Document: 482 U.S. 270 107 S.Ct. 2360 96 L.Ed.2d 222 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Petitionerv.BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner v. BROTHERHOOD Nos. 85-792, 85-793. Argued Nov. 10, 1986. Decided June 8, 1987. Syllabus In October 1982, petitioner Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) issued an order, which, inter alia, granted Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. and another railroad the right to conduct operations using tracks of a third, newly consolidated carrier. April 1983, respondent Brotherhood Locomotive Engineers (BLE) filed "Petition for Clarification" asking ICC declare that earlier order did not authorize tenant railroads use their own crews on routes they had previously served. served May 18, denied petition, ruling its prior decision require clarification since railroads' trackage rights applications proposed Commission's approval authorized such operations. BLE United Transportation Union then timely petitions reconsideration 18 contending, crewing procedures violated employee protections been included in original order. 25, these petitions, responding detail unions' contentions. On review, Court Appeals vacated orders rejecting threshold claim review was time barred, unions merits. Held: 1. Although ICC's were filed, should have dismissed itself, whereby refused reconsider refusing clarify is unreviewable. Pp. 277-284. (a) Since rail proceeding "final date which it served," 25 with December 16 23, under Hobbs Act, requires any person aggrieved by final file petition within 60 days after order's entry. P. 277. (b) Only when reopen agency alleges new evidence changed circumstances agency's refusal subject judicial only as whether arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion. Where, here, based data but alleged "material error," denial review. Such appeal would place before court precisely same substance could brought from Review circumstance serve no purpose if discretionary period (and order), toll thereby preserve direct until denied. other hand, untimely peculiar extending indefinitely seriously mistaken be judicially overturned, shown unlawful, so unlawful It irrelevant discussed substantive claims at length, formal action, rather than discussion, dispositive fact 277-281. (c) addition being implicit Act's 60-day limitation seeking nonreviewability refusals material error established 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), precludes action "committed discretion law." Refusals traditionally reviewed are alleged, impossible devise adequate standard alleged. Application ordinary standards reviewing errors law entirely frustrate limitation, alternative—some form "clearly erroneous" standard—would produce strange result really bad mistakes (whatever term might mean considerable already afforded agencies) escape limitation. Nor does become reviewable merely because gives "reviewable" reason—i.e., reason courts well qualified consider—for action. 281-284. 2. BLE's appealable. 284-287. Even though more served, nonetheless effective administrative stayed running filing reconsideration. contrary conclusion suggested language 49 10327(i), provides that, notwithstanding statutory provision authorizing orders, can appealed day view constructions similar 704 must construed relieve parties requirement petitioning prevent actually rendering nonfinal. 284-285. If treated genuine Clarification"—i.e., specification, one way other, what meant—its unappealable considered "aggrieved" Act unambiguous explanation meant. If, likely, felt serious law, petition's unreviewable Court's analysis, supra, put forth circumstances. There exception rule even where ambiguous causes party think interests infringed, limit held hostage ever-present ambiguities. The remedy ambiguity period, enabling pursued (if resolution adverse) disposition petition. 285-286. 245 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 761 F.2d 714, remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, concurring judgment, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 287. 1 Henri F. Rush, Washington, D.C., No. 85-792. 2 Joseph L. Manson, III, 3 Harold A. Ross, Cleveland, Ohio, respondent, Engineers. 4 John O'B. Clarke, Jr., Transp. Union. Justice SCALIA Court. 6 September 15, 1980, Pacific (UP) Missouri (MP) respective corporate parents joint application permission UP acquire control MP. day, separate jointly Western (WP). proceeding, opposed number labor organizations, including respondents (UTU), several competing railroads, (MKT) Denver Rio Grande (DRGW). MKT DRGW, opposing mergers, responsive track carrier event approved. MKT's request specified "MKT, employees, sole cost expense, shall operate engines, cars trains along Joint Track." Proposed Trackage Rights Agreement 5, Finance Docket 30,000 (Sub.