National Federation of the Blind v. United States Department of Transportation, 78 F. Supp. 3d 407

Background

Plaintiffs (National Federation of the Blind et al.) challenged DOT’s 2013 Final Rule requiring accessibility for automated airport kiosks, arguing DOT lacked authority, relied on improper evidence, and failed to consider relevant factors.
The Final Rule lengthened the compliance deadline (from 60 days to 36 months for new orders), lowered the required percentage of accessible kiosks (from 100% to 25%), and gave airlines ten years to meet the threshold.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting 49 U.S.C. § 46110 vests exclusive review of DOT "orders" in the courts of appeals (D.C. Circuit).
The central legal question was whether a final agency regulation like the Final Rule qualifies as an "order" under § 46110, thereby depriving the district court of jurisdiction.
The court followed binding D.C. Circuit precedent construing "order" expansively for § 46110 purposes and concluded the Final Rule is reviewable only in the courts of appeals.
Rather than dismissing, the district court transferred the case to the D.C. Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, leaving timeliness questions for that court to decide.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Final Rule is an "order" under 49 U.S.C. § 46110	Final Rule is a regulation, and the APA definition of "order" excludes rulemaking, so district court review is proper	§ 46110’s term "order" should be read expansively to include final rules and regulations; review is exclusive to courts of appeals	The Final Rule is an "order" under § 46110 for direct review purposes; district court lacks jurisdiction
Whether precedent requiring APA definition controls scope of § 46110	Relied on Watts/SecurityPoint to import APA definition excluding rulemaking	D.C. Circuit precedent permits treating final rules as "orders" for § 46110's review function; APA import was used only to assess finality	D.C. Circuit precedent controls; APA’s "other than rule making" language did not bar treating final rules as orders here
Whether statutory context (distinguishing "orders" and "regulations") forbids treating rules as orders	Chapter 461’s separate use of "orders" and "regulations" shows they are distinct and rules cannot be § 46110 orders	D.C. Circuit has limited its broad reading to the function of § 46110 (judicial-review provision) and may treat rules as orders for that purpose	Court follows D.C. Circuit view: statutory distinctions elsewhere do not overturn § 46110’s expansive construction for direct review
Whether the case should be dismissed or transferred given lack of district-court jurisdiction and possible timeliness issues	Plaintiffs filed after 60 days, so D.C. Circuit review may be untimely; but district court could retain case	DOT argued transfer is improper because suit was untimely for § 46110 and thus couldn’t have been brought in D.C. Circuit at filing	Court transferred case to D.C. Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631; timeliness is for the transferee to decide because § 46110 allows the court of appeals to excuse late filings

Key Cases Cited

Investment Co. Inst. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 551 F.2d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (courts of appeals may review informal rulemaking under statutes providing review of "orders")
City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("order" should be read expansively; finality is the key feature)
Watts v. SEC, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (consulted APA definition of "order" to assess finality in direct-review context)
Avia Dynamics, Inc. v. FAA, 641 F.3d 515 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explained limited, provision-specific expansive reading of "order")
U.S. Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597 (1986) (addresses reviewability of final agency rules in appellate context)
Helicopter Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. FAA, 722 F.3d 430 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (example of D.C. Circuit review of FAA rule)