Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/105670/icc-vs-american-trucking-assns-inc
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 07:10:19
Document Index: 640250073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10706', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10706', '§ 5', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10762', '§ 10708', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10101', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10708', '§ 10708', '§ 10762', '§ 10708', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10321', '§ 10762', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 11705', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10762', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10321', '§ 10706', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10762', '§ 10101', '§ 10321', '§ 10762', '§ 10706', '§ 10706', '§ 10706']

Icc Vs American Trucking Assns Inc - Citation 105670 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
icc Vs. American Trucking Assns., Inc. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/105670
Case Number 467 U.S. 354
Respondent American Trucking Assns., Inc.
icc v. american trucking assns., inc. - 467 u.s. 354 (1984) u.s. supreme court icc v. american trucking assns., inc., 467 u.s. 354 (1984) interstate commerce commission v. american trucking associations, inc. no. 82-1643 argued january 10, 1984 decided june 5, 1984 467 u.s. 354 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit syllabus the motor carrier act of 1980, in 49 u.s.c. § 10706(b)(3), established specific guidelines to which motor carrier rate bureaus must conform if they are to receive antitrust immunity. in 1980, the interstate commerce commission (icc) issued an interpretative ruling explaining how it planned to implement these guidelines, and proposing a new remedy to.....
U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 467 U.S. 354 (1984)
Held: The proposed new remedy lies within the ICC's discretionary authority, and the ICC does not exceed its authority by nullifying effective tariffs submitted in substantial violation of rate bureau agreements. Pp. 467 U. S. 359 -371.
(a) Title 49 U.S.C. § 10762(e), which authorizes the ICC to reject a motor carrier tariff if it violates the statutory requirements for publishing and filing tariffs or an implementing regulation, does not confer on the ICC the broad power to nullify effective tariffs retroactively. This is indicated by § 10762(e)'s language and the structure of the ICC's remedial authority under the Interstate Commerce Act. Pp. 467 U. S. 361 -364.
wanted the forces of competition to determine motor carrier tariffs, and intended that the ICC play a key role in holding carriers to the § 10706(b)(3) guidelines. And the remedy in question is a means of policing rate bureau agreements sufficiently direct and close to the ICC's statutory mandate to warrant approval of the remedy. Pp. 467 U. S. 364 -371.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 467 U. S. 371 .
This case presents a challenge to an effort by the Interstate Commerce Commission to create a new remedy to enforce motor carrier rate bureau agreements. The remedy at issue is the Commission's authority to reject effective tariffs that have been submitted in substantial violation of rate bureau agreements. As we have recognized in the past, the Interstate Commerce Commission (Commission or ICC) has discretion to fashion remedies in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities. Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U. S. 631 , 436 U. S. 654 (1978). Although rejection of effective tariffs is a form of remedial power not expressly delegated to the Commission, the remedy as proposed by the Commission in this case is closely and directly related to the Commission's express statutory powers and is designated to achieve objectives
Motor carrier rate bureaus are groups of motor carriers formed to negotiate collective rates. Since the Reed-Bulwinkle Act of 1948, motor carriers within the jurisdiction of the Commission have enjoyed immunity from the antitrust laws to enter into rate bureaus and to submit collective rates to the Commission. Ch. 491, 62 Stat. 472. To receive this immunity, rate bureaus must apply for Commission approval of bureau agreements, which describe the manner in which a bureau will negotiate collective tariffs. The original Reed-Bulwinkle Act gave the ICC broad discretion to determine which rate bureau agreements were consistent with national transportation policy. 49 U.S.C. § 5 (1976 ed.). Until recently, the Commission was fairly liberal in approving rate bureau agreements, but, in the late 1970's, the Commission began to disapprove an increasing number of agreements on the ground that the agreements were undermining competition among motor carriers. In 1980, apparently disturbed by this abrupt shift in Commission policy, but persuaded that some deregulation of motor carriers was necessary, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (MCA). Pub.L. 96-296, 94 Stat. 793. The MCA, in 49 U.S.C. § 10706(b)(3), establishes specific guidelines, to which rate bureau agreements must conform if they are to receive antitrust immunity. [ Footnote 1 ] Because the MCA creates a presumption that bureau
Ibid. The Commission subsequently explained how its new remedy would be implemented. [ Footnote 2 ] The Commission intends to use the remedy to discipline motor carriers for substantial bureau agreement violations, such as unauthorized collusion or illegal bureau pressure on independent carriers. Brief for
The issue before us is narrow. Most aspects of the Commission's authority to supervise motor carrier rate bureau agreements are not seriously challenged. For example, the Commission undisputedly has the power to terminate a rate bureau agreement if the agreement itself fails to meet MCA guidelines or if bureau members persist in filing tariffs in violation of the terms of the agreement. 49 U.S.C. § 10706(f). Moreover, during the 30 days before a tariff proposed by a bureau member goes into effect, the Commission clearly has authority to reject the proposal if it was submitted in violation of a rate bureau agreement. [ Footnote 3 ] 49 U.S.C.
