Opinion ID: 442913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard Applied by ICC

Text: 6 There is no dispute that the routes in question were authorized prior to 1982. Section 10935(e)(1)(A) governs the proposed discontinuance of routes authorized before 1982. Under this standard the ICC must grant the discontinuance of routes unless it finds discontinuance is not consistent with the public interest or that the continuance of the routes would not constitute an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. 7 The Attorney General argues, however, that the ICC erroneously relied upon the subsection applicable to routes granted after August 1, 1982. 3 Under this section denial of permission may occur only upon a finding that continuing the service would not be an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The State urges this standard provides greater discretion to the ICC to grant a discontinuance since it requires simply a finding that variable costs exceed revenues. The State further urges the ICC incorrectly applied this newer standard. We must respectfully disagree. 8 Although the ICC did not specifically cite the subsection involved, it did paraphrase the language of the pre-1982 section. In addition, the ICC discussed at length not only the cost factors involved but also the non-cost factors. 4 Under section 10935(e)(1)(A) the burden is on the party opposing the discontinuance to prove either (1) discontinuance is inconsistent with the public interest, or (2) continuance will not be an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. If the protestants fail to meet their burden, the ICC must allow the discontinuance. 9 Section 10935 also specifies the factors that the ICC must consider. Section 10935(g)(1) states: 10 In making a finding under subsection (e)(1) of this section, the Commission shall accord great weight to the extent to which interstate and intrastate revenues received for providing the transportation proposed to be discontinued or reduced are less than the variable costs of providing such transportation   . 11 Under section 10935(g)(2), the ICC must also consider (1) the National Transportation Policy, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10101, (2) offers of financial assistance to subsidize the route, and (3) whether the transportation to be discontinued is the last carrier on the route and whether reasonable alternatives are available. 12 The ICC findings specifically consider the public interest factors involved. The Commission considered the needs of passengers and shippers and the maintenance of intrastate bus services and [transportation] service to small communities and small shippers. ICC Decision No. MC-1515 (Sub-No. 340) at 10 (Nov. 3, 1983). 13 As directed by section 10935(g)(1), the Commission accorded great weight to Greyhound's cost figures. Id. at 3-5, 8-9. Greyhound claimed it was losing over $30,000 annually on two of the routes and nearly $60,000 on the third route. Id. at 3. MPUC contended that the figures were inflated. The ICC concluded that there were some questions about the accuracy of some of the revenue estimates but overall the methods used and the estimates are reasonable. Id. at 9. This conclusion is neither arbitrary nor capricious and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the ICC. The ICC also considered the national transportation policy, noted that no subsidy offers had been made, and considered possible alternatives as required by section 10935(g)(2). On one route, the ICC noted that alternative service was presently available. For the other two routes, the ICC suggested a lower cost form of transportation, such as van service, might be more feasible. Id. at 10-12. The Commission acknowledged the hardship discontinuance would cause, id. at 10, but determined that the protestants had failed to show that discontinuance was inconsistent with the public interest or that continuance would not impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Id. at 12.