Court Opinion

ID: 9470514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:07:58.71219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:56.535429
License: Public Domain

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Except for the one reservation set forth below, I concur in this opinion. However, I cannot go along with the opinion in its acceptance of the conclusory manner in which the Commission appears to have considered the mandates outlined in the National Transportation Policy Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10101(a). Relying on J.H. Rose Truck Line, Inc. v. I.C.C., 683 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1982), and Alamo Express, Inc. v. I.C.C., 673 F.2d 852 (5th Cir.1982), the opinion holds that as long as the needs of the shippers are satisfied, the Commission need not make any additional findings under the National Transportation Act. I cannot agree.
While it is true that the Commission need not examine each of the factors outlined in section 10101(a)(7), Alamo Express, 673 F.2d at 860, and that some of the factors may reflect conflicting interests, I.C.C. v. J-T Transport Co., 82 S.Ct. 204, 209 (1961), the Commission nonetheless has the duty to identify the competing interests, judge them, and strike a balance. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 95 S.Ct. 438, 446 (1974). See also Baggett Transportation Co. v. U.S., 666 F.2d 524, 531 (11th Cir.1982).
In this case, the protestants presented credible, and apparently uncontradicted evidence that fuel and equipment inefficiencies would result from the grant of Shaw’s application. The Commission did not specifically address this issue. Its' decision merely states in broad and conclusory terms that “[tjhis action will not significantly affect ... the conservation of energy resources.” This superficial treatment goes counter to one of the mandates of the Commission, which is “to promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2). (emphasis added) In affirming this portion of the Commission’s decision, the opinion holds that the goals of the National Transportation Policy Act are satisfied as long as the needs of the shipper are satisfied. This holding leads to a result inconsistent with legislative policy by equating the needs of the shipper with the transportation needs of our nation. Stated differently, since a carrier routinely submits in his application statements from shippers demonstrating the need for his services, it follows from this opinion that such a demonstration of public need would amount to automatic satisfaction of the public interest as embodied in the National Transportation Policy Act.
My conclusion is consistent with the cases cited in the opinion. In Rose, this court held that a finding on two of the factors outlined in section 10101(a)(7), enhancement of competitive opportunities and achievement of efficient use of equipment, satisfied the requirements of the National Transportation Act. 683 F.2d at 951. In Alamo Express, the court held that a finding that the needs of the shipper were met, coupled with the lack of any credible evidence on future harm,1 also satisfied the *850requirements of the Act. Here, protestants presented credible evidence on future harm, which the Commission rejected in the most general and conclusory fashion. I would remand the case to the Commission for additional findings consistent with this dissent.

. The protestant in Alamo Express alleged that granting the requested permit would cause: (1) impairment of service to small communities, (2) impairment of its ability to earn profits and pay fair wages, and (3) adverse impact on the fuel efficiency of its operations. These alleged harms are some of the factors outlined in the *850National Transportation Policy Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(7)(E), (C), and (D). 673 F.2d at 860.