Opinion ID: 478554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission's 1983 Policy Statement

Text: 12 In deciding to issue the permits challenged here, the ICC relied on its policy statement, Issuance of Permits Authorizing Industry-wide Service, 133 M.C.C. 298 (1983), in which the Commission announced that applicants would be granted contract carrier authority to serve an industry or industries as a class, ... provided applicant meets the equipment dedication or distinct needs test of contract carriage with respect to the class as a whole. Id. at 298. Noting that [t]here is no longer any statutory justification for restricting the scope of competitive activity among contract carriers, the Commission concluded that [g]ranting contract carrier permits by class or industry provides important potential competition because it allows contract carriers to solicit additional contracts without obtaining prior regulatory approval to serve new customers. Id. at 301. The Commission stated that an applicant for a contract carrier permit could satisfy the dedication of equipment requirement by represent[ing] that it will enter into contracts only with those shippers to which it will dedicate equipment, and it refused to require the dedication of specific equipment to each shipper within a given class prior to service. Id. at 301-02. The Commission reasoned that such a requirement would create an evidentiary impasse, id. at 301, apparently because an applicant would be unable to dedicate equipment to specific shippers without identifying which shippers it intended to serve. The Commission also announced that an applicant for a contract carrier permit to serve a class of shippers need not submit statements of shipper support, noting that the applicable ICC regulation permits applicants to submit verified certifications of shipper or witness support. Id. at 302 & n. 7 (emphasis in original) (citing 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1160.5(d)). 13