Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01027/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Association of American Railroads
Intervenor
Surface Transportation Board
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent
United Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 27, 1997 Decided January 6, 1998 

No. 97-1027

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION-ILLINOIS LEGISLATIVE BOARD,

PETITIONER

v.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENTS

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS,

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review of Orders of the 

Surface Transportation Board

Gordon P. MacDougall argued the cause and filed the 

briefs for petitioners.

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 1 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Thomas J. Stilling, Attorney, Surface Transportation 

Board, argued the cause for respondents, with whom Joel I. 

Klein, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, John J. Powers, III, and Robert J. Wiggers, Attorneys, 

Henri F. Rush, General Counsel, Surface Transportation 

Board, Ellen D. Hanson, Deputy General Counsel, and Michael Martin, Trial Attorney, were on the brief. Craig M. 

Keats, Associate General Counsel, entered an appearance.

Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: The United Transportation 

Union-Illinois Legislative Board challenges a recently 

adopted rule of the Surface Transportation Board requiring parties that submit pleadings of 20 or more pages or 

computer-generated spreadsheets also submit a computer 

diskette containing the document. The UTU also objects to 

the STB's long-standing rules and policies regarding public 

access to transcripts and to pleadings and correspondence 

from docket files. We deny the UTU's petition because (1) 

the disk requirement is neither arbitrary and capricious nor 

unconstitutional, and (2) the UTU's other challenge is untimely under the Hobbs Act.

I. Background

In the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 

109 Stat. 803, the Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission, created the STB, and transferred some of 

the ICC's responsibilities to the STB. At the same time the 

Congress declared that the rail transportation policy of the 

United States is in part "to provide for the expeditious 

handling and resolution of all proceedings" before the STB. 

49 U.S.C. ' 10101(15). Accordingly, the Congress set time 

limits for the STB to decide certain types of proceedings, 

including exemption and revocation cases, see id. ' 10502(b), 

and cases involving the reasonableness of a rate, see id.

' 10704(c). In addition, the Congress specifically directed 

the STB to "establish procedures to ensure expeditious hanUSCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 2 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

dling of challenges to the reasonableness of railroad rates." 

Id. ' 10704(d).

In furtherance of these mandates the STB in March 1996 

solicited comments upon how the procedural regulations it 

inherited from the ICC could be modified to expedite proceedings before the STB. Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail Rate Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation 

Proceedings (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 61 

Fed. Reg. 11,799, 11,799 (1996). After receiving comments 

the STB proposed, among other things, to amend 49 C.F.R. 

' 1104.3 by adding a requirement that parties submit three 

copies of IBM-compatible disks or QIC-80 tapes for "[t]extual 

submissions of 20 or more pages" (in WordPerfect 5.1 format) 

and "[a]ll electronic spreadsheets" (in LOTUS 1-2-3 release 5 

or earlier format). Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail 

Rate Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation Proceedings (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 61 Fed. Reg. 39,110, 

39,111 (1996). In the preamble to the NPRM, which was not 

published in the Federal Register, the STB explained that the 

disk requirement would "help [it] process cases more quickly" 

because the agency staff could "search documents electronically for particular issues or arguments." In response to the 

UTU's previously expressed concern about public access to 

the disks, the STB explained that "the information stored on 

computer diskettes is not the official record; the official 

record consists of the original paper documents filed with the 

Board, to which the public will have access."

In response to the NPRM the UTU again objected to the 

disk rule. The UTU claimed that the rule would impose a 

hardship upon railroad employees because they "do not prepare their pleadings on instruments capable of producing a 

diskette." The UTU also complained that the disks would 

not be available to the public because there was no proposal 

to put a computer terminal in the STB reading room. In 

response to the STB's statement that the public has access to 

the paper version of all pleadings, the UTU argued that "the 

public does not have equal access to filings with the agency" 

because transcripts are not available to the public, and pleadUSCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 3 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ings and correspondence are not available to the public "on a 

timely basis."

In the (unpublished) preamble to its Final Rule document, 

see 61 Fed. Reg. 52,710 (1996), the STB said that it was 

adopting the disk rule because it would "simplif[y] the task of 

reviewing and analyzing voluminous records." The agency 

also pointed out, however, that any party upon whom the rule 

imposed a hardship "may seek a waiver in a particular case." 

In addition, the STB adopted the suggestion of the Association of American Railroads that each party be required to 

serve a copy of its disk upon all other parties, noting that 

"[t]his requirement also addresses UTU's suggestion that 

diskettes should be made available to other parties." Finally, 

the STB termed "baseless" the UTU's complaints regarding 

the public availability of transcripts and pleadings:

[A]s provided by our regulations, transcripts are always 

available for inspection, although they cannot be copied, 

but rather must be purchased from the court reporter.... [A]fter being filed, pleadings are always available for inspection, either in paper form or on microfiche, 

from the Secretary's office.

