Transam Trucking, Inc. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
808 F.3d 1205
10th Cir.2015Background
- FMCSA conducted a February 2012 on‑site compliance review of TransAm, citing a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(k)(1) and assigning a proposed conditional safety rating.
- TransAm sought a rating change and administrative review; FMCSA later retroactively upgraded TransAm to a satisfactory rating and the Assistant Administrator dismissed TransAm’s administrative petition as moot.
- TransAm filed for judicial review; parties later executed a settlement (Oct. 17, 2013) under which FMCSA agreed to issue an amended compliance review removing the cited violation and conditional rating; TransAm agreed to dismiss its petition.
- FMCSA issued two amended compliance review reports that removed the violation but showed the review as “not Rated”; TransAm insisted the settlement required an amended report expressly reflecting a Satisfactory rating.
- On Nov. 20, 2013 FMCSA’s counsel emailed TransAm’s counsel refusing to issue a further amended compliance review reflecting the Satisfactory rating; TransAm then sought this court’s review of that email as a “final order.”
- The Tenth Circuit considered whether the email was a “final order” under the Hobbs Act (28 U.S.C. § 2342(3)(A)) and whether it therefore had exclusive jurisdiction to review it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMCSA counsel’s Nov. 20, 2013 email is a “final order” under the Hobbs Act | The email consummated agency decisionmaking and had determinate legal consequences; thus it is a final disposition reviewable under the Hobbs Act | The email was a counsel communication about settlement interpretation, not an agency action issued under the statutes/regulations that define Hobbs Act “final orders” | Not a final order; no Hobbs Act jurisdiction |
| Whether § 385.9(a) (Compliance Review must contain a safety rating) requires FMCSA to issue an amended compliance review showing the upgraded Satisfactory rating after settlement | TransAm: § 385.9(a) obligates FMCSA to issue an amended, rated compliance review; refusal therefore is a reviewable agency decision | FMCSA: § 385.9(a) governs assignment of ratings through the compliance‑review/adjudication process; it does not force issuance of a supplemental rated report in settlement contexts | § 385.9(a) does not obligate agency to issue the specific amended rated report TransAm seeks; the email is not an agency order under that regulatory scheme |
| Whether TransAm’s dismissal of prior judicial petition and reliance on the settlement transforms counsel’s refusal into a Hobbs Act appealable order | TransAm: dismissal in exchange for settlement should not preclude appellate review of FMCSA’s subsequent refusal to perform settlement term | FMCSA: enforcement of a settlement is a contract matter between parties, not an agency final order subject to direct Hobbs Act review | Court: settlement enforcement is contractual; alleged breach does not create a Hobbs Act final order |
| Whether the court should transfer the petition to district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2347(b)(3) | TransAm: if Hobbs Act jurisdiction is lacking, transfer to district court is appropriate for settlement enforcement | FMCSA: transfer provision applies only where Hobbs Act jurisdiction exists over the petition | Transfer denied because court lacks Hobbs Act jurisdiction over the petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Huerta v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 753 (10th Cir.) (discussing de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
- Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.) (petitioner bears burden to establish appellate jurisdiction)
- Farrell‑Cooper Mining Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 728 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (agency action final when it marks consummation of decisionmaking)
- Dandino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 729 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.) (statutory language can limit meaning of “final order”)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court) (limits on courts extending jurisdiction where none exists)
- Midwest Crane and Rigging, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 603 F.3d 837 (10th Cir.) (review of FMCSA orders assigning safety ratings)
- Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Local 134, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL‑CIO, 419 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court) (final disposition requires determinate consequences)