Opinion ID: 446518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willingness

Text: 16 Even if the record supported the Commission's determination that Beneux was fit to transport bulk commodities, we are still compelled to remand because there is not substantial evidence in the record to show that Beneux was willing to provide bulk services under the new certificate. The Commission contends that Beneux's initial application combined with its expertise and willingness to acquire additional equipment is sufficient evidence of willingness. 17 Beneux did not seek a bulk restriction in its initial application. Whatever slight evidence of willingness, Port Norris-Dennis, 687 F.2d at 812, that fact provides, however, fades into oblivion upon an examination of the record as a whole. The Commission can point to no language in Beneux's application that shows any interest in bulk authority. See Erickson-L & L, 737 F.2d at 777-78; Port Norris-Dennis, 687 F.2d at 812. Moreover, as discussed above, Beneux's general statements concerning its expertise and willingness to acquire additional equipment are insufficient absent some direct evidence on bulk service. 15 Port Norris-D-X, 746 F.2d at 73. 18 Furthermore, Beneux requested that the Commission amend its application to include a bulk restriction. The Commission rejected the proposed amendment on the grounds that it was presumably ... an attempt merely to eliminate opposition, and therefore not in the public interest. App. at 84. Even if we agreed with the Commission, the record still lacks substantial evidence that would support a finding that Beneux was willing to transport bulk commodities. By rejecting Beneux's amendment, the Commission merely ignored evidence rebutting its inference of willingness. As we pointed out above, that inference is not supported by substantial evidence, so even unrebutted it does not satisfy the statutory requirement. 19 On the other hand, the lack of any direct evidence of willingness rebuts the Commission's presumption that the proposed amendment was an attempt merely to eliminate opposition. 16 Id. The circumstances of this case therefore suggest that Beneux's requested amendment was not prompted by a desire to settle litigation with a protesting carrier, but rather by a genuine lack of interest in bulk hauling. Port Norris-Allen, 729 F.2d at 210. Thus, considering the record as a whole, including Beneux's requested amendment, the Commission's determination that Beneux was willing to transport bulk commodities is not supported by substantial evidence.