Opinion ID: 406749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The House Committee Report

Text: 32 Inasmuch as the Senate on final passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 adopted the House amendments without any change, 126 Cong.Rec., S. 7684-7685 (daily ed. June 20, 1980), we point to several statements in the House Report as an authoritative indication of the congressional intent with respect to the change in the entry policy for those proposing to enter the motor transportation field. On this point the House Report states: 33 The Committee believes that it is incumbent on the Congress to provide the Commission with guidance regarding motor carrier entry policy. A liberalized entry policy will have a significant impact on the motor carrier industry. 34 The great weight of the testimony, however, was that entry into the motor carrier industry should be liberalized along the lines of the Commission's current policy as set forth in Ex Parte No. MC-121. 35 Paragraph (1) of the new section 10922(b) sets forth the entry standards to be used by the Commission in determining whether to issue a certificate authorizing operation as a motor common carrier of property. It retains the traditional test that all applicants must be fit, willing, and able. However, it revises the public convenience and necessity requirement. Specifically, it reduces the burden of proof on persons supporting the application. Persons supporting the application will be required to come forward with some evidence of a public need or demand for the service. 36 House Report, supra at 13-14 (emphasis added). 37 The House Report further articulated the congressional intent as to the standards to be applied in proving public demand or need: 38 (T)he Committee does not intend to restrict the Commission in which factors it can consider in determining whether the proposed service is responsive to a public demand or need. These factors include the following: a need or demand for new services, innovative quality or price options, increased competition, greater fuel efficiency, improved service for small communities, improved opportunities for minorities, and any other benefits that would serve a useful public purpose. This is consistent with the Commission's consideration of the National Transportation Policy, including any of the applicable factors listed in section 10101(a)(7)(A) through (H). 39 House Report, supra at 15 (emphasis added). In this case both protestants have admitted that granting the application would not be detrimental to the National Transportation Policy (App. 137, 186-187). 14 40 The legislative history also indicates a complete shift in the burden of proof once a useful public purpose is established: 41 Under new section 10922(b)(1), once the applicant has made a prima facie showing that the proposed service would serve a useful public purpose, the burden of proof would shift to persons opposing issuance of the certificate to show that the proposed service is inconsistent with the public convenience and necessity. In other words, it creates a presumption that the grant of the application is consistent with the public convenience and necessity if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed service will serve a useful public purpose. 42 House Report, supra at 15. 43 Thus, proof of some possible diversion, without more, is insufficient to support a denial of a new entry if the applicant meets the other minimal requirements. 44