that storage point. The shipper has experienced difficulty in the use of protestant's service from La Grange in the past, and considers such service to be unreliable. For several years the shipper has served its customers located within the La Grange sales area from Coralville. The shipper has also supplied such customers from its La Grange facility by use of its own equipment. In other instances, the shipper's customers in Illinois and Iowa have picked up and transported their purchases in their own vehicles. Within the past year, some shipments were transported by protestant from La Grange to points in Illinois and Iowa. The shipper has determined that the cost of distributing its products to points in western Illinois and southeastern Iowa could be reduced substantially by use of a consistently reliable motor common carrier service from La Grange. Accordingly, it sought out applicant and requested it to file the instant application. Protestant holds rather extensive authority from this Commission and, as here pertinent, is authorized to transport the considered traffic from La Grange to the involved areas in western Illinois and southeastern Iowa. However, because of past experience with protestant's service, the shipper doubts its ability to provide reliable service. This is borne out by the expressed view that the absence of suitable common carrier service in addition to that of protestant from La Grange is inhibiting the shipper's ability to fully exploit its market potential in Illinois and Iowa, and of its declared purpose of seeking service other than that of protestant to move its traffic from that point.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

It seems apparent that Coralville and La Grange are competing distribution points of petroleum and petroleum products, and that the availability of at least four competing carrier services at the former point places the latter, with only one carrier service, at a competitive disadvantage. We are of the view that the availability of the proposed service from La Grange in addition to that of the protestant would instill an element of flexibility in the shipper's distribution pattern at potentially reduced costs, and that the existence of two carrier services from La Grange would be in the public interest.

Relative to the scope of the proposed destination territory, the evidence presented relates only to points in Illinois and Iowa within the limited area described in our findings. Accordingly, the grant of authority herein will be so restricted.

FINDINGS

On reconsideration, we find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, over irregular routes, of petroleum and petroleum products, except liquid fertilizer solutions, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from La Grange, Mo., to points in that portion of Illinois bounded on the north by Moline, on the east by U. S. Highway 67, on the south by U. S. Highway 36, between the Mississippi River and the junction of U. S. Highways 36 and 67, and on the west by the Mississippi River; and to points in that portion of Iowa bounded on the north by U. S. Highway 34 between and including Ottumwa and Burlington, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by the Iowa-Missouri border, and on the west by U. S. Highway 63 between Ottumwa and the Iowa-Missouri border.

We further find that applicant is fit, willing, and able, properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and to the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder; that a certificate authorizing such operation should be granted; and the application in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate certificate will be issued.

An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER HUTCHINSON, dissenting:

In my opinion, the evidence fails to establish any material inadequacy in the service available from protestant Eldon Miller, Inc., and I would, therefore, deny the application.

95 M.C.C.

EX PARTE NO. MC-191

PRACTICES OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF
HOUSEHOLD GOODS

Decided April 30, 1964

1. In Ex Parte No. MC-19, upon further proceedings, existing rules governing the practices of motor common carriers of household goods revised in certain respects, and certain additional rules prescribed. Reports in pertinent prior proceedings: 17 M.C.C. 467, 47 M.C.C. 119, 48 M.C.C. 59, 51 M.C.C. 247, and 71 M.C.C. 113.

2. In Ex Parte No. MC-1, upon further proceedings, proposed rules governing the extension of credit to shippers found unnecessary. Prior report: 2 M.C.C. 365.

3. In Ex Parte No. MC-61, new Released Rates Order No. MC-505, applicable to motor common carriers of household goods, found to be just and reasonable. Outstanding Released Rates Orders Nos. MC-2-B, MC-309, MC-330, MC-362, and MC-429, rescinded.

4. In Ex Parte No. MC-62, proposals for legislative recommendations found unnecessary.

5. Proceedings discontinued.

James L. Beattey, Paul Clarke, Eldon R. Clawson, E. J. Flavin, R. E. Garrett, Griswold B. Holman, Jackson W. Kendall, L. A. Larimore, J. T. McBrayer, Charles D. Morgan, John J. Rapp, G. M. Rebman, Lester L. Richards, Edward W. Schumacher, Lucien W. Shaw, William O. Turney, E. S. Wheaton, and Alan F. Wohlstetter for respondents.