-No. 25). DRGW's indicated "may, option, elect employ movement trains, locomotives points over 6(c)(3), 18). 7 20, approved UP's acquisitions 200 miles MP four States 619 between Pueblo Kansas City. See Corp., Rail System, Inc. & R. Co.—Control—Missouri Corp. Co., 366 I.C.C. 459 (1982), aff'd sub nom. Southern ICC, 237 99, 736 708 (1984), cert. denied, 469 1208, 105 1172, 84 322 (1985). "immediately upon consummation consolidations." I.C.C., 590. 8 practice, pursuit responsibility shield employees dislocations resulting actions approves, see 11347, impose transactions set known "NW-BN-Mendocino" conditions. Norfolk Co.—Trackage Rights—Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 605 (1978), modified, Mendocino Coast Co.—Lease Operate—California 360 653 (1980), Railway Labor Executives' Assn. States, 219 675 1248 (1982). These provide, "the selection forces all involved," 610, involving dismissal displacement retention "[t]he rates pay, rules, working conditions collective bargaining rights, privileges benefits . unless future agreements applicable statutes." Ibid. indicated, without "subject imposition protective extent [NW-BN ]." 654. also id., 471, 622. 9 among UP, MP, WP consummated 22, point grants became effective. commenced operations, crews, about January 6, 1983; DRGW shortly thereafter entered into agreement providing "for [DRGW] temporary, interim will [its] crews." App. 83-2290 83-2317 (CADC), 6. numerous parties, BLE, petitioned (which affirmed most respects some months later, supra ), question concerning raised time. However, 4, Clarification," contending jurisdiction to, matter consistent practice not, inject itself matters crew selection, intent effect carriers served.1 brief "does clarification." Pet. Cert. 85-793, A38. said, applications, "our authorizes operations." 10 Within prescribed rules CFR 1115.3(e) (1986), both UTU sought "reconsideration" denial. repeating arguments, contended constituted unilateral change forbidden NW-BN-Mendocino conditions, 45 151 seq. (RLA), collective-bargaining agreements, made findings justify exempting laws. lengthy major contentions, petitions. particular, emphasized reliance 11341(a), participating consolidation "is exempt antitrust laws necessary let carry out transaction. ." concluded exemption provided this section extends RLA self-executing, requiring make 11 16, orders; latter 1983. cases consolidated, District Columbia Circuit orders. 714 rejected appeals merits intended requirements RLA, required explain, done, why effectuate dissent disagreed counts. 12 certiorari proper construction we argument. 475 1081, 106 1457, 89 (1986). We now conclude dismissed. 13 * Appeals' encompass clarify. consider first 14 With certain exceptions relevant 28 1336(b), governed 2341 seq., order" entry, wherein venue lies." 2344. A served." 10327(i). thus review—filed 1983—were therefore purposes (though obviously 1982). although timeliness satisfied, 15 authority stems 10327(g), provides: "The may, initiative error, evidence, substantially circumstances— "(A) proceeding; 17 "(B) grant rehearing, reargument, Commission; "(C) Commission. 19 "An interested may paragraph regulations Commission." 20 When reopens and, reconsideration, issues setting obligations order—even reaffirms order—is See, e.g., Seatrain Lines, 329 424, 67 435, 91 L.Ed. 396 (1947). however, refuses lawfulness refusal. Absent reopening asserted exist here), basis challenge "arbitrary, [or] discretion." 706(2)(A). said overturning "a showing clearest discretion," Pierce Auto Freight 327 515, 534-535, 66 687, 697-698, 90 821 (1946), reversed once, Atchison, T. S.F. 284 248, 52 146, 76 273 (1932), "promptly restricted special facts, stands virtually alone." Jersey City, 503, 64 1129, 1135, 88 1420 (1944). Bowman Transportation, Arkansas-Best 419 281, 295-296, 95 438, 446-447, 42 447 (1974). More importantly present purposes, our entertaining appear involved alleging "new evidence" "changed circumstances" rendered inappropriate. 295, 446, cited therein; U.S., 514-518, 1134-1136, therein. know case error" decision. good distinguishing two. unavailable, deprived opportunity consideration—even "clearest discretion" basis—of facts through fault his own, contain. By contrast, has forward reopening, places there order—but asks them strange, one-step-removed serves whatever specifically agency2 allotted situation tolls directly And outside order) overturned. That say, effectively subjected proviso reads: "Provided, egregious correct discretion, time." 21 For reasons, agree reached ground i.e., record decision, "an denies rehearing [the prior] reviewable." Microwave Communications, FCC, 169 154, 156, n. 7, 515 385, 387, SEC Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, 353 368, 371-372, 77 855, 857, 897 (1957); National Bank Davis Comptroller Currency, 233 284, 285, 3, 725 1390, 1391, (1984); 701(a)(2). This familiar contexts. panel en banc supposes denial, opinion, appealable like appealing decision). 