The UTU petitioned for a stay and to reopen the rule, on 

the grounds that the disk rule would deprive railroad employees of the opportunity to participate in STB proceedings and 

that the STB had failed sufficiently to justify the rule. The 

UTU argued that there was insufficient access to documents 

listed in the public docket and contended that the Board 

should provide a public computer terminal, as a corollary to 

the disk rule, in order to facilitate such access. The UTU 

also complained that the STB had changed its policy regarding transcripts and was no longer making them available to 

the public. Another commentator, the National Industrial 

Transportation League, also requested that the STB reopen 

the rulemaking, for its part on the ground that, because some 

ratemaking cases involve hundreds of parties, service of disks 

should be required only when another party so requests, and 

then only "if possible."

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 4 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In response to these petitions the STB stayed the effective 

date of the new rule, see 61 Fed. Reg. 57,339, and thereafter 

issued a modified Final Rule, id. at 58,490. In the preamble 

(again unpublished) the STB reiterated its belief that the rule 

is justified because it permits the agency staff to perform 

word searches. The STB rejected the UTU's argument that 

requesting a waiver would be impractical because the ruling 

would come after the due date for filing the pleading; the 

STB said it will rule upon a waiver request even after the due 

date. The STB also adopted the NITL's suggested modification requiring that any disk submitted to the Board "if 

possible, be provided to any other party requesting a copy."

The STB rejected the UTU's complaints regarding the 

public availability of transcripts, pleadings, and correspondence. The agency stated that although the microfilm version of a pleading may not be available for several weeks, the 

paper version is immediately available in the public docket 

room and it may be copied. The STB also indicated that its 

contract with the court reporter precludes it from making 

transcripts of agency proceedings available for copying. The 

STB noted that raw transcripts are available for inspection, 

although not for copying, and within days one may purchase a 

copy from the court reporter. Alternatively, one may make a 

copy once the final transcript is available on microfilm.

The UTU petitioned for review of the disk rule, and the 

AAR intervened in support of the STB.

II. Analysis

The UTU argues that both the disk rule and the STB's 

policy regarding the public availability of transcripts, pleadings, and correspondence are arbitrary and capricious within 

the condemnation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 

U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A). The UTU also contends that the disk 

rule denies it due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We conclude 

that the disk rule is neither arbitrary and capricious nor 

unconstitutional. We also hold that the UTU's challenge to 

the Board's policies concerning public access to pleadings, 

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 5 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

transcripts, and correspondence is untimely under the Hobbs 

Act.

A. The Disk Rule

The STB's disk rule is eminently reasonable. Requiring 

parties to submit lengthy pleadings and computer-generated 

spreadsheets on disks permits the STB staff to use a computer to search those documents for key information. The use of 

this widely available technology enhances the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the STB's operations. In addition, the rule 

permits any party to request a copy of any other party's disk, 

which will facilitate the participation of those who are most 

interested in a particular proceeding. Although the disk rule 

is more general in application, it also serves in part to comply 

with the directive of the Congress to "establish procedures to 

ensure expeditious handling of challenges to the reasonableness of railroad rates." 49 U.S.C. ' 10704(d).

The disk rule is unlikely to impose a significant burden 

upon any party appearing before the STB. First, the paper 

version of every document, to which the public has ready 

access, remains the official version; the disk will contain no 

more informationCand in some cases lessCthan the paper 

version. Therefore, an interested person who does not have a 

computer will still have access to the official record and to all 

the information therein, as at present. Second, if submitting 

a disk does impose a hardship upon a party, then it may 

obtain a waiver of the rule. See 49 C.F.R. ' 1110.9 (general 

waiver rule).

The UTU's objections to the disk rule are insubstantial. 

First, the UTU complains that the disks are unavailable to 

the public (and presumably to non-parties in particular): the 

STB has refused to provide a computer terminal so as to give 

the public access to the same technology as the agency staff; 

and access to the paper version alone is insufficient because it 

does not permit the public to perform the same searches as 

the STB staff. The UTU, however, can point to no legal 

requirement that an agency provide either the general public 

(or even just the parties appearing before it) with access to 

technology equal to that of the agency's staff. Because the 

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 6 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

STB permits public access to the paper documents, which 

include everything stored on the disks, its failure to provide 

public access to the disks themselves is not arbitrary and 

capricious.

Second, the UTU complains that the waiver rule denies due 

process to the union and to rail employees who do not have 

the necessary computer equipment or expertise to submit a 

disk to the Board in proceedings to which they are parties. 

The UTU contends that the due date for a pleading would 

generally pass before the STB could rule upon a request that 

it waive the disk rule. As noted above, however, the STB 

stated in the preamble to the modified final rule that if a 

party submits its waiver request along with the paper version 

of its pleading, then the STB will rule upon the request even 

after the due date. We do not doubt, therefore, that the 

availability of the waiver provision adequately protects a 

party for whom compliance with the rule would be burdensome.

Third, the UTU contends that the STB acted arbitrarily 

and capriciously when, upon reconsideration, it dropped the 

mandatory service requirement from the disk rule. According to the UTU only that requirement had "ameliorate[d] the 

unfairness" of the rule by making all disks available to all 

parties. The STB reasonably concluded, however, that the 

mandatory service requirement would be unnecessarily "burdensome because in some proceedings there are hundreds of 

parties on the service list." Under the modified final rule, 

those parties that want a disk submitted by another party 

may request and if possible receive one.