Our sole concern in this case is whether, in addition to the remedial powers listed above, the Commission has the authority to reject retroactively a tariff submitted in substantial violation of a rate bureau agreement once that tariff has gone into effect. [ Footnote 4 ] As a practical matter, the question is whether motor carriers that provide services based on effective
tariffs submitted in substantial violation of rate bureau agreements can be held liable to injured parties for the entire amount by which their rates exceed the previous rates, and not just for the damages caused by the violation. [ Footnote 5 ]
At least superficially, § 10762(e) supports the Commission's exercise of the power it asserts in this case. The subsection authorizes the rejection of tariffs, and does not distinguish between proposed and effective tariffs. Inasmuch as Congress, in other contexts, has expressly limited aspects of the Commission's enforcement powers to proposed tariffs, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 10708(a)(1) (suspension of proposed rates), the absence of limitation in § 10762(e) suggests that the Commission may reject both proposed and effective tariffs. However, the language of § 10762(e) and the structure of the Commission's remedial authority under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq., persuade us that Congress could not have meant § 10762(e) to confer on
To begin with, the term "reject" connotes a refusal to receive at the threshold. To interpret the power to reject as a license to revoke a tariff that the Commission has already accepted would be contrary to the plain language of the subsection. [ Footnote 6 ] For this reason, the District of Columbia Circuit has concluded that rejection provisions analogous to § 10762(e) do not extend to tariffs that have gone into effect. In a case involving the former Federal Power Commission's rejection authority, Judge Leventhal likened rejection to "a motion to dismiss on the face of the pleading," and declared rejection to be " a peremptory form of response to filed tariffs.'" Municipal Light Boards v. FPC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 299, 450 F.2d 1341, 1346 (1971) (quoting F. Welch, Cases and Text on Public Utility Regulation 581 (1961)), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 989 (1972). In a subsequent case dealing with the former Civil Aeronautics Board's rejection authority, another appellate panel approved of Judge Leventhal's analysis and concluded: "[R]ejection is a regulatory device properly used only prior to a tariff's effective date." Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 121, 543 F.2d 247, 268 (1976) (emphasis in original).
A further reason to believe that § 10762(e) does not extend to effective tariffs is the difference between the procedural safeguards incorporated into § 10762(e) and those that Congress built into remedies clearly designed to reach effective tariffs. On its face and as applied by the Commission, § 10762(e) offers affected carriers no
Similarly, reading § 10762(e) to give the Commission unbridled discretion to reject effective tariffs at any time would undermine restraints placed by Congress on the Commission's power to suspend a proposed tariff pending investigation. See § 10708; supra at 467 U. S. 360 . The Commission's power to suspend is limited to the seven months after the proposed tariff's effective date, and final action in a suspension-investigation proceeding can be taken only after a full hearing. §§ 10708(a)(2), (b). Were we to read § 10762(e) as broadly as the Commission proposes, the temporal and procedural constraints of § 10708 would be nugatory, since the Commission could rely on its rejection powers to void a regulation at any time and without any procedural safeguards.
The language of § 10762(e) is admittedly ambiguous, and, in the ordinary course, we might defer to the Commission's view that the subsection should be given a liberal interpretation. However, in this case, the Commission's interpretation is unsupported by a natural reading of the provision and inconsistent with the remedial structure established by Congress. [ Footnote 7 ] Under these circumstances, we cannot defer
Although we conclude that § 10762(e) does not bestow on the Commission a general authority to reject effective tariffs, this conclusion does not resolve the dispute. The Commission's authority under the Interstate Commerce
Act is not bounded by the powers expressly enumerated in the Act. 49 U.S.C. § 10321(a). As we have held in the past, the Commission also has discretion to take actions that are " legitimate, reasonable, and direct[ly] adjunct to the Commission's explicit statutory power.'" Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U.S. at 436 U. S. 655 (quoting United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 426 U. S. 500 , 426 U. S. 514 (1976)). We have recognized that the Commission may elaborate upon its express statutory remedies when necessary to achieve specific statutory goals. In this case, the Commission argues that the retroactive rejection of rate bureau tariffs is simply an adjunct to the Commission's § 10762(e) rejection authority, and that, to the extent that there is an elaboration on that authority, it is necessary to ensure compliance with rate bureau agreements. In these narrow circumstances, we agree.
