Opinion ID: 340779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicability of the Hearing Requirement to Revocation of Gateway Elimination Authority.

Text: 24 The ICC designed a quick and simple procedure for the elimination of gateways. Tens of thousands of gateways were eliminated in a very short time by way of a letter-notice procedure that resulted in virtually automatic approval. The Commission now argues that the quid pro quo for the streamlined procedure should be a relaxation of any hearing requirement prior to revocation of the authority. 25 The Commission has not shown, however, that a hearing requirement would cause a substantial administrative burden. We are unwilling to shortcut procedural due process on the assumption that large numbers of the certificates upon which gateway elimination requests were based contain irregularities of the sort alleged here. 26 Akin to the ICC's argument that gateway elimination should be treated as an easy come, easy go proposition is its contention the Eagle really does not suffer that much from revocation of the gateway elimination authority, because the underlying Sub-No. 272 certificate remains inviolate, allowing Eagle to continue to tack. The Commission does not stress that continued tacking would be allowed only on routes of under 300 miles. 11 Thus, indirectly, a significant alteration of the Sub-No. 272 authority would result from revocation of the gateway elimination permission. 27 The Commission's remaining arguments need not detain us long. The Commission contends that it has revoked nothing in taking away Eagle's gateway elimination authority; it has simply corrected authority improperly issued. The most charitable response to this contention is that it does not advance the analysis. Finally, the ICC suggests that Eagle, after being deprived of its gateway elimination authority, would not be without remedy, because it could always bring a new application claiming that the authority should be restored as being in the public interest. 12 28 We think this procedure would misallocate the burden of proof. Once a certificate, permit, or license has been issued, the burden should be upon the party attacking the certificate, permit, or license to show that the authority should be altered, suspended, or revoked. In this way, the integrity of the grant of operating authority is strengthened and the goal of a stable, efficient, economical, and expeditious national transportation system is better served. Cf. Curtis, Inc., supra, 113 M.C.C. at 177. 29 We remand this case to the ICC for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 30 REVERSED and REMANDED.