22 length. Where deny makes alteration underlying undertake inquiry "in fact" occurred. sense, course, always occurs, cannot intelligently reflecting upon, things, clear shown. hardly sensible say genuinely thought; nor character (as denial) depends chooses disclose reasoning. Rather, dispositive. Accordingly, 23 portion concurrence deals issue (Part I) consists largely citation discussion affording reopen. third last paragraph, finds acknowledgment "based 293—294, fully accord principle opinion. dispute treatment statute rather, it, pure creature invention." Post, 294. 24 search authorization limited text seems us inventiveness plebeian find prohibition against permitting, litigant's achieving, perpetual availability mere device suggestion mistake again. Substantial disregard effected, delivers (after having views) Part II opinion: on-the-merits applied congressionally period. Statutory preventing untoward need solely however. While specifies 703, Administrative Procedure (APA) codifies nature attributes traditional unavailability "to committed recently occasion apply general contained 1331, Heckler Chaney, 470 821, 1649, (1985); applies well. Chaney found type "has 'committed discretion,' Congress enacting APA intend alter tradition." Id., 832, 1656. As above, perceive tradition exists regard agencies lower courts; believe 701(a)(2) meant preserve. confirmed impossibility devising One driven either (in particular frustrated); else adopt produces limitation—whatever "really bad" context great deference accorded action). impale horn dilemma. 26 concurrence's effort bring Chenery 332 194, 1575, 1995 (1947), misguided. pertains affirmance reviewable. (It affirm containing element discretion—including interpret ambiguities—that used, remove judgment court.) nothing do establish, evidently believes, otherwise becomes To demonstrate falsity proposition enough observe common failure prosecute criminal violation prosecutor's belief (sometimes publicly stated) sustain conviction. surely eminently proposition, sense point; yet 27 Finally, note solution denials nullifying periods, simply workable (or explained) vast majority cases. reviews stated conclusions regarding 11341 usual available) "abuse standard. statement 555(e) exempts normal grounds denial" "affirming denial." wonders how, context, go determining answer supplies reviewability—and, permits apply. Under clear: available standard; otherwise, back ploughed nonreviewable. remains denying clarification. effective, acted admittedly "[n]otwithstanding" (§ 10327(g)), civil enforce, enjoin, suspend, aside date." seem pendency motions render nonfinal triggering limitations argument made, respect APA, 704, reads part: "Except expressly statute, [entitled 'Actions Reviewable'] presented determined reconsiderations, or, meanwhile inoperative, superior authority." long (unless, statute—see, 717r, 3416(a)), American Farm Lines Black Ball Service, 397 532, 541, 1288, 1293, 547 (1970) (dictum); CAB Delta Air 367 316, 326-327, 81 1611, 1619-1620, 869 (1961) 339-343, 1626-1627 (Whittaker, dissenting); Outland CAB, 109 90, 93, 224, 227 (1960). 10327(i) 704. timely. 29 motion meaning Act. narrow left uncertain obligations, plainly case. Though clarification, unmistakably interpreted crews. could, disagree construction, complain provided. 30 fact, understood ask clarification; asked manner [in petition]," "clarification" believed mean. Most described, sought, alternative, union's interpretation) viewed reopen, earlier. circumstances; urged thought law. many earlier, 31 prepared acknowledge ambiguous, infringed. Otherwise, limits everpresent here gone beyond (at most) ambiguity, guise interpreting revised immediately contention here. was, very most, arguable routine reference cause those supersede, conflict, specific terms generally approved—and far conflict two existed, unclear extended landlord carries traffic account. 32 remanded instructions dismiss lack jurisdiction. 33 Vacated 34 whom BLACKMUN join, judgment. 35 "because circumstances." 10327(g). draws distinction affords recognize distinction. Yet, believes desirable policy, today fashions "jurisdiction." 36 holds decisions arbitrary Because holding supported statutes, longstanding principles I subscribe it. Addressing merits, erred reversing reading correct; previously, 37 Orders commonly quite plain spelling decisions. After stating exclusive "enjoin, aside, suspend whole part), determine validity regulations, Commission," 2342 (except district courts, 2321), 38 "Any 39 appears elements satisfied parties; period; appropriate Circuit. Nonetheless, concludes want 40 properly 1983 treats reopen), depending factors survive But divest jurisdiction; means considerations almost always, upheld accordance 535, 697, (1946). 