[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Case number 15-1026 at L, National Federation of the Blind at L Petitioners versus United States Department of Transportation at L. Mr. Dockery for the petitioners and Ms.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Wright for the respondents.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
Let's let the courtroom take over.

[00:00:40] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
My name is Kevin Daugherty, and I'm here on behalf of the petitioners of the National Federation of the Blind, Mark Maurer and Anil Lewis.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Petitioners are challenging a final rule issued by the Department of Transportation that regulates the accessibility of airlines' automated airport kiosks.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
And I'd like to begin by making two brief points on the merits of our challenge.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
that I will hope we will be able to address in more detail before addressing the threshold question related to the reasonable grounds for the timing of our challenge.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
First point is that the, our position is that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because it denies blind travelers the opportunity to access information and services offered by airlines with the same level of independence as sighted travelers as required under the Air Carrier Access Act.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
The second point is that the primary obstacle to equal access stems from respondents' determination that only 25 percent of kiosks must be made accessible to the blind.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
Because of the cost, airlines will incur to purchase new kiosks.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
And we make three alternative arguments addressing that issue, but they each point to a common problem with the rulemaking.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
And that is that the cost-benefit analysis performed by the agency to justify the final rule finds no support in the text of the Air Carrier Access Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or respondents' prior rulemakings under the Air Carrier Access Act.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
With respect to reasonable grounds,

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Section 49 U.S.C.

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
Section 46110, a direct review provision in the Federal Aviation Act, provides that petitions for review of respondents' orders must be filed within 60 days of the order, but that a reviewing court may permit filings after the 60-day period where there are reasonable grounds for the delay.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
If this case doesn't satisfy the reasonable ground standard, then it's difficult to imagine one that will.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
Although the standard

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
is not clearly defined in this court's prior opinions.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
Your honors will look in vain to find any of the common touchstones of unreasonable conduct in this record.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
Significant delay.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
Here, if 46110 applies, our petition was filed only nine days late.

[00:02:51] Speaker 02:
Prejudice to the opposing party.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
But have we ever found a mistake about the law by a petitioner to be reasonable ground?

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
No, you're higher.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
This court does not know that.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
That's the issue here on reasonable.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
Can we back up a little bit?

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
I thought the threshold issue here was you're before us on a petition for mandamus, right?

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
That's one of the petitions before this court.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that's a very, very high bar.

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
How do you surmount that bar?

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
So the position that we're in, we've

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
We understand, or we've read the court's recent opinion in the New York State Republican Kennedy case, which interpreted... It's not helpful to you, right?

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
It's not helpful.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
We understand the similarity in the direct review provision under the Investment Advisors Act and the one here.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
And we understand that this court is unlikely to reach a different interpretation of this direct review provision and the one at issue in that case.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
But New York...

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
The New York State Republican case is not controlling as to reasonable grounds.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
That issue is not addressed.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
Right there, they had to find grounds for equitable tolling, which is a higher hurdle.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
And so the question is here, I guess, and that's why you focus right away on reasonable grounds, is can we at least be here in the Court of Appeals reasonable grounds for not having done it promptly?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
In New York Republicans, we said, you know, if there's uncertainty, file a protective petition.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
That wasn't done here.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
So I'm interested in hearing your reasonable grounds distinction.

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, one of the things we said in New York Republicans was, you know,

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
should have known how hard was that to the extent that there's uncertainty.

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
And so you were saying only nine days late.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
So I guess there were four factors.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
We were nine days late, very short delay.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
There's no prejudice, no claim of it by the respondents.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
This was certainly not in bad faith.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
There's no allegation of that.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
And this wasn't a tactical delay.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
The fourth piece, and maybe this fits into the good faith question, is

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
through our legal analysis.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
And what we did was reasonable.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
And I think that a good guide for that is looking at the district court's analysis.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
The district court judge, in dealing with this very issue, really grappled with the case line.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
What she did was describe two parallel lines of cases, and essentially which court you ended up in, depending on which line of case line you followed.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
You had Investment Company Institute and the New York case on the one hand, and you had safe extensions on the other.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
The district court concluded that these were reconcilable,

