Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board
733 F.3d 340
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Riffin and Strohmeyer filed a §10901 application to acquire and operate ~800 feet of private railroad track in New Jersey.
- They proposed to interchange with Conrail and serve adjacent properties, limiting shipments to non-TIH goods.
- They argued TIH shipments would be costly to insure and their lessor discouraged TIH transport.
- The Board rejected the application on October 18, 2011 for conditioning the permit on excluding TIH transport.
- Strohmeyer sought to reopen; the Board denied in May 2012, maintaining a uniform approach to TIH obligations.
- Riffin petitioned for review, challenging the Board’s interpretation of the common-carrier obligation and its treatment of new carriers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new carriers may opt out of TIH transport under common carriage. | Riffin argues common law allows choosing which goods to carry. | Board says statutory 11101 binds carriers to TIH transport where regulations exist. | Board’s view upheld; no right to opt out. |
| Whether the argument was forfeited for not being raised earlier. | Riffin did not timely raise before the Board. | Board deemed issue forfeited; arguments raised post-decision. | Argument not forfeited; merits addressed. |
| Whether the Board’s interpretation of §11101 on TIH transport is permissible under Chevron. | Statute silence precludes broader authority. | Agency’s interpretation reasonable given regulatory context. | Chevron deference applied; interpretation permissible. |
| Whether the Board properly rejected distinguishing new vs. existing carriers. | Proposed that new carriers could limit TIH obligations. | No workable gaps; policy treats new and existing carriers alike. | Board reasonably rejected distinction. |
| Whether public interest requires maintaining network openness for TIH transport. | Limited obligations would promote efficiency. | Public safety network integrity requires consistent obligations. | Board’s policy to avoid gaps in TIH transport valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33 (1952) (timely objections to agency actions favored in review)
- City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) (agency jurisdiction/deference in breadth of statutory authority)
- United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 323 U.S. 612 (1945) (ICC authority to compel interchange under broad statutory terms)
- American Trucking Ass’ns v. AT&T Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967) (codification of common-carrier obligations in broad terms)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 543 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (limits of common-carrier duties within regulatory framework)
- Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co. v. ICC, 611 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1979) (common carriage duties and statutory obligations coexist)
- Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (administrative latitude in defining common carriage in evolving regimes)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. STB, 604 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency discretion to require transport of hazardous materials under TIH regulations)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, 584 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statutory obligation to provide service on reasonable request)