41 Not every premised considerations. contexts exercise regulation, choose criteria satisfied. Here, example, allowed entire show affected materially circumstances," "involves error." 1115.3 Similarly, supplement approving consolidations related "cause exists," 11351, narrowly courts. Illinois 713 305, 310 (CA7 1983); Greyhound 215 322, 330, 668 1354, 1362 (1981). legal ground, premises significant role play; decide sustained, law.1 explained court's job ascertain "whether warrant done." 536, 698. basic tenets upheld, all, 'on articulated itself.' " FPC Texaco, 417 380, 397, 94 2315, 2326, 141 (1974), quoting Burlington Truck 371 168-169, 83 239, 245-246, 207 (1962). (1947): 43 "[A] simple fundamental court, dealing determination alone make, judge propriety invoked agency. inadequate improper, powerless action." 196, 1577.2 44 Consequently, explains understanding uphold reasoning withstands sure, announce declined duplicative, late consideration. grounds, scrutinized abuse-of-discretion standard.3 proceed fashion base constitutional provision, sustained conjecture variety grounds. remand agency, reopening.4 lesson progeny—a ignores "it dispositive." Ante, 281. argues prudent seek initial true.5 efficient procedure give power rewrite Code Federal Regulations. ignoring explicitly reviewable, Giova Rosenberg, 379 85 (1964); failing matter, (1932);6 see, Radio Corporation America 341 412, 420-421, 71 806, 810, 1062 (1951); Acker 298 426, 432-433, 56 824, 827-828, 80 1257 (1936); St. Stock Yards 38, 47-49, 720, 723-724, 1033 Northern 288 490, 492-494, 53 406, 406-407, 914 (1933); INS Rios-Pineda, 471 444, 2098, 452 Jong Ha Wang, 450 139, 101 1027, 123 stressed play reopening; but, today, never all.7 Judge Friendly it: lead inevitably wholly immune examination; 10(e) constituting Secretary deciding enjoys absolute contrary, presumed fulfill defining maintaining bounds Cappadora Celebrezze, 356 1, 5-6 (CA2 1966).8 46 brushes off error. 278-280. According involve allegations But, proclaims, allege Whether reasonable, nevertheless invention. am unable join creative Act.9 47 nonreviewable law" conclusively rebutted analysis. Yet concedes, must, claiming element. (1985), speak issue. Unlike take enforcement dearth "judicially manageable standards" context. ability "perceive 282. sure source is, anything said. 48 me neither recognizes creates today. Thus, compelled conclude, recognizes, Supplemental Memorandum timely, partly interpretation read "necessity" finding made), deficiencies "public interest" made) attributable raise proceeding. sound, theories up objections transactions. 50 apparently prompted belated realization (DRGW) pursuant Company's tracks. argued provisions (ICA), gave utilize light approval, concluded, conflicting who trains. 51 "A carrier, corporation, [an] exempted transaction State municipal transaction, hold, maintain, property, franchises acquired transaction." come play, actual, record, "necessary" explained: Section immunizing self-executing relieved restraints. Loc. Eng. [v. Chicago N.W.R. 314 430-431 (CA8), 375 819, 55, (1963) ], citing Chicago, P., M. O. Ry. Lease, 295 696, 432 (1958). 54 "In evaluating 11344, policies statutes proposal public interest. interest evaluation include consideration McLean Trucking 321 67, 87, 370, 544 55 "While laws, embodies policy considerations, considered. proceedings, full impact policies. 618-22. proceedings devoid UTU, inconsistent RLA. circumstances, merit UTU's improperly failed reconcile decision." pp. A44-A45. 57 reversed, explicit necessity findings. 320, 723 "Congress given broad powers immunize later obstacles, delegation component. exercising waiver shake wand away. supply reasoned supplied justification waiving "exercise F.2d, 725. MacKinnon dissented, arguing necessity. 326-332, 729-735.10 58 misunderstanding 11341. indicates, condition exemptions announcing automatically "other laws" whenever "necessary breadth defined scope transaction,11 announcement applicable. 11341's predecessor: 59 "[A]pproval voluntary merger dependent three, considerations: First, 'will interest.' 5(2)(b).) Second, modification Commission, 'just reasonable.' Third, assent 'majority holders shares entitled vote.' 5(11).) complied with, Commission-approved goes invoking state authority, 'restraints, limitations, prohibitions Federal, State, municipal, insofar enable .' 5(11).)