Opinion ID: 294004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: scope of the decision

Text: 49 In order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the extent of our holding, it may be useful to compare today's decision to the similar but distinguishable factual situation which recently confronted this court in Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co. v. FPC, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 427 F.2d 568 (March 19, 1970). In Pennsylvania Gas, we vacated an order of the Federal Power Commission which granted temporary approval without hearing to an anticompetitive agreement between two gas companies. The contrasts between that situation and the facts of the instant case are multiple and significant. In Pennsylvania Gas, the relevant statute required notice and hearing on all applications for certificates permitting coordinated operations, with a specific and narrowly drawn exception for emergencies; section 412 of the Aviation Act, on the other hand, requires no evidentiary hearing as a prerequisite to approval of fare resolutions which by their nature are price-fixing agreements. We found that the facts which the Federal Power Commission characterized as an emergency in Pennsylvania Gas did not fall within the narrow class of situations contemplated by Congress as valid occasions for invocation of emergency authority to avoid both notice and hearing. (138 U.S.App. D.C. at 304, 427 F.2d at 574.) We see nothing in the language, legislative history, or underlying policy of section 412 to indicate that the Board's use of interim approval power in the instant case conflicts with Congressional intent. 50 The practical considerations inherent in the two factual situations also point toward opposite results. In Pennsylvania Gas we observed that the coordinated operations approved by the Commission would be the functional equivalent of a merger (138 U.S.App.D.C. at 307, 427 F.2d at 577), and that [e]ven assuming it may be possible to disregard or undo the temporary operation the regulatory difficulties involved in any unscrambling may be sufficient to give the temporary certificate a momentum that is as meaningful in fact as it is unwarranted in law. (138 U.S.App.D.C. at 305, 427 F.2d at 575.) The fare agreement presently in issue is limited in duration, and the interim approval is operative for an even shorter period of time; moreover, it comes at the end of a period in which the supplemental carriers have experienced robust economic growth. The threat that improper approval will have irreversible economic consequences seems much more remote in this situation. Even if interim approval generally creates some momentum toward authorization for the full term of the agreement — an argument which is partially contradicted by the holding of the December 11 initial decision in the present case — the Board's decision will, as we have indicated in part IV of this opinion, have only limited effect even as administrative stare decisis because of the need to re-evaluate the evolving market structure in relation to fare packages which are adopted later. 51 Another practical distinction between the two cases arises from the alternatives which were available to the respective agencies. We expressed serious concern in Pennsylvania Gas that the Commission had ignored the possibility that less drastic alternative solutions to the problem could be developed, and instead had authorized broad changes in operation which seemed to extend far beyond the exigencies of urgent need. (138 U.S.App.D.C. at 307, 427 F.2d at 577.) On the other hand, the decision to grant interim approval to the IATA fares pending expedited investigation can be viewed as a reasonable compromise solution to the dilemma which confronted the Civil Aeronautics Board: either schedule evidentiary hearings prior to approval, with the virtual certainty that this would create an open rate situation, or attempt to determine the propriety of full-term approval in the limited time and with the limited information then available. Neither choice would have provided the input of factual data created by a short period of actual experience with the new fares; and, on the basis of the record presently before us, we cannot say with any certainty here, as we did in Pennsylvania Gas, that the need to act expeditiously was precipitated by the manipulations of those who sought approval of the agreement. SeePennsylvania Gas, 138 U.S. App.D.C. at 307, 427 F.2d at 577; notes 1 and 7, supra. Thus, in the rather unusual circumstances presented by this case, we think that the Board's decision to grant interim approval was reasonable and consistent with governing authority. 52 A final question remains with respect to the relief sought by petitioners. In their briefs, the petitioners ask that the cause be remanded to the Board for further proceedings. However, the subsequent events detailed in part II of this opinion make it clear that a remand would serve no useful purpose in light of the expiration of the underlying agreement and the pendency of another series of proceedings looking toward approval of the new IATA resolutions. Therefore, we merely hold today that the Board's approval of the three group fares was improper, and must be reversed. 53 Affirmed in part and reversed in part.