970204.docx

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
MYRNA WALTERS
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
DAVID SCOTT
RON LAW
WORKING FILE
FROM:BRAD PURDY
DATE:February 4, 1997
RE:CASE NO. M-6859-8.  REQUEST FOR SHORT TERM CONDITIONAL PERMIT FOR ARNOLD GUMM DBA MOBILE HOME RELOCATORS (MHR).
On September 30, 1996, MHR applied for Permanent Motor Carrier Authority.  MHR possessed an IPUC permit several years ago but                  .  On December 4, 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 26699 finding that MHR had demonstrated a willingness to conform to the provisions of the Idaho Motor Carrier Act and the Commission’s rules and that the applicant would be issued Permit No. 6859 upon compliance with the regulations of the Commission pertaining to a satisfactory safety rating.  The Order further ruled that if the applicant failed within 42 days from the date of the Order to submit to the Commission necessary certificates of insurance and other documents required to be filed with the Commission by statute, rule or order, the Commission Secretary would issue notice that the authority never became effective.  
On January 3, 1997, a safety review of MHR was conducted which disclosed that the applicant had few records.  Staff notes that this is typical with new carriers and that in such cases, the review is often turned into an educational contact not resulting in a rating and that the carrier is often given a permit allowing a one year period to obtain a satisfactory rating.  This practice of granting a one year permit comes from Rule 41.04(a) which provides:
Compliance with Motor Carrier Act and these Rules.  The applicant must show that  it will conform to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and other requirements promulgated by the Commission pursuant to these MCR’s:
a.  To demonstrate safety, fitness and ability, the application shall show that the applicant has received and maintained a “satisfactory” rating or has a “conditional” rating, which will upgraded to “satisfactory” within one year, as defined in MCR 12.
Rule 41.04(a) was amended on February 21, 1995 to allow applicants one year, as opposed to 120 days, to obtain a satisfactory rating in order to more easily accommodate the Commission’s Staffs ability to reschedule compliance reviews.  Based upon its record, however, Staff is uncomfortable with allowing MHR to operate for one year before conducting another safety review.  ELABORATE.  Staff recommends that the Commission grant a 120 day conditional permit to MHR.  At the end of that time, Staff will conduct another compliance review to determine whether  MHR can achieve, at a minimum, a “conditional” safety rating.
Staff believes that the Commission’s Motor Carrier Rules provide a reasonable degree of latitude in conditioning the granting of Motor Carrier Permits including deviating from the one year practice stemming from Rule 41.04(a).  Rule 1 of the Motor Carrier Rules provides that “procedural rules and these Motor Carrier Rules will be liberally interpreted to secure a just, speedy and economical determination of issues presented to the Commission.  Unless prohibited by statute or rule of substantive law, the Commission may permit deviation from procedural rules in these Motor Carrier Rules when it finds compliance within is impracticable, unnecessary or not in the public interest.”  Clearly, the Commission has the power to refuse to grant a permit or to revoke or to rescind one.  Staff believes, therefore, that the Commission also has the authority to impose a lesser sanction, such as granting a 120 day as opposed to a one year conditional permit.
Commission Decision:
Does the Commission wish to issue a 120 day conditional permit to MHR?
Brad Purdy
cm\M:m68598.bp