CSI Aviation Services, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation
394 U.S. App. D.C. 474
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- CSI Aviation Services, Inc. held a GSA contract to broker air-charter services for federal agencies since 2003.
- In March 2009, CSI won re-qualification to extend the GSA contract through 2014.
- On March 6, 2009, DOT sent CSI a letter seeking information about alleged indirect air transportation without a certificate under the Federal Aviation Act.
- CSI provided information; DOT issued an Oct. 16, 2009 letter declaring CSI’s GSA-based activity an unauthorized indirect air carrier violation and warning of penalties.
- Six other companies received similar letters; six complied, but CSI challenged DOT’s determination in court.
- DOT temporarily exempted CSI from the certification requirement (April 14, 2010) while asserting that GSA contract-based air services constitute air transportation requiring authority; CSI timely petitioned for review in December 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DOT order is a final, reviewable agency action. | CSI argues DOT definitively interpreted its authority and issued a final order. | DOT contends it issued a preliminary stance subject to potential change, not a final ruling. | Yes; order is final and reviewable. |
| Whether CSI’s GSA-brokerage activities constitute air transportation as a common carrier under the statute. | CSI is not a common carrier under its GSA contract and thus does not require certification. | DOT treated CSI’s brokered government contracts as indirect air transportation requiring authority. | The agency’s interpretation was not supported; remand for explanation. (Court adopts strict-limitation view, holding insufficient justification.) |
| Whether the case is moot due to agency rulemaking or CSI’s temporary exemption. | Mootness does not apply; exemption is temporary and does not resolve the legal question. | Rulemaking or exemption renders the dispute moot. | Case not moot; exemption is temporary and rulemaking pending; review proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (definitive agency position reviewable when legal question; pre-enforcement action reviewable when burden imposed)
- Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. EPA, 613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (complementary to Bennett on finality and pre-enforcement review)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (finality doctrine; consummation of agency decisionmaking)
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. FTC, 449 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1981) (final agency action distinguished from preliminary findings; substantial enforcement burden)
- Puget Sound Traffic Ass'n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 536 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (final reviewability; restricts premature intervention)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (requires explanation enabling judicial review; not arbitrary)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (arbitrary or capricious review; standard of review)
- Woolsey v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 993 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding out and common carriage concept discussed in context)