejection of the proposal. Instead, its discussion focused on the need to resolve the unequal application of the smoking regulations as between certificated air carriers and commuters. Prior to ER-1245, smoking regulations applied to all certificated air carriers, but only to commuter air carriers in the operation of aircraft of over thirty seats. The Airline Deregulation Act blurred the distinction between those two types of operators, making the disparate treatment seem unfair. To equalize the regulatory burden on commuters and certificated air carriers, the Board exempted all aircraft with fewer than thirty seats from the smoking regulations. 37 Thus, the Board explained why commuters and certificated air carriers should be regulated similarly. It offered no reasons, however, for why the regulations should not include a total ban on smoking in small aircraft. Such a ban would avoid the difficulties of segregating smokers on a small plane, which were presumably the basis for the original decision not to regulate smoking on commuter flights. It is certainly not obvious on its face, therefore, why such a ban would create the sort of complicated regulatory burden that the Board seeks to eliminate.
38 EDR-377 also proposed a smoking ban on flights of less than one hour. The rationale for that rule is that it would better protect nonsmokers' interests at little inconvenience to smokers. Several health groups commented in favor of the proposal, and industry commented in opposition to it. 57 39 In ER-1245 the proposal received no attention whatsoever. Such treatment plainly disregards the agency's obligation to respond to the major comments received in rulemaking. 58