Opinion ID: 407960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the denial of an oral hearing.

Text: 13 Steere claims nonetheless that some of the evidence was ambiguous and that it should have been granted an opportunity to present its case at an oral hearing. The Commission responds, and we think persuasively, that the contested evidence is immaterial and that an oral hearing could serve no useful purpose. The Commission's rules state: 14 The Commission may, in its discretion, order that a proceeding be heard under modified procedure (i.e., without oral hearing) if it appears that substantially all important issues of material fact may be resolved by means of written materials and that the efficient disposition of the proceeding can be made without oral hearing. 15 ICC Rule 43, 49 C.F.R. § 1100.43 (1981). See also, ICC Rule 253(i)(3), 49 C.F.R. at § 1100.253(i)(3) (oral hearings granted only where use of modified procedure would prejudice a party (or) material issues of decisional fact cannot adequately be resolved without an oral hearing). The material contested issue in the present dispute concerns the testimony of G. M. Buddy Forbess, who testified both in his capacity as president of the petitioner, Petroleum Transport, and as president of Benton Oil, one of the four supporting shippers. The Commission determined that the new service would serve a useful public purpose, responsive to a public demand or need partly on the ground that present carrier services were inadequate, and only Benton Oil, through Mr. Forbess, seemed to be strongly dissatisfied with the present situation. Record at 9 (Steere's service tends to be non-responsive. We have to arrange loads one (1) week in advance because of difficulty in getting trucks.). 16 But the issue in this case is not whether present service is inadequate, cf. Ex Parte No. MC-121, 44 Fed.Reg. 60, 296-98 (1979) (ICC policy statement eliminating adequacy of existing service as an evidentiary factor insofar as it places on the applicant the specific burden of showing that the service it proposes cannot be provided as well by existing carriers), but rather merely whether shippers would use the new service. H.R.Rep.No. 96-1069, supra. On this issue, the record leaves no room for doubt. The new service will be used. It necessarily follows that even if Mr. Forbess were impeached during oral cross examination, the Commission would still issue the certificate. See Trailways, Inc., supra, 681 F.2d at 254 (Although there clearly were disputed issues in this case, Trailways does not point to any issue of material fact as to which oral hearing was necessary for its efficient disposition, even though ... the testimony of isolated witnesses might have been weakened by cross-examination as to details.); cf. Rose I, supra (upholding ICC certificate grant even though no shippers testified in its support). An oral hearing, in short, would do nothing to change the Commission's decision, and is therefore not required. 17 The order of the Commission is AFFIRMED.