Finally, the UTU claims that the disks should be available 

under the Freedom of Information Act. In response the STB 

directs our attention to the recently enacted Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. No. 

104-231, 110 Stat. 3049. The E-FOIA amended the definition of "record" in the FOIA to include a record maintained in 

"an electronic format," id. ' 3, 110 Stat. at 3049 (codified at 5 

U.S.C. ' 552(f)(2)), and added a requirement that the agency 

make a record available to the public "in any form or format 

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 7 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible 

by the agency in that form or format," Pub. L. No. 104-231, 

' 5, 110 Stat. at 3050 (codified at 5 U.S.C. ' 552(a)(3)(B)). 

Accordingly, counsel for the STB informed the court that the 

STB will, upon request, provide a copy of any disk for a 

standard fee and within the time limits prescribed by the 

FOIA. The UTU's argument that the disk rule violates the 

FOIA is therefore moot.

B. Transcripts, Pleadings, and Correspondence

We do not reach the merits of the UTU's contention that 

the STB's rules and policies regarding the public availability 

of transcripts, pleadings, and correspondence are arbitrary 

and capricious. These rules and policies were carried over 

from the ICC and were not part of the rulemaking initiated 

by the STB. Accordingly, the UTU's challenge is untimely.

The Hobbs Act provides that "[a]ny party aggrieved by the 

final order [of an agency] may, within 60 days after its entry, 

file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals." 28 

U.S.C. ' 2344. The 60-day period of the Hobbs Act is 

"jurisdictional in nature, and may not be enlarged or altered 

by the courts." NRDC v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 666 

F.2d 595, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1981). This court has recognized an 

exception to statutory limits on the time for seeking review, 

however, in circumstances where an agency reopens an issue 

explicitly or implicitly in the course of a subsequent rulemaking proceeding. See, e.g., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. 

U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

An agency does not "reopen" an issue, however, when in 

response to comments that are beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking it merely reaffirms its prior position.

"The 'reopening' rule of Ohio v. EPA [838 F.2d 1325 

(D.C. Cir. 1988) ] is not a license for bootstrap procedures by which petitioners can comment on matters 

other than those actually at issue, goad an agency into a 

reply, and then sue on the grounds that the agency had 

re-opened the issue. To so read Ohio v. EPA would 

undermine congressional efforts to secure prompt and 

final review of agency decisions."

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 8 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Massachusetts v. ICC, 893 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 

(quoting American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 886 F.2d 390, 

398 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); see also Kennecott Utah Copper, 88 

F.3d at 1213.

In the rulemaking under review the STB did not propose to 

make changes in the rules and policies governing public 

access to transcripts, pleadings, or correspondence. Nor did 

the agency request comments upon those rules and policies. 

As an initial matter, therefore, the UTU's challenge is untimely.

Nor does the reopening doctrine save the UTU's claims, for 

the STB did not indicate, even implicitly, that it was reconsidering its policies governing public access to transcripts, pleadings, or correspondence. Those policies first surfaced when 

the UTU commented upon the observation in the preamble to 

the NPRM that all pleadings to be submitted on disk would 

also be available in paper form. The STB responded in the 

preamble to the Final Rule by referring to its existing 

regulations, which permit the public (1) to inspect pleadings, 

see 49 C.F.R. ' 1001.1(d), and (2) both to inspect transcripts 

and to purchase them from the official reporter, see id.

'' 1001.1(d), 1002.1(h). The UTU reiterated its dissatisfaction in petitions to stay and to reopen the Final Rule. The 

STB responded again in the preamble to the modified Final 

Rule, this time by stating that the public may (1) copy 

pleadings, which are in the public docket file, and (2) inspect 

transcripts at the offices of the STB, purchase copies from 

the official reporter, or obtain copies from the STB once they 

are put on microfilm.

In both instances the STB's discussion of its policies and 

rules regarding public access to transcripts, pleadings, and 

correspondence came only in response to the UTU's unsolicited comments, and in each the Board merely reiterated its 

(and its predecessor's) long-standing policies. The UTU 

points to nothing in the record to suggest that the STB 

invited comments upon these rules or policies or that it 

reconsidered them. Insofar as the UTU claims that the STB 

has recently changed its policies regarding public accessC

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 9 of 10
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

which the agency deniesCthe Union does so in the wrong 

proceeding; in the petition for review now before the court 

the UTU challenged only the final rule concerning diskettes. 

Because the new rule did not alter the STB's rules or 

practices governing public access to transcripts, pleadings, or 

correspondence, the UTU's challenge to those policies is 

untimely under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 2344.

III. Conclusion

We hold that the STB's new rule requiring parties to 

submit a computer disk containing pleadings of 20 pages or 

more and computer-generated spreadsheets is not arbitrary 

and capricious. We are without jurisdiction to address the 

UTU's claims concerning public access to transcripts, pleadings, and correspondence because they are untimely under 

the Hobbs Act. Accordingly, the petition for review is

Denied.

USCA Case #97-1027 Document #320673 Filed: 01/06/1998 Page 10 of 10