Opinion ID: 579433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Enforceability of an Administrative Subpoena

Text: 12 Sea-Land claims that the ALJ acted without authority in issuing the challenged discovery orders and that the District Court had no basis upon which to enforce [294 U.S.App.D.C. 296] those orders. We disagree. Under laws enacted by Congress, the ALJ's discovery orders were issued on behalf of the Commission pursuant to delegated authority from the FMC, and Guam was statutorily authorized to seek enforcement of those orders. 13 Under section 105 of Reorganization Plan No. 7, 75 Stat. 840 (1961) 4 the FMC has delegated to the ALJ the authority to sign and issue subpoenas and to take depositions or cause them to be taken. 46 C.F.R. § 502.147 (1991). 5 The FMC retains the right to review such orders upon its own initiative or upon petition of a party; however, the ALJ's actions are deemed to be the action of the Commission if the FMC does not exercise the right of review. Reorganization Plan No. 7 § 105, 75 Stat. 840 (1961). Accordingly, the ALJ's discovery orders were here the orders of the Commission. 14 Guam properly moved to have the District Court enforce the ALJ's orders. As noted above, section 29 of the Shipping Act of 1916, see note 1 supra, provides that any party injured by another party's refusal to comply with an order of the FMC is authorized to apply to a District Court for enforcement. 46 U.S.C. app. § 828 (1988). Under applicable FMC rules, to ensure that the Commission is aware of any unresolved controversy, any party intending to seek enforcement in district court must give the Commission five days notice before proceeding. 46 C.F.R. § 502.210(b) (1991). Guam so notified the FMC. Hence, there is no procedural error in Guam's request for an enforcement order. 6