CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board
774 F.3d 25
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- STB has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate rail transportation and may review rail rates for reasonableness when market dominance is shown.
- TPI filed a May 3, 2010 rate complaint challenging CSX rates for transporting chemicals and plastics along multiple routes.
- Board bifurcated the proceeding into a market-dominance phase and a separate rate-reasonableness phase for efficiency.
- On May 31, 2013, the Board held CSX had market dominance over 51 of 84 disputed rates and retained jurisdiction to examine those rates.
- CSX challenged the Board’s market-dominance ruling and its methodology; the Board denied reconsideration on December 19, 2013, and CSX sought review of the market-dominance ruling.
- The court held the market-dominance decision was an interlocutory order and not a final agency action subject to review at this stage; the case remains pending for the rate-reasonableness phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the market-dominance order a final agency action? | CSX argues the ruling is final as it ends the decisionmaking stage. | STB argues the order is interlocutory and does not dispose of all issues. | No final agency action; order is interlocutory. |
| Does adoption of a new market-dominance methodology during adjudication render the order reviewable as a final rule? | CSX asserts the new methodology constitutes a final legislative rule needing immediate review. | STB argues no interlocutory review; rulemaking issues await final adjudication. | Not a final rule subject to interlocutory review; review deferred to final adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 668 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (final order rule narrowly construed; no premature review)
- Ford Motor Co. v. ICC, 714 F.2d 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (interlocutory nature of market-dominance ruling)
- DRG Funding Corp. v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 76 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (avoid disruption by delaying review until final adjudication)
- City of Benton v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 136 F.3d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (interlocutory licensing issues not final agency action)
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. FTC, 449 U.S. 232 (1981) (finality principle: review should not disrupt adjudication)
- Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (S. Ct. 2012) (compliance demands; not intermediate review)
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (agency action during adjudication; review at end of proceedings)
- Athlone Indus. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 707 F.2d 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (exhaustion when agency seeks to enforce penalties or assess authority)
- Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (legislative rule concerns in adjudication; review deferred)