Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/625/258/57034/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 23:47:45
Document Index: 781163278

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 706', '§ 551', '§ 557', '§ 557', '§ 909', '§ 10101', '§ 909', '§ 10922', '§ 557']

Raz Inland Navigation Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America,respondent, 625 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1980) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1980 › Raz Inland Navigation Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of...
Raz Inland Navigation Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America,respondent, 625 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1980)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 625 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1980) Submitted July 3, 1980. Decided Aug. 8, 1980
Judicial review of the Commission's action in this case is governed by section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (D). Under this section, this court shall:
Raz alleges that Chairman O'Neal engaged in ex parte contacts in contravention of the procedures required by the APA. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 557(d) (1). Raz asserts that this court therefore should hold unlawful the Commission's March 16 order. For the reasons given below we decline to do so.
Thus our review of the affidavits does not lead to the conclusion that the communications under review were outside the permissible parameters of 5 U.S.C. § 557(d) (1). The Chairman's remarks amount to no more than a clarification, albeit incorrect, of what he believed to be the status of proceedings as of March 8, 1978. Under these facts remand to the Commission for a full evidentiary hearing is not required. Prior case law does not compel a contrary conclusion. See, e. g., National Small Shipments, etc. v. ICC, 590 F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1978); U.S. Lines v. Federal Maritime Commission, 584 F.2d 519 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Home Box Office v. F.C.C., 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 829, 98 S. Ct. 111, 54 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1977); Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 269 F.2d 221 (D.C. Cir. 1959). In each of these cases wrongful ex parte contact between parties to rulemaking proceedings and members of the Commission was clearly shown. No such showing is present here. The challenged contact amounts to no more than a discussion of the status of the proceedings and it is clear that Congress intended to exempt such discussions from the prohibition on ex parte communications. In this circumstance, the Commission has not violated the procedures required by the APA.
Because we conclude that no wrongful ex parte contact took place between the Chairman and members of the PNWA, we need not reach the issue whether 5 U.S.C. § 557(d) (1) prohibits ex parte contact only if the Chairman in fact participates in the decisional process under review.
The applications were made under former § 909 of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Act was recently revised, codified and enacted without substantive change as Subtitle IV of Title 49, United States Code. Interstate Commerce Act, Pub. L. No.95-473, 92 Stat. 1409 (codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101-11916 (1978)). Former § 909 is now § 10922
As codified in 5 U.S.C. § 557(d) (1), the APA provides that
(d) (1) In any agency proceeding which is subject to subsection (a) of this section, except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law