Opinion ID: 383816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: voluntary remand19

Text: 42 The Commission, as noted above, has not filed a brief on the merits. On April 30, 1980, it voted to reopen this proceeding subject to approval by this court. On May 6, 1980, before the conclusion of the briefing schedule and before oral argument, the Commission moved this court to remand without consideration of the merits to enable the Commission to reconsider the present record. The Commission wishes to reconsider primarily the issue of market dominance, and especially its findings on each of the three presumptions set out in 49 C.F.R. 1109.1(g). It also wishes to reconsider whether the railroads submitted sufficient evidence of competitive alternatives to rebut any presumption of market dominance. If the Commission on reconsideration finds market dominance, it will need then to examine the reasonableness of the rate. The Commission also wishes to reconsider CP&L's allegation of rate discrimination. Finally, the Commission requests that the remand not be limited to reconsideration of the above issues, but that we give the Commission authority to consider related issues which it may deem necessary to resolve in order to render an adequate decision in this proceeding. 43 As we read the Commission's motion, it approaches, for all practical concerns, a request for remand of this entire proceeding for reconsideration. CP&L, Justice, Texas and the railroads all join in opposing the Commission's motion. They maintain that a voluntary remand is impractical now when the decision is ripe for appellate review. The railroads further argue that § 10729 of the Reform Act precludes such a voluntary remand. After a review of the Reform Act, we agree that the modifications added by that legislation to Commission procedure in rail cases preclude a voluntary remand in this case. 44 The Commission argues that it has authority under 49 U.S.C.A. § 10323(a) and under American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 90 S.Ct. 1288, 25 L.Ed.2d 547 (1970) and United States v. Benmar Transport & Leasing Corp., 444 U.S. 4, 100 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed.2d 5 (1979), to reconsider a decision even after the petitions for judicial review have been filed. We do not consider American Farm Lines or Benmar Transport authoritative in this situation since neither case deals with a rail carrier, and the Reform Act has established special provisions governing Commission procedure in rail cases. 20 45 We further conclude that the Commission is mistaken that § 10323(a) is the appropriate section governing reconsideration in rail cases. 21 Instead, the appropriate section governing procedure in rail cases is § 10327, which was added to the Interstate Commerce Act by the Reform Act. 22 Section 10327(a), clearly establishes § 10327's procedure in rail cases, reading in pertinent part: 46 (a) Notwithstanding sections 10322, 10323, and 10324(c) of this title, this section applies to a matter before the Interstate Commerce Commission involving a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title. 47 Section 10327(g)(1), which deals specifically with reconsideration, states: 48 (g)(1) The Commission may, at any time on its own initiative because of material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances- 49 (A) reopen a proceeding; 50 (B) grant rehearing, reargument, or reconsideration of an action of the Commission; and 51 (C) change an action of the Commission. 52 An interested party may petition to reopen and reconsider an action of the Commission under this paragraph under regulations of the Commission. 53 We note that this section limits Commission reconsideration on at its own initiative to those cases where there is material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances, a requirement lacking in § 10323(a) governing reconsideration of other cases. The Commission in requesting a remand for reconsideration has cited neither material error, new evidence, nor substantially changed circumstances in this case. Because it relies upon none of these circumstances, the Commission has no authority in this case to reconsider its decision on its own motion. Moreover, this limitation on Commission instigated reconsideration in rail cases is consistent with Congress' concern that regulatory delays were a major cause of our nation's railroads' difficulties. To allow the Commission to reconsider without citing any of these specified reasons would delay the determination of whether a rate may be published. 54 Our second reason for refusing a voluntary remand arises out of the fact that this is a capital incentive rate case brought under § 10729. We believe that the language and policy of § 10729, as well as the structure of the Reform Act, precludes the Commission from reopening a case on its own initiative after the 180-day time limit to rule on a capital incentive rate. The part of § 10729 pertinent to the problem of voluntary remand reads: 55 Once a rate, classification, rule, or practice becomes effective under this section, the Commission may not, for 5 years, suspend or set it aside as violating section 10701, 10726, 10741-10744, or 11103 of this title. However, the Commission may order the rate, classification, rule or practice to be revised to a level equal to the variable costs of providing the transportation when the Commission finds the level then in effect reduces the going concern value of the carrier. 