The doctrine of ICC discretion arose out of a recognition that, since drafters of complex ratemaking statutes like the ICA neither can nor do "include specific consideration of every evil sought to be corrected," the absence of express remedial authority should not force the Commission "to sit idly by and wink at practices that lead to violations of [ICA] provisions." American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, 344 U. S. 298 , 344 U. S. 309 -310, 311 (1953). The doctrine originated in cases in which we accorded the Commission latitude to interpret its statutory powers in a reasonable manner . See, e.g., American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, supra; cf. Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747 , 390 U. S. 774 -777 (1968) (comparable construction of the authority of the FPC under the Natural Gas Act). More recently, however, we have applied the doctrine to sustain the Commission's efforts to place reasonable conditions on its acceptance of proposed tariffs. For instance, in United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., supra, we upheld a decision by the Commission to approve tariff increases only on the condition that carriers spend a specific portion of the increase on capital improvements and deferred maintenance. Although
The remedial authority at issue in this case consists of another effort by the Commission to place a condition on the approval of a proposed tariff. In effect, the Commission has informed all motor carriers submitting proposed tariff
The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 presents a statutory basis for the Commission to approve motor carrier tariffs on the condition that the Commission may later nullify increases found to have been submitted in substantial violation of rate bureau agreements. The legislative history of the Act is clear that, beyond the bounds of immunity granted in § 10706(b)(3), Congress wanted the forces of competition to determine motor carrier tariffs. [ Footnote 8 ] The function of the Commission's proposed remedy is to ensure that motor carriers
There can be little doubt that Congress intended for the Commission to play a key role in holding carriers to the § 10706(b)(3) guidelines. Section 10706(b)(3), like the Reed-Bulwinkle Act before it, grants motor carriers immunity from the antitrust laws. To some degree, § 10706(b)(3) is self-enforcing, because bureau members will strive to stay within its guidelines in order to avoid the antitrust liability that transgressions could precipitate. However, the procedures governing the administration of § 10706(b)(3) demonstrate that Congress envisioned that the Commission -- and not the threat of antitrust liability -- would be the primary enforcer of the guidelines. It is, after all, the Commission that decides which bureau agreements conform to the dictates of § 10706(b)(3). 49 U.S.C. § 10706(b)(2). It is the Commission that is empowered to terminate or suspend rate bureau agreements. §§ 10706(f), (h). And it is the Commission that may impose conditions on rate bureau agreements in order to further National Transportation Policy. § 10706(b)(2). [ Footnote 9 ]
More difficult to answer is the question whether the Commission's conditional approval of motor carrier tariffs is a means of policing rate bureau agreements sufficiently direct and close to the Commission's statutory mandate to warrant approval. The Commission offers two imbricated justifications for its new remedy. First, the Commission argues that, without the potential for overcharge damages awards, shippers will not have sufficient incentive to report rate bureau violations to the Commission or to file antitrust suits on their own. Second, the Commission claims that it must have the power to approve bureau tariffs conditionally, because the other remedial tools at its disposal are inadequate to enforce compliance with bureau agreements. In the Commission's view, the threshold remedies of peremptory rejection of proposed rates and of suspension of rates pending investigation are inadequate to cope with substantial violations, which are typically shrouded in secrecy and undetectable on the face of a tariff proposal. If a substantial bureau violation comes to light once a tariff is in effect, the Commission's only statutory remedy is to declare the tariff in violation of the ICA and to prescribe a new rate for the future. Admittedly, such a declaration and prescription will render the offending carriers liable for damages actions brought by injured shippers, but the size of the damages awards would, in the Commission's opinion, provide insufficient incentive to keep carriers faithful to their bureau agreements. [ Footnote 10 ] Similarly, the Commission maintains that its penalty authority is too weak to guarantee compliance with bureau agreements. [ Footnote 11 ]
But the very potency of overcharge is what makes the nullification of motor carrier tariffs a troubling exercise of Commission
authority. For a motor carrier, overcharge liability may be ruinous. Overcharge awards can easily surpass the damages for which carriers have historically been liable under § 11705(b)(3), and may even exceed the treble damages to which the carriers are vulnerable under the antitrust laws. Indeed, the effect of the Commission's proposed new remedy is to convert the ICC into the Federal Government's most potent enforcer of the antitrust laws, albeit for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the guidelines of § 10706(b)(3). [ Footnote 12 ]
