Opinion ID: 6025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Policy Statement (92-4691C)

Text: 36 Petitioners RCT, TMTA, and NMFTA also have petitioned for review of the ICC's Policy Statement which summarizes factors the ICC uses to determine whether a shipment is in interstate or intrastate commerce. The policy statement applies to the same general factual pattern the ICC addressed in its declaratory order in Warehousemen: the goods are shipped to a Texas warehouse from another state and later transported to the shipper's customer inside the state. The ICC issued the policy statement, like the Warehousemen declaratory order, because of persisting challenges from state regulatory authorities to parties attempting to follow earlier ICC decisions. The policy statement consists of two lists of factors. The first list includes factors that demonstrate when in-state motor transportation is part of a continuing interstate movement. 12 The second list includes factors that, if present, do not automatically destroy the interstate nature of the movement. 13
37 First we consider whether the policy statement is ripe for review. Ripeness of the policy statement for review must be determined according to the test enunciated in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Generally, this requires us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. Id. at 149, 87 S.Ct. at 1515. Specifically, we must consider: (1) whether the issues presented are purely legal; (2) whether the agency's pronouncement is a final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Secs. 551(13) & 704; 14 (3) whether the impact on the petitioners is direct and immediate; and (4) whether resolution of the issues will foster effective administration of the statute. Id. at 149-54, 87 S.Ct. at 1515-18. 38 In applying Abbott Laboratories, we recognize that the policy statement satisfies prongs one and two of the Court's test so that the statement's fitness for judicial decision is not a barrier to our review. See Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. ICC, 672 F.2d 146, 149 (D.C.Cir.1982). The statement's list of factors bearing on the character of interstate transportation presents issues that are purely legal. Also, the fact that the policy statement was issued by the ICC's commissioners, was published, and was not labeled as tentative, lends support to the statement's finality. See Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 149-51, 87 S.Ct. at 1515-17. 39 The difficult question is whether the statement meets the third prong of the Abbott Laboratories test, i.e., does the policy statement have a direct, immediate impact on petitioners. See Baltimore Gas, 672 F.2d at 149. This aspect of the ripeness doctrine ensures that agencies are protected from judicial review until the effects of their action are felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. See Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 148, 87 S.Ct. at 1515. 40 Petitioners contend that the policy statement affects them because the ICC is assigning it precedential value and using it as a basis for enforcement actions. But the factors listed in the policy statement are practically the same as the factors the ICC considered in its declaratory order in Warehousemen. The declaratory order notifies petitioners and others of essentially the same ICC policy towards regulation of this type of transportation as the policy statement. The declaratory order has been subjected to ordinary review. Petitioners have identified no hardship they will suffer from the policy statement that was not subject to review as part of the declaratory order. Our review of the declaratory order provides petitioners with an adequate forum for testing the policy statement in a concrete situation. See Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 165, 87 S.Ct. 1520, 1525, 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967) (companion case to Abbott Laboratories.). We therefore have not refused petitioners' request to be relieved of an onerous legal uncertainty. See Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 522 F.2d 107, 128 (D.C.Cir.1974). And further review of these factors as listed in the policy statement would not foster the effective administration of the statute. Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 154, 87 S.Ct. at 1518. 41 We are not persuaded that petitioners will suffer hardship as a result of the ICC's issuance of the policy statement or that review of the policy statement will foster effective administration of the statute. Because the petitions in 92-4691C for review of the policy statement present an issue not ripe for judicial consideration, the petitions are DISMISSED.