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
It's thorough examination of the case law, and it's the great lengths to which the district judge went in finding them to be reconcilable demonstrate that there wasn't some clear signal that we missed here.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
So I can't deny that there was any doubt that we were proceeding properly.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
But we didn't blow through a stop sign.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
And it's important to note that the district court did end its opinion by noting that we had a culpable argument for filing in the district court in the first place, which is simply another way of stating that we had reasonable grounds for doing what we did.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
I keep coming back.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, obviously, in the New York case, it relied on an investment company, right?

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
And the language that caught my eye is in the New York case, we said,

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
the investment company presumption is not new and should not have caught plaintiffs unawares.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
So, I mean, one reading of this is you just, you made a mistake, you made a litigation mistake.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
You should have gone elsewhere.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
And the question is, do we forgive those sorts of mistakes, right?

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
I think this court does or should, particularly given the absence of any of the other

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
indications of unreasonable conduct, prejudice in particular.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
The important thing to understand is that safe extensions, I think that the role of safe extensions in leading us astray is important to understand here, that that opinion provided

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
the description of how to define order in 46110.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
We followed it.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
We ended up in the wrong place.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And in fact, this court, while this case has been pending, issued another decision in Security Point Holdings affirming that the definition of the APA definition of order applies to section 46110.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
I would like to

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
turn back to the merits question before my time runs out.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
As I mentioned, the primary obstacle to independent access to respondents, primary obstacle to independent access created by a respondent's final rule is the limitation on the percentage of kiosks that need to be made accessible, and that was reached through a cost benefit analysis that is not supported by the Air Carry Access Act, the Rehabilitation Act,

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
agencies prior practice or even this final rule as it relates to website accessibility.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
At Joint Appendix 19 there's a description of what constitutes an undue burden analysis with regard to

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
airline websites and it's clear from reading the final rule that that was not done with respect to kiosks.

[00:08:19] Speaker 04:
It's curious to me that there's an air of unreality about the merits in this case in the sense that it sounds like the government is planning to comply within 10 years or something and I mean the technological question the ground is going to shift

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
way before that.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
It's surprising to me already that someone's iPhone doesn't give them an ability to have adaptive access to these terminals.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
If you could just tell us a little bit about why this is

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
I think this is a perfect example of why access is needed now.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Technology changes fast, and if access isn't given at this point, then we're waiting for the next thing.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
So the 10-year lead-in period, which is not being challenged, or which we are not challenging in this case, is problematic, particularly when it's combined with the 25% cap.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
Because we don't know when that cap will be released.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
It's not a cap, really.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
It has to do at least 25%.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
So it's 25% threshold.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
Compliance benchmark, right.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
So access is needed now because there is not this additional technology to provide it.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
So I'm out of time.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
We'll give you a couple of minutes to reply.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
Is this right?

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
Abby Wright on behalf of the Department of Transportation.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
I think I'd like to start with discussing safe extensions and security point holdings.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Those were characterized as a sort of competing line of cases, and I don't think they really are.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
And they didn't address the question in this case.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
Those cases, this court was looking at whether agency action was a final order, and especially in the Safe Extensions case.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
And so look to the APA for that question, but certainly did not in any way suggest that the definition of the APA regulation or order, that distinction, had any role in 46 110.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
Although the district court was, it's the definition of order in the APA.

[00:10:31] Speaker 04:
It's the same law.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
District courts struggled with it a little bit.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
And in New York Republicans, we had four years later, they decide to file.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
And is there equitable tolling here?

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
Reasonable grounds.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
It's a way lower hurdle.

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
And what is the prejudice?

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
It's a lower hurdle, I think, in some ways.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
But I think it's a less far-ranging inquiry.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
I mean, the statute says reasonable grounds.