Our concern over the harshness of this new remedial authority is lessened by the significant steps the Commission has taken to ensure that the penalty will not be imposed unfairly. Under the Commission's proposed scheme, effective tariffs will be nullified only upon findings of substantial violations of rate bureau agreements. The guidelines for antitrust immunity set out in § 10706(b)(3) are of such a nature
that carriers who submit tariffs in substantial violation of agreements will be aware of their transgressions. So concerns that the new remedy will be used to penalize carriers that inadvertently transgress rate bureau agreements are largely unfounded. Moreover, the risk that the Commission will err in finding substantial violations is lessened by the procedural safeguards of full hearings and judicial review that are built into the Commission's proposal. Finally, the Commission has reserved the discretion to withhold the sanction of retroactive rejection, should the circumstances of a violation counsel lenity. [ Footnote 13 ]
Municipal Light Boards v. FPC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 299, 450 F.2d 1341, 1346 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 989 (1972); see also Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United States, 676 F.2d 1374, 1377 (CA11 1982) (amended opinion); cf. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp., 350 U. S. 332 , 350 U. S. 347 (1956).
Respondents also argue that, even if § 10762(e) extends to substantive defects, it should not apply to violations of rate bureau agreements, because the ICC's sole remedy for such violations is termination of agreement approval under 49 U.S.C. § 10706(f). While the ICC has the option to terminate agreement approval under § 10706(f), see supra, this page, Congress has expressly provided that powers enumerated in the Interstate Commerce Act do not preclude the Commission from taking other actions consistent with its statutory duties. § 10321(a). Since the Commission has a statutory duty to supervise rate bureau agreements, see supra at 467 U. S. 356 -357, we agree with the Eleventh Circuit that it is a perfectly reasonable exercise of administrative authority for the Commission to refuse to accept proposed tariffs submitted in violation of rate bureau agreements. 688 F.2d at 1352-1353; cf. Board of Trade v. ICC, 646 F.2d 1187, 1193 (CA7 1981) (Commission is obliged to reject such tariffs).
As respondents stress, Congress passed § 10706(b)(3) partially to restrain the Commission from exercising too much discretion in dictating the terms of rate bureau agreements. See supra at 467 U. S. 356 -357. However, the limitations on the Commission's power embodied in the MCA are all directed at the Commission's substantive authority to set the criteria for acceptable rate bureau agreements. No provision of the Act limits the Commission's remedial authority to deal with motor carriers that operate in clear violation of approved agreements. To the contrary, the House Report on the MCA expressly states that the legislation will not diminish the Commission's enforcement authority. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-1069, supra, at 40.
This case presents the question whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (Commission) may nullify a motor carrier tariff at any time after it has become effective. Such nullification renders the carrier liable to shippers for the amount by which the rejected rate exceeds the last rate the carrier has lawfully filed. The Court quite correctly reasons
that 49 U.S.C. § 10762(e) does not authorize the Commission to reject effective tariffs. See ante at 467 U. S. 361 -364. Reading § 10762(e) to authorize such action would indeed give the Commission an "unbridled discretion" that Congress did not intend it to have. See ante at 467 U. S. 363 . However, after having correctly rejected § 10762(e) as a basis for the proposed rejection power, the Court then mysteriously concludes that the power is within the Commission's "discretionary power" to ensure that shippers adhere strictly to their approved rate bureau agreements. Ante at 467 U. S. 367 . I frankly do not understand how this alternative "discretionary power" rationale better reins in the Commission's discretion. Accordingly, I dissent.
The Court starts with the proposition that the enumeration of certain Commission powers in the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq., does not necessarily exclude others not expressly listed. See ante at 467 U. S. 364 -365. I have no quarrel with that proposition. Like most agencies, the Commission is authorized to prescribe regulations to carry out its statutory duties. 49 U.S.C. § 10321(a). The Commission's efforts to interpret and implement the tariff filing provisions therefore deserve considerable judicial deference. See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, 344 U. S. 298 , 344 U. S. 311 (1953); see generally United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 426 U. S. 500 (1976); Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U. S. 631 (1978). But this rule of deference has never been equated with a "discretionary power" in the Commission to place conditions on its acceptance of proposed tariffs. I think the Court misreads its prior cases in finding such authority today.
