Opinion ID: 618328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Finality and Timeliness

Text: American characterizes the October 25, 2010, letter as the final agency decision and the airline's December 9, 2010, letter to the TSA as a request for reconsideration. TSA disagrees, contending that the October 2010 letter was no different than the many rejections the agency had sent to American prior to that date and that the March 2010 letter to American is better understood as the final agency action. Therefore, TSA asserts, American's petition for review is untimely because the petition was not filed with this Court within sixty days of that action, as required by 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We disagree. The October 25, 2010, letter is the only agency communication bearing sufficient indicia of finality to make clear to American that a final decision had in fact been made, and this petition was filed within sixty days of the October 2010 letter. A final agency action is one that mark[s] the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process, and is one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (internal citations and quotation 8 PUBLIC COPY - SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION DELETED marks omitted). The agency action must state an unequivocal position, Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430, 436 (D.C. Cir. 1986), rather than one which is contingent on future agency actions, see AT&T Co. v. EEOC, 270 F.3d 973, 975 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Ifwe considered agency statements lacking clear indicia of finality to nonetheless be final agency action, subjects of agency regulation would be forced to file repeated precautionary petitions for review. Such petitions would waste the time and resources of the Court and of the parties, and would promote unfairness by allowing an agency to retroactively determine whether a particular statement was final or not. Considerations such as these have long been an integral part of finality determinations. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967) (The cases dealing with judicial review of administrative actions have interpreted the 'finality' element in a pragmatic way.); see also 15A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3913 (2d ed.) ([W]ell-established rules of appealability ... have nonetheless the great virtue offorestalling the delay, harassment, expense, and duplication that could result from multiple or ill-timed appeals.). Applying this reasoning, we compare the two letters in question, looking for statements attesting to an unequivocal decision made by the agency that is not contingent on future agency actions. Comparison of the March 2010 communication from Acting TSA Administrator Rossides with the October 20 10 letter from TSA Administrator Pistole reveals that the October 2010 letter is the only TSA communication bearing sufficient indicia of finality to constitute final agency action. The October 2010 letter states that the Administrator had concluded and had made a decision denying American's reimbursement request. The March 2010 letter, on the other hand, uses no such clear language and instead merely describes the general 9 PUBLIC COPY - SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION DELETED risk-assessment policy. That letter even notes TSA's desire to foster a close working relationship . . . on this and other homeland security issues (emphasis added). Furthermore, in the October 2010 letter, Administrator Pistole notes, without mentioning the March 2010 letter, that he personally reviewed the documentation related to the project-a review that would be redundant if a final decision had been reached in March 2010. The March 2010 letter was general and tentative. The October 2010 letter was specific and unequivocal in denying the reimbursement. Indeed, TSA's December 22, 2010, letter denying reconsideration belies TSA' s timeliness argument. That letter expressly thanks American for requesting reconsideration of the October 29, 2010[,] decision denying reimbursement (emphasis added). It seems that only during this litigation did TSA decide that it had actually reached a final decision in March 2010. An agency's post-hoc and self-serving determination that an earlier statement was final cannot override textual evidence to the contrary. Cf Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-69 (1962) (The courts may not accept appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations for agency action .... ). We find that the final agency action in this controversy is the October 25, 2010, letter from TSA denying American's request for reimbursement. American's filing of this petition on December 22, 2010, was therefore timely. 3 TSA alludes in its brief to the possibility that some communication prior to March 2010 may, in fact, have been the final agency action, but that we need not look beyond the March 2010 letter to judge the timeliness of the petition. Because the agency does not specifically identify and explain the earlier communication or communications it purports to be final, we need only address TSA's 10 PUBLIC COPY - SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION DELETED