." Schwabacher 334 182, 68 958, 964, 92 1305 (1948). Seaboard Line Daniel, 333 118, 124, 429, 580 (1948) (not manifest exemption"); 11344(b) (listing items mergers). different respect; self-executing.12 61 Of explained, conducting 11344 consequence dictates transaction.13 79-88, 376-381, cry predict exactly each one, absent exemption.14 62 calculations. Indeed, four-page labor, Pacific—Control—Missouri Pacific, 462, 618-622 (1982)—issues 11344(b), 11347 (1982 ed., Supp. III). Generally, "transactions benefit producing substantial net increase existing employment opportunities increasing security employees." 619. recognized ramifications displacing whose used rights. none ever 63 play. clearly objection reached.15 adequately issue.16 address raised, imposed A45-A50 (discussing New York Dock Co.—Control Brooklyn Eastern Dist., (1979), Rights—BN, modified Inc.—Lease Operate, 653, 664 (1980)). Surveying proposals during concluded: "BLE, various railway organizations participated violate agreement. supports tenants' implemented raising assignments railroads." Pet A45. 65 conflicted premise had, speak, procedurally defaulted claims. concluding reverse lacked Ordinarily, relief denominated "petition reopen." C.F.R. §§ 1115.3(a), 1115.4 rule, "see[k] rule," 1117.1 131, 136, 103 514, 518, 74 311 provide follows: "(a) permitted. designated 'petition review,' except instance, reopen.' "(b) following points: "(3) taken involves "(e) Petitions service further exceed days) division authorize." so, institute jurisdiction." 833, 1656, 4; NAACP FPC, 425 662, 1806, (1976) (reviewing promulgate jurisdiction); International Union, Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers Brock, 251 247, 783 237, (1986) (distinguishing interpretations). chooses, considering sufficient support regulations. Bagamasbad, 429 24, 26, 97 200, 201, 190 (1976). Contrary suggestion, ante, 282—283, establishes does, powerfully rebut bases erroneous litigants routinely declared reject reaching party, strongest incentives statements reasons unworkable. allows statement, continue so. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 519, 98 1197, 460 (1978). case, presume constitutes cases, Alternatively, rise challenges. event, unfair deprive he she challenge. 286, square position new-found observing "was 'promptly alone.' 278, unique aspect action—not Califano Sanders, 430 980, 192 (1977), unavailable Health, Education, Welfare's benefits. rested there, individual commencing "after hearing." 405(g). "[t]his 'final hearing.' 108, 985. satisfy language, respect" Congress' choice. (1957), 79k(b), dealt "revoke modify" previous listed statute. Neither Sanders Comm'n restrictive supporting nonreview position, 280, conclusive. Many indeed Carter/Mondale Presidential Committee, FEC, 249 349, 353-354, 775 1182, 1186-1187 Wausau 703 1042 Virginia Appalachian Lumber 197 13, 19, 606 1385, 1391 (1979); Provisioners Frozen Express, 536 1303, (CA9 1976); B.F. Goodrich Northwest Industries, 424 1349, 1355 (CA3), 400 822, 41, (1970); Northeast Broadcasting, 130 287-288, 749, 758-759 (1968). Cases immigration too citation. reopening. entertain "did create five years matter." 1305. hastened add, abused [the] Although, intervening longer Social Security determinations, Friendly's continues respect. refers final. types relying dissented call U.S.App.D.C., 322-326, 725-729. approve part Palestine 559 408, 414 (CA5 1977), 950, 1576, 800 (1978) (looking "germane success transaction"). "[p]rovisions designating carrier's perform agreement." A50. dissent, elaborated point. 329, 732. legislative history derived language. 407 1920, ch. 91, Stat. 480, approvals consolidations, providing: foregoing be, hereby, operation 'antitrust laws,' restraints section." 482, amending 5(8) operative phraseology, incorporated 1940 amendment recodification 1940, 722, 908-909, 5(11). Again, recodified affected. Pub.L. 95-473, 3(a), 1466. H.R.Rep. 95-1395, 158-168 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 3009. addition, consistently flowing approval. Express Agency, Notes, 348 157, (1975); Ex Parte 260, Revised Regulations Governing Interlocking Officers, 336 679, 681-682 Texas Turnpike Authority Abandonment Louis Southwestern 328 42, (1965); 702 (1958); Control Central 508, 515-517 (1923). Courts agreed. 782 107, 111 (CA8 1986), pending, 85-1054; (1963). mean, fear, assert prevail claim. Any tribunal faced violating 215-218. appeared problems approach agreed "enumerate obstacle waived approval," contemplate unforeseeable obstacles fruition "undermine authority's 'facilitat[ing] national transportation system.' 723, County Marin 416, 78 880, 882, 879 "ICC's decisionmaking process, reveal 4. idea repeatedly return scheme, mitigate delay confusion surrounding consolidations. respondents' notice allowing connection (the was), submitted wished 273—274; Missouri, 112; A45-A50. aware deference, resting intricacies prefaced demonstrated UP-MP employees' requirements." A43.

Category: 8