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
It doesn't talk about prejudice.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
It doesn't talk about some of the things that are considered with respect to equitable tolling.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
So I would say that this court should focus on their grounds that they've advanced, which is a mistake of law.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
As Judge Griffith alluded to, this court has never held that a mistake of law could constitute reasonable grounds.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
And if you look at, there's two cases I believe in this court, and one in the Eighth Circuit, where they have found reasonable grounds.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
And in all of those cases, the agency had done something affirmative to mislead, not on purpose, of course, but to make the plaintiff slash petitioner believe that they needed to either file in district court or that it wasn't safe extensions.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
The question there was maybe we'll come back and change this order, which they didn't end up doing.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
And so the petitioners in that case were out of time because they'd been led to believe that this interim thing was going to go away.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
And in the Eighth Circuit case, they were told to go to the NTSB.

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
for example, so it's always been a case where the agency has sort of led plaintiffs or petitioners down a path that wasn't appropriate.

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
And is there, could someone else file, I mean the time is up for everybody, right?

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
So there's a couple of avenues, obviously air carriers who it's enforced against could challenge at that point.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
Under the Air Carrier Access Act,

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
individual travelers can file complaints with the department.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
The department shall investigate those complaints.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
And again, I think the rule itself contemplates that DOT will continue to monitor the situation.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
So if DOT begins to receive complaints regarding access to airport kiosks, additional wait times, trouble finding them, DOT is committed to taking steps to rectify that.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
So I think there is

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
going forward an opportunity for travelers to bring these concerns to D.O.T.'

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
's attention and D.O.T.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
has said they will take them seriously.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
I know you don't have the merits before us but it is the same question that I asked to Mr. Doherty I have for you which is

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
Really?

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
It seems surprising to me that the technology is not actually fully available and quickly.

[00:12:50] Speaker 03:
Well, it's true that more and more people are using their phones to do a lot of the things that kiosks are doing now.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
I think probably checking bags is the only thing that might be left that you need to do at that kiosk.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
And there's not a way of making an interface that just is, you know, get some kid to read an app.

[00:13:08] Speaker 03:
Well, from what I understand, and if you look at the regulatory analysis, the software is actually quite complicated.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
And the other component that DOT talks about in the rule is that some of these kiosks are shared by different air carriers, which makes it extremely complicated.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
So for a large air carrier, I think, that can do it in-house, as DOT recognized, it may not take that much time to do the software if they've got people that can do it in-house.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
But for the smaller air carriers who actually share these, sometimes shared with airports as well, that's going to be a complex question and a costly one.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
But I think, Your Honor, is right, that technology here changes.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
And so DOT tries to keep up with that with the Air Carry Access Act, implemented regulations in 1990 and has done so going forward from there.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
And we'll take into account whatever complaints it receives and think about new rule makings, think about enforcement actions as that becomes necessary.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
If there are no further questions, we would ask that the petitions be dismissed.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
A few brief points in response.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
On the question of whether mistake and reasonable grounds can fit together here.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
This court has not held that a legal error cannot be reasonable grounds.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
And I think this is the record on which

[00:14:43] Speaker 02:
It should hold that reasonable grounds and the state law can go together.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
To the respondents points about the alternative avenues here.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
The petitioners, the blind traveling public, don't have another option for challenging this in court.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
The 60-day period has expired at this point.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
And the air carriers, quite frankly, are unlikely to be the best advocates for the blind traveling public in this regulation, to the extent it comes up in an enforcement proceeding.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
Those interests are just not aligned.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
The merits are before this court, and I do want to make a few points about them.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
And the point that I started out my argument with was that the cost of providing access is a permissible calculation, or a permissible consideration, but only in the context of an undue burden analysis.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
And that was not done here.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
This final rule demonstrates it.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
Respondents know what an undue burden analysis is.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
Indeed, there's a problem of whether the cost announces even in the record, right?

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
Correct, yes.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
The final rule certainly doesn't reveal it, and it's not anywhere in any of the record documents.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
And for that reason, you would ask that this court find reasonable grounds, review the final rule, and hold it arbitrary and precuous under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
Thank you.