The Court did not, as today's opinion asserts, approve the concept of "discretionary power" of the Commission in United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., supra. In that case, the Commission proposed to allow an immediate rate increase
426 U.S. at 426 U. S. 514 . Delaying implementation of the new tariffs would only have frustrated Congress' desire to improve the condition of the railroads. Thus, the Commission's decision to condition its acceptance on use of the moneys earned during the 7-month suspension period was "an alternative tailored far more precisely to the particular circumstances presented." Ibid.
Nor did the Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, supra, approve any principle of inherent Commission authority. In these cases, the Commission proposed to allow the owners of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System to implement immediately rates on condition that the carriers refund any amounts collected during the period the rates would otherwise have been suspended and later determined to be unlawful. The Court sustained the Commission's efforts, finding that the condition was a power " ancillary' to [the] suspension power," and that immediate implementation would further Congress' policy of early development and delivery of oil from Alaska's North Slope. 436 U.S. at 436 U. S. 654 -655. Again, the Court deferred to the Commission's efforts, but only because the Commission had implemented an alternative that was carefully tied to the statutory suspension power and narrowly tailored to the particular circumstances presented. Id. at 436 U. S. 655 .
Thus, Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. and Trans Alaska Pipeline Cases support neither the remedy the Commission has proposed to implement here nor the power on which the Court suggests that it can be based. In contrast to the conditions imposed in those cases, the Commission's proposed
Perhaps recognizing the open-ended character of the regulatory principle it announces, the Court suggests that two limiting criteria will cabin the Commission's discretionary authority. First, the Court proposes that the authority must be exercised to further a specific statutory mandate. Ante at 467 U. S. 367 . Second, the Court proposes that the exercise of the authority must be directly and closely tied to that mandate. Ibid. Whatever the merits of these criteria, they definitely are not satisfied in the circumstances of this case.
The Court points to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-296, 94 Stat. 793, as the statutory mandate that the Commission's retroactive rejection authority is being used to further. According to the Court, the Congress enacting this legislation left to the Commission discretionary authority to fashion remedial powers necessary to ensure that shippers adhere strictly to their approved rate bureau agreements. Ante at 467 U. S. 368 . However, an examination of the history behind this legislation unambiguously refutes this view.
Prior to the enactment of the Motor Carrier Act, the Commission had been attempting to curtail drastically the motor carriers' opportunities to engage in collective ratemaking. In one rulemaking proceeding, for example, the Commission had proposed exactly what Congress itself had earlier rejected
To be sure, Congress wanted the Commission to "retain and enforce existing regulations as to the processing of loss, damage, and overcharge claims. . . ." H.R.Rep. No. 96-1069, supra at 40. But Congress expressed a strong disapproval of all of the Commission's pre-1980 regulatory innovations, and the retroactive rejection remedy had been prominent among them. See 44 Fed.Reg. 60122, 60123-60124
The Court contends, nevertheless, that the rejection power is directly and closely tied to 49 U.S.C. § 10762(e). Ante at 467 U. S. 369 -371. On this view, nullification of effective tariffs is necessary both to ensure that motor carriers comply with the guidelines established by Congress and to stimulate competitive pricing beyond the bounds of the motor carrier immunity granted in § 10706(b)(3). Though resulting awards could easily surpass the damages for which carriers may be held liable under the antitrust laws, and could therefore convert the Commission into the Federal Government's most potent antitrust enforcer, the Court concludes that deference to the Commission's efforts to enforce § 10706(b)(3), is not inappropriate. Ante at 467 U. S. 370 -371. I must disagree.
Even if Congress had left the Commission discretion to fashion some new remedies to enforce § 10706(b)(3), there is much reason to believe that the retroactive rejection power could not properly be among them. As previously noted, the Commission proposed to use this same retroactive rejection remedy for similar purposes prior to the 1980 legislation. See supra at 467 U. S. 375 . The Commission was concerned, because of budgetary constraints and increased tariff filings, that it could not catch all improper tariffs and that carriers would have incentives to exceed their limited immunity from the antitrust laws. Ibid. The 1980 Congress was well aware of the Commission's concerns, and of the remedies the Commission then had available to it. Yet Congress did not include
Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U. S. 403 , 264 U. S. 421 (1924). The power is, therefore, incompatible with collective aspects of the rate-setting scheme Congress intended to promote.