Opinion ID: 399121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Which Law Applies?

Text: 29 Because Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 in the midst of the proceedings below, there is some confusion over whether to apply this new law or the old Motor Carrier Act of 1935. The ALJ determined that the new law applied, while the Commission division only remarked briefly that the evidence satisfied both the old and new laws. Appellants argue that the old law alone should have been applied. We conclude, however, that on the facts of this case the new law applied. 30 As a general rule, a new statute should apply to cases pending on the date of its enactment ... unless manifest injustice would result, or there is a statutory directive or legislative history to the contrary. Corpus v. Estelle, 605 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 1284, 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980) (citing Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974)). Under Bradley, a finding of manifest injustice depends on three factors: the nature and identity of the parties, the nature of the parties' rights, and the impact of the change in law on those rights. In this case, the second and third factors reveal that no injustice occurred, primarily because the application of the new law did not unfairly deprive appellants of any legal rights. Appellants had no unconditional right to render their motor carrier services without competition from others, nor had they any vested right to have such competition determined under the old law. They received adequate notice of the new law, since Congress enacted it prior to the presentation of their cases-in-chief and the ALJ instructed them to write their briefs accordingly. And their nature and identity-the first factor under Bradley-seems neutral here because applicants and appellants are equally capable in their prosecution of this case. Even if appellants' position as small businesses makes them more deserving of protection, it does not outweigh the second and third factors here. See Bradley v. Richmond School Board, supra, 416 U.S. at 716-21, 94 S.Ct. at 2019-21, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). 31 Moreover, Congress did not prohibit the new law's application in these circumstances. In passing the new law, Congress found that legislative and resulting changes should be implemented with the least amount of disruption to the transportation system consistent with the scope of the reforms enacted. Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Pub.L.No.96-296, § 3(a), 94 Stat. 793 (1980). Here, the enacted reforms were implemented without any disruption at all. The applications involved were decided fairly and effectively under the new law, causing no harm in the proceedings and allowing a smooth transition to the transportation system envisioned by Congress in the new law. Indeed, to require the application of the old law here would cause great disruption by forcing the parties and the Commission to begin anew a case that all parties agree could eventually be decided under the new law. 7 Congress did not intend the enactment of the new law to cause such tribulation. 32 Thus, Bradley compels the application of the new law to this case. Appellants argue, however, that the Commission's pending application rule, 45 Fed.Reg. 45,537-38 (1980), forbids this result. The pending application rule applied the old law to applications pending on July 1, 1980, but allowed an applicant who was eventually denied authority under the old law an opportunity for reconsideration under the new law. As appellants note, the rule has the force of law; nevertheless, this does not necessarily bind the Commission to follow the rule in all cases. It is always within the discretion of a court or administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it. The action of either in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288, 1292, 25 L.Ed.2d 547 (1970), citing Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 256 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1958). The pending application rule is clearly a procedural rule designed for the orderly transaction of business-namely, for the processing of applications while implementing the new law. As the Commission observed in promulgating the pending application rule, there are many thousands of pending applications on hand, and, during this transitional phase, we want to process those with the least amount of disruption to the industry while adhering to the new directions of the Act. 45 Fed.Reg. 45,537 (1980). The Commission did not promulgate the rule primarily to confer important procedural rights. Additionally, the purpose of the rule is not violated by applying the new law in this case. 33 One must recognize the purpose of the Act, and the Congressional findings. The purpose is to reduce unnecessary regulation. The Act recognizes that the previous regulatory structure served to inhibit entry and one of the major goals of the Act is to make entry easier. Additionally, the Act is to be implemented with the least amount of disruption to the industry. 34 Id. (citation omitted). The application of the new law here both reduces unnecessary regulation and creates no disruption. Thus, under these circumstances, the Commission did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily by departing from the pending application rule. 8 35 This conclusion is not undermined by the recent case of Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. ICC, 641 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1981). The Watkins court held only that Congress did not intend the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to apply to matters which, on July 1, 1980, had been decided by the ICC. Id. at 1187. Here, of course, the Commission had not decided the case on July 1, 1980. Further, the rationale employed in Watkins-the avoidance of disruption while implementing the new law-supports the application of the new law on the facts of this case. Watkins correctly applied the old law to cases decided under the old law on July 1, 1980, in order to avoid the disruption of requiring new applications, new opportunities for protest, and new preparation by the Commission. But there is no such disruption to avoid in this case-the protestants presented their cases after the passage of the new law, the parties wrote their briefs under the new law, and the ALJ applied the new law in his Initial Decision. In fact, to require the application of the old law on the facts of this case would create the very disruption that Watkins sought to avoid. 36 We therefore hold that the Commission did not err in applying the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to the instant proceeding. 37