R. Edwin Brady, David Brodsky, Herbert Burstein, Berry 0. Burt, Homer S. Carpenter, S. S. Eisen, John E. Faulk, Richard M. Hartsock, Robert N. Kharasch, Thomas R. Kingsley, Clarence J. Koontz, Ernest H. Land, Wm. J. Lippman, J. A. Macomber, Jr., Donald R. Markham, L. E. Masoner, Clement T. Mayo, Allen J. O'Brien, Thomas J. O'Reilly, Carl L. Phinney, William R. Pierce, Lt. Col. Merle C. Rideout, Jr., Curtis L. Wagner, Jr., Fred A. Wiecking, and Francis Wyche for interveners.

1This report also embraces Ex Parte No. MC-1, Payment of Rates and Charges of Motor Carriers; Ex Parte No. MC-61, Released Rates of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods; and Ex Parte No. MC-62, Legislative Recommendations Re Practices of Household Goods Carriers.

Fred E. Cochran and Ellis V. Gregory for Bureau of Inquiry and Compliance, Interstate Commerce Commission.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

WEBB, Vice Chairman:

These proceedings were heard upon a consolidated record, were the subject of a single report and recommended order of the hearing examiner, involve related issues, and will be disposed of here in one report. Exceptions to the order recommended by the examiner were filed jointly by American Movers Conference, Household Goods Carriers' Bureau, and Movers and Warehousemen's Association of America, Inc., interveners, and separately by George B. Holman Co., Inc., respondent. The Bureau of Inquiry and Compliance, Interstate Commerce Commission, replied thereto. The issues presented by the consolidated proceedings have been argued orally. Our conclusions in Ex Parte No. MC-19 differ somewhat, and in Ex Parte No. MC-61 differ considerably, from those of the examiner.

On January 16, 1961, pursuant to authority granted under section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend, renumber, and revise certain provisions of Title 49, Part 176 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate or Foreign Commerce, designated as Ex Parte No. MC-19, Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods; and to amend section 188.1, Part 188 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Extension of Credit to Shippers, designated as Ex Parte No. MC-1, Payment of Rates and Charges of Motor Carriers. The proposals in these two proceedings are set forth in appendix A hereto. By order dated January 16, 1961, in Ex Parte No. MC-61, Released Rates of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, the Commission instituted a proceeding under sections 20(11), 204(a), and 219 of the Interstate Commerce Act to consider the desirability and feasibility of rescinding Released Rates Orders Nos. MC-2-B, MC-309, MC-362, and MC-429 entered respectively, on April 21, 1953, March 28, 1950, May 22, 1951, May 24, 1954, and September 26, 1958, and of substituting in lieu thereof a released rates order reading substantially as set forth in appendix B hereto.

By order dated January 16, 1961, in Ex Parte No. MC-62, Legislative Recommendations Re Practices of Household Goods Carriers, the Commission instituted an investigation, pursuant to

section 204(a)(7) of the act, into the practices of, and the manner and methods of the performance of service by, motor common carriers subject to the act engaged in the transportation of household goods and into the desirability of transmitting to the Congress recommendations for the enactment of legislation dealing with the operations and practices of such carriers, including, but not limited to, legislation which would provide:

(a) that each such carrier shall publish and file with the Commission tariffs which shall state the maximum rates and charges of the carrier, and the lawful charges for transportation and other services on any shipment shall be either (1) the charges determined in accordance with such tariffs, (2) any charges upon which the carrier and the shipper have agreed in writing, or (3) the charges stated in any written estimate given to the shipper by the carrier, whichever will result in the lowest charge to the shipper.

(b) that penalties and forfeitures be imposed to prevent excessive underestimation of charges.

The Commission's Bureau of Inquiry and Compliance (the Bureau) was made a party to the proceedings by Commission order. The respondent motor carriers of household goods (the industry) participated through the intervention of five organizations 2 representing substantially all active carriers in the field. In addition, George B. Holman & Co., Inc., and Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., respondents, participated separately, the former essentially concurring in the industry position, and the latter taking an independent position. Also participating as interveners were the General Services Administration on behalf of the civilian executive agencies of the United States; the Department of Defense; and the Military Traffic Management Agency.

I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

As will be explained in greater detail in later sections of this report, the examiner recommended the rejection of certain of the proposals and the adoption of others, with changes and substitutions in some instances. On exceptions, in addition to a number of objections to specific recommendations, which will be dealt with later under appropriate headings, the industry disputes the pro

2Those organizations are: Movers Conference of America; The American Movers Institute; The Household Goods Carriers Bureau; Movers and Warehousemen's Association of America, Inc.; and The New York Movers Tariff Bureau, Inc.