Document: 364 U.S. 1 80 S.Ct. 1570 4 L.Ed.2d 1527 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America, Interstate Commerce Commission, al. No. 74. Argued May 19, 1960. Decided June 27, [Syllabus from pages 1-2 intentionally omitted] Mr. Peter T. Beardsley, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Richard A. Solomon, appellee, United States America. Robert W. Ginnane, Commission. L. Pierce, San Francisco, Cal., appellees, Pacific Motor Trucking Co. and General Motors Corp. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. The principal question presented on this appeal is whether appellee Commission properly declined to impose certain restrictions upon motor carrier permits it issued a trucking company which subsidiary railroad. 2 T e in are designed allow Company, wholly owned Southern perform particular type transportation service Corporation. Prior issuance these permits, already had been authorized conduct activities number into Pacific's extensive railway system penetrates. Without adverting immaterial details, that authority may be described as follows: held common certificates commodities, by way auxiliary supplemental rail service, over routes paralleling lines Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. It also contract State California intrastate trucks automobiles. Finally, granted automobiles, trucks, buses points three nonrail two Mexican border, Los Angeles Harbor, Nevada located line. These latter did not contain make Motor's only shipper has Motors. 3 By four applications gave rise present controversy, sought extend scope its requested authorization new automotive equipment plants at Oakland, Raymer, South Gate, various interstate destinations included within prior permits. Generally speaking, first application, designated Sub 34, covered Oakland line Oregon; second, 35, similar points; third, 36, Raymer plant Arizona stations line; last—and broadest—application, 37, Gate seven States, or line.1 proceedings resulted grant some, but all, authority. On 8, 1957, acted favorably 34 application. 71 M.C.C. 561. However, thereafter consolidated heard oral argument. September 9, 1958, final report, 77 605, specifically enough our purposes authorizing additional Utah, Mexico.2 Otherwise, were denied. There other conditions imposed we will detail later, major restriction was limitation destination 5 Appellants—American Associations, Inc., Contract Carrier Conference, National Automobile Transporters Association, six carriers—brought § Federal District Court set aside Commission's order. See 28 U.S.C. 1336, U.S.C.A. 1336. Appellees intervened support named party defendant, together with either participate oppose defense. 2323, 2323. A three-judge court, convened pursuant §§ 2325 2284, 2325, denied relief. 170 F.Supp. 38. Our appellate jurisdiction invoked under 1253, noted probable jurisdiction. 361 806, 51, 53. In Court, opposes supports 6 preliminary challenge appellants' standing, sustained members lower court. We disagree holding. Since basis view problem standing more readily appreciated after merits case have fully treated, postpone discussion matter. 7 critical issue raised appellants exceeded statutory granting railroad without imposing stringent limitations than did. question, court unanimously ruled against This judgment must evaluated light Court's previous decisions, background practice. 8 Both recognized Congress expressed strong general policy invasion field. evinced preamble 1940 amendments Act—the Transportation Policy, 54 Stat. 899—which articulates congressional purpose Act 'so administered recognize preserve inherent advantages' 'all modes transportation.' More particularly, Congress' attitude reflected proviso 5(2)(b) Act,3 enjoins withhold approval an acquisition 'unless finds transaction proposed consistent public interest enable such use vehicle advantage operations unduly restrain competition.' 9 long ago concluded legislation requires standards 5(2)(b)—then 213(a) 1935, 49 555—be followed rule situations, notably convenience necessity 207.4 Kansas City Transport Co., Common Application, 10 221 (1938). And confirmed correctness conception responsibilities both 207. v. Rock Island Transit 340 419, 382, 95 L.Ed. 391; Texas & 450, 422, 409; Parker, 326 60, 65 1490, 89 2051. taken cognizance confirmation reenactment provisions 213(a), some pertinent decisions called attention. supra, page 432, 389. although instant proceeding involves hence falls 209,5 that, relevance standards, there no distinction between th arising 621—622. Nor can discern any grounds differentiation. Thus evident opposition incursions field become firmly entrenched part law. Moreover, fortunately implemented merely less unguided suspicion subsidiaries, rather evolved through series embryonic form reasonably firm, concrete standards.6 bar describes 11 'The usually common-carrier carriers their affiliates order insure rendered thereunder shall train are: (1) performed rail-controlled should limited (2) applicant serve point station railroad, (3) key-point requirement shipments transported those receives delivers bill lading rates covering, addition movement applicant, subsequent rail, (4) all contracts reported subject revision if necessary arrangements fair equitable parties, (5) further specific future, find to, of, service. * *' 12 key phrase summary obviously 'auxiliary service.' If fairly so characterized, clear compliance mandate able 'to operations.' But if, hand, sentially unrelated parent invading trucking, and, normal circumstances, Policy thereby offended. 13 of' verbalization 5(2)(b), applied 207, found favor American Assns. 355 141, 78 165, 158; supra; supra. while specified particularized might regard essential constituents concept, significant apparently accepted implies function, i.e., geographical limitation, place where performed.7 U.S., 436—444, 392—396. 14 judicial administrative current run strongly subsidiaries railroads, determined, agreed, sometimes promoted limitations. prime example Ass'ns being adequately independent concerns. observed mandatory do appear approved attaching 'special circumstances' prevail. concluded: 15 'We repeat underlying divorced Indeed, take 'cognizance' apply 'as whole.' believe acts beyond when occasionally departs supplementary s 207 proceeding.' 151 152, 171. 