56 (emphasis added). In this case, the Commission wishes to reconsider, among other things, whether the rate for CP&L's traffic violates § 10741, prohibiting discriminatory rates; and if the Commission finds market dominance to exist on voluntary remand, it would have to determine whether the rate is reasonable under § 10701. Both provisions are included in § 10729's five year prohibition against Commission action. 57 The language of § 10729 sweeps broadly, placing no limitations on the preclusion imposed upon the Commission not to suspend an incentive rate for five years. It might be argued that § 10729 prohibits the Commission from reconsidering a rate only at the instigation of a shipper under § 10707, but does not preclude the Commission itself from reconsidering a rate. We do not perceive such a qualification in the language of § 10729. If anything, the sentence in § 10729 giving the Commission authority to reconsider a rate which reduces the going concern value of the carrier implies that in other situations the Commission lacks such authority to set a rate aside. We agree with the District of Columbia Circuit, when in a slightly different context, it stated: 58 In our view, what the statute means is that the Commission has no authority to provide agency-generated reconsideration of its approval of a rate-whether the approval is expressed positively, in an order, or passively, by failure to intercede. 59 Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. United States, 606 F.2d at 1144. 23 The Commission attempts to distinguish this language by arguing that a voluntary remand still requires an order by this court, and thus is not agency-generated. We think this distinction is without merit and ignores the reality of the Commission's motion. A court would have no reason to remand without consideration of the merits absent a request by the Commission. In effect, the Commission, in making its motion, is asking that the court authorize it to do what it otherwise could not do. 60 There is nothing in the legislative history addressed to the particular question of whether the Commission could, on its own initiative, seek a voluntary remand in a rate incentive case. However, we do perceive in the legislative history a policy which would be violated by a voluntary remand. The Reform Act traces its roots back to the 93rd Congress. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in that Congress, after considering a bill sponsored by the Department of Transportation 24 , reported to the House a bill, H.R. 5386, with a rate incentive provision essentially the same as that found in § 10729, the primary difference being that the House bill offered 3 years, instead of 5 years, protection to an incentive rate. 25 In the debate on the floor of the House, Rep. Adams explained that the rate incentive provision was known as the Big John provision because it was aimed at ameliorating problems such as that encountered by the Southern Railway in its efforts to publish new rates for shipment of grain in innovative Big John cars it had developed. 26 Rep. Adams stated this provision would: 61 give some assurance to a carrier or a shipper that if he invests a million dollars in a new service, he will receive a prompt decision one way or another on that rate from the ICC and that if a rate is permitted it will remain in effect for 3 years. 62 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., 120 Cong.Rec. 38,736 (1974). This bill passed only the House and was never enacted. In the 94th Congress, bills were again introduced in both the House and Senate to revitalize the nation's railroads. 27 These bills, which were eventually combined and enacted as the Reform Act, again contained essentially the same rate incentive provision. 28 The committee reports to both bills emphasized that they were meant to remedy the serious regulatory lag hampering rail rate cases. 29 In pursuit of this goal, special incentive rate cases brought under § 10729, as well as regular rail rate cases brought under § 10707, are subject to time limits for consideration, both types of cases requiring prompt Commission action. Were we to permit this requested voluntary remand, the goal of prompt Commission resolution in rail cases would be frustrated. In effect, we would be giving the Commission additional time beyond the 180-day requirement of § 10729 in which to determine a capital incentive rate. Although we do not believe that the Commission in this case is using a voluntary remand as a ploy to circumvent § 10729's time limitations, 30 it would be an obvious threat to the procedural integrity of § 10729 and the concerns of Congress if voluntary remands were allowed. Accordingly, we believe they are barred by § 10729. 63