Opinion ID: 446619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Useful Public Purpose, Responsive to a Public Demand or Need

Text: 14 Petitioners argue that the Commission erred in granting Manlowe California statewide operating authority where the record lacks substantial evidence of statewide public need. Under the 1980 Act, the Commission may infer from an unrebutted showing of representative need that the need extends beyond the localities for which evidence was given. 3 Refrigerated Transport Co. v. I.C.C., 686 F.2d 881, 887 (11th Cir.1982). In reviewing the scope of authority granted, we ask whether an inference of similarity throughout the area embraced by the applicant's certificate may rationally be drawn from the evidence presented. Id. 15 Our review of the record discloses no substantial evidence which is sufficiently representative of the transportation needs of the shipping public to enable [the Commission] to make an informed determination of the public interest, Art Pape Transfer, Inc., Extension--Commodities in End-Dump Vehicles, 132 M.C.C. 84, 96 (1980). We cannot find that an inference of similarity throughout the area embraced by Manlowe's certificate could rationally be drawn from the evidence presented. 16 The evidence here consisted chiefly of three supporting shippers' statements. Only one of these listed destinations more than thirty miles from railroad yards in the San Francisco Bay Area, the origin points common to all three shippers. That statement, submitted by shippers' agent Twin City Piggyback, Inc., lists only three destinations more than thirty miles from these same origin points: Modesto, Fresno, and Sacramento, California. Only Fresno is more than 100 miles from San Francisco. Twin City Piggyback estimated that it would tender eight to twelve trailerloads per month to applicant Manlowe. Nothing in the record indicates how many (or few) of these loads would be bound for Fresno. No additional evidence presented to the Commission since our decision in Containerfreight I leads us to change our previous conclusion that [t]he statements of the supporting shippers on their face demonstrate a need only for services in the San Francisco Bay Area and at most to points between Sacramento in the North and Fresno in the South. 685 F.2d at 332. 17 Although shipper statements are not the exclusive means by which an applicant can show the need for its services, see J.H. Rose Truck Line, Inc. v. I.C.C., 683 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1982); Art Pape Transfer, 32 M.C.C. at 94, the weight given to evidence other than shipper statements depends on its quality, its quantity, and the credibility of its source. See J.H. Rose, 683 F.2d at 950. Some hard information or genuine proposal is required. Mere assertions alone are insufficient. Pre-Fab Transit Company Extension--Nationwide General Commodities, 132 M.C.C. 409, 414 (1981). 4 18 In this proceeding, Manlowe has produced no sufficient hard information or genuine proposal. It submitted no statistical evidence or other attempt to buttress the bare assertion that it is requesting the entire State of California in order to efficiently utilize its equipment and provide total service to the supporting shippers even though the primary service area will initially be Northern California. Similarly, in the years since it first applied for operating authority, Manlowe has produced no record evidence to substantiate the claim that its proposed destinations, from past experience, are likely to be in any community that is able to receive and warehouse the products contained in the trailers. 19 In granting Manlowe's application, the Commission relied on policy considerations and the general rule that [b]road grants allow carriers to meet changing needs of shippers and receivers and the diverse demands of the market and the shipping public, and to take advantage of technological advances and changing industrial patterns. Manlowe United, Inc., Common Carrier Application, No. MC-153155 F (February 14, 1983) (Order), at 6. The Commission also found that two goals of the national transportation policy, the promotion of intermodal transportation and of service to small communities, would be served by the grant of authority. 20 The Commission stated in its Order that it was not limited to considering only shipper support or traffic moving between specific points, but could also consider evidence of other benefits from granting broad authority that will serve a useful public purpose. Id. We are aware that the Commission, as an administrative agency, may decide cases based on official notice or expertise not strictly contained within the four corners of the information submitted by the parties. Pre-Fab, 132 M.C.C. at 412. The Commission, however, may not simply adopt Manlowe's assertions of public need. The Commission must give some reasons why it wholly credited Manlowe's claims, in the face of the protestants' conflicting claims. Recasting the applicant's claims as findings does not suffice. 21 Moreover, policy considerations alone cannot support a finding of public need for statewide authority. Rather, the Commission must look to the particular facts of each case in making a determination of public need. See Green Field Transport Co., Extension--General Commodities, 132 M.C.C. 485, 490 (1981), (aff'd sub nom, Refrigerated Transport Co. v. I.C.C., 673 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1982); see also Port Norris Express Co. v. I.C.C., 729 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1984) (ICC may not justify grant of authority purely on policy grounds but must base its decision on record evidence) (quoting Port Norris Express Co. v. I.C.C., 687 F.2d 803, 809-11 (3d Cir.1982)). Otherwise, an applicant could receive ICC authority simply by asserting that several goals of the national transportation policy since the 1980 Act would be served by granting its application. Were we to affirm the Order we would be allowing the Commission to disregard its own admonition that Congress wanted the particular facts of each case to be looked at, Green Field, 132 M.C.C. at 489, and shirking our responsibility under the APA. 22 The cases amply support our decision. Applications under the 1980 Act have been denied to the extent the service proposed exceeded the public need demonstrated or reasonably to be inferred. 5 Likewise, courts have affirmed grants of authority that were vigorously opposed, where the geographic scope of the grants more reasonably conformed to the public need shown. 6 23 In summary, we can find no substantial evidence in the record of public need for the statewide authority granted. The evidence submitted by the parties since our prior decision consists largely of verified statements disputing the status of a civil action against applicant's president, which alleges fraud, misrepresentation and embezzlement. Applicant has placed in the record no more hard information regarding public need than we reviewed in our previous decision. The Commission's Order, while a finer rationalization than its predecessors, cannot cure the application's deficiency of need evidence.