16 These, then, guiding principles established what gone before mark range inquiry case. Since, indicated, believes, agree, relevant difference 209 far here involved concerned, decisive questions : Did would truly service? not, waiver justified circumstances'? 17 need detain us long. qualified following conditions: restricted (2), 'there time future attached reasonable terms, conditions, national require'; (3), request imposition outstanding respect automobiles trucks. 18 last obviate dual operation 210,8 standard. M.C.C., 624. second condition operations, hardly said limit contained restriction. 154, 172. appellees principally rely, geographical, functional, As noted, gives essence functional control. While true, argue, ingredient restriction, does means follow makes whole. strongest evidence did, since refrained most general, significant, restriction—that 'the 622, 623. conclusion seems inescapable Motor, though undoubtedly 'restrictions' sense, sufficient hold 19 urge nonetheless meanin Associations. findings fact involved, experience qualifications, unlikelihood amount traffic diverted even granted. difficulty appellees' argument considerations nature constituted Associations rule, viewed them simply supporting basic determinations required 209(b) permit applicant.9 naturally substitute matter like this, '(t)he judged record discloses action based.' Securities Exchange Chenery Corp., 318 80, 87, 63 454, 459, 87 626. 20 assigned single reason permits: compel decision ground character-destroying permit.10 determine possesses power attach limitations, or, alternative, award certificate, event, insufficient justification action. Assuming incompatible operation, consequently powerless restrictions, alone view, meet test. is, example, finding unable unwilling same Motor. situation allows authorize line, sim ly because wants operation. desire Motors, combination Act, disables obtaining business, result Policy.11 consequence, believe, compelling standard contrary open door over-the-road most, virtually destinations, greatly attenuate safeguards painstakingly erected prevent domination trucking. say longer needed, 'infant industry.' forum. condemn wisdom does, pardoning belongs Congress. 21 reversed, conclude fell error then arises remand proceedings. Appellants argue be, according apellants, special circumstances alleged impossibility usual carrier. true based rail-point absence showing unusual conditions.' cannot intended meaning principle. pointed out, alone, different kind Consequently, sure believes sort applicability types restrictions. interpretation repeating conclusions e.g., effect services protesting carriers.' note supra.12 Under warranted precluding search record, law, factors could regarded circumstances. Although seem comply standard, silence imply, complicated deal ab initio made een aware rested insufficient. case, remanded applicable opinion. 22 reversal remand, however, include one aspect action—the provide Nevada—which governed rationale small segment controversy submerged dispute much broader covering States. obvious, course, justify award. maintain justification, lacking. perceive upset affirm permit. 23 remains standing. threejudge believed actual anticipated direct injury entitle (the appellants) institute action.' F.Supp., 48. conclusion, rely Atchison, S.F.R. 130 76, affirmed per curiam, 350 892, 76 100 785. That railroads others. Atchison stressed created clearly point. operating rights, they rights stake. surely statement event give business appellant deprive interests independents placed hands sees fit predictions whom go. controlling Alton R. 315 15, 62 86 586, contest certificate competing trucker. conclude, 'party interest' criterion 205(g) 550, 305(g), 'person suffering legal wrong adversely affected aggrieved' 10(a) Administrative Procedure 60 243, 1009(a), 1009(a). 24 disposition unnecessary consider issues 25 hamper discharge heavy responsibilities, always given wide discretion limits; limits case; transgressed. Of remanding intend circumscribe determining appropriate exist instance out otherwise conventional standards. 26 reversed directions proceedings, inconsistent opinion, appropriate. 27 ordered. Affirmed part; directions. With Idaho, Mexico. excluding Mexico adding Montana. One Commissioner who concurred he authority; Commissioners dissented grant; participate, joined dissenters. 906, amended, 5(2)(b). 551, 307, 307. 552, 309, 309. year enactment 1935. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, control Barker Freight, 101. refusing unless met, division stated: '* (W)e convinced healthful competition truck free opportunity go strictly competitive with, operations. language section 213 done. judgment, developed extraordinary extent Improvement now furnished partnership flow concerns generally. financial soliciting resources easily used development hampered restricted, ultimate disadvantage public.' Id., 111—112. traced Co.—Purchase—White Line Freight 40 457. lengthy passim. asserts supplemental' geographical. 'What mind sure. At railroad-affiliated subordinate capacity aids enabling better operate cheaply independently carriers. continually evidenced intention rail-owned railroads. phrase, perhaps too summary, supplemental. Though difficult define precisely, content 41 721, 726 (establishing generally forth text, 7—9 1574—1576 *. practice varied imposed, rail-contion not. 439, 442—443, 393. detailed nected act coordina-Island ('(T)here appears tendency rail-motor treat territorial intent substantive character affiliate acquired right.' 470.) Carrier, 726. ('Since petitioner's railway, engage unconnected To petitioner performing participating all-motor movements bills rates, existing carriers; substituting motor-vehicle service.') 554, 310, 310. Section provides part: 'Subject 310 title, therefor whole hearing thereon, fit, willing, vehicle, conform chapter lawful requirements, rules, regulations thereunder, permit, declared Act; application shippers served proposed, denying and/or changing shipper's requirements. (Emphasis added.) italicized portion added amendment August 22, 411, well 1958. Ziffrin, Inc. 73, 78, 465, 468, 621. 'shall permit) holder assure carry requirements 304(a)(2) (6) title *.' 'Such companies physical facilities—stations, terminals, warehouses—their personnel capital enterprises encompass roads desire. announced development.' 443—444, 396, 391. primarily encroachment Various opposed join federal

Category: 7