Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

conclusion, the fact that applicant contemplates trip-leasing his vehicles to other carriers for return movements to eastern points is without significance in determining whether applicant's proposal is that of a contract carrier.

As to whether or not the issuance of a permit will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy, section 209(b) of the act requires that we consider the following factors: (1) the number of shippers to be served by applicant, (2) the nature of the service proposed, (3) the effect a grant of authority would have upon the services of protesting carriers, (4) the effect a denial herein would have on applicant and its supporting shipper, and (5) the changing character of shipper's requirements. The record has been reviewed in light of the contentions raised on exceptions and the replies thereto, and of the Supreme Court's decision in Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., 368 U.S. 81 (1961). Briefly, that decision emphasizes that all of the above-enumerated criteria must be considered equally, and that in determining where the public interest lies we must consider the "distinct" need of the shipper that a contract carrier's service is designed to meet, rather than the existence of "reasonably adequate" transportation service.

In considering the nature of the proposed service we note that the feasibility of the operation under discussion hinges primarily upon compensation from backhaul traffic which is exempt from economic regulation. In that regard, the shipper has been operating in that manner for years, and has made and nurtured definite connections for the receipt of such exempt traffic. Applicant has communicated with these persons and has been assured of receiving for transportation the exempt commodities presently handled by the supporting shipper.

As noted, protestants have handled very little of the type of traffic involved, and it is clear that none of those whose services are of record are able to offer a territorially broad and flexible service that would be as responsive to the shipper's overall transportation needs, if it is to meet the variable demands of its customers, as the service applicant proposes. Moreover, the physical transfer of lading on less-than-truckload shipments would have some tendency to damage the shipper's fragile product. Under the circumstances, no adverse effect upon protestants' operations can be discerned by a grant of the authority requested. Conversely, a denial of the application would deprive applicant of the opportunity to provide a service shown to be needed, and

would deprive the shipper of a service particularly responsive to its shifting transportation requirements, as well as impede the realization of the shipper's desire to eliminate its private carrier operations into the involved destination territory. Weighing in balance the criteria set forth in section 209(b) of the act, then, we conclude that this application should be granted to the extent set forth in our findings.

One other matter requires mention. The supporting shipper herein is interested in shipping wire cloth made of aluminum, brass, bronze, copper, iron and steel. The commodity description in the application is somewhat confusing and redundant, and, therefore, we shall modify it by designating the commodities sought to be transported as, simply, wire cloth.

We find that operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of wire cloth, from York, Pa., to points in California, Texas, and Oklahoma, limited to a transportation service to be performed under a continuing contract or contracts with New York Wire Cloth Company, of York, Pa., will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder; that a permit authorizing such operation should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 218, and 221(c) of the act, with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, and with the requirements established in Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M.C.C. 628, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate permit will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER TIERNEY concurs in the result.

95 M.C.C.

No. MC-1931 (SUB-NO. 5)1

MOLLERUP VAN LINES ALASKA GRANDFATHER APPLICATION

1. In No. MC-107012 (Sub-No. 30), applicant found entitled to a certificate of public convenience and necessity, under the "grandfather" provisions of section 206(a) of the act, authorizing continuance of operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle of household goods, between points in Alaska, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the continental United States other than those in Alaska, by reason of having been engaged in such operation on and continuously since August 26, 1958. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied.

2. In the remaining proceedings embraced in this report, respective applicants found to have failed to establish the right to certificates of public convenience and necessity under the "grandfather" provisions of section 206(a) of the act. Applications denied.

DECISION AND ORDER

At a Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Division 1, Commissioners Hutchinson, Herring, and Tierney, held at its office in Washington, D. C., on the 18th day of December A. D. 1963.

Upon consideration of the applications and the joint record in the above-entitled proceedings, including the report and recommended order of the examiners, the exceptions thereto filed separately by applicants American Red Ball Transit Company, Inc., King Van Lines, Inc., National Van Lines, Inc., TransAmerican Van Service, Inc., Andrews Van Lines, Inc., Security Van Lines, Inc., United Van Lines, Inc., Allied Van Lines, Inc., U. S. Van Lines, Inc., Martin Van Lines, Inc., Mollerup Van Lines, Inc., and jointly by Dean Van Lines, Inc., Global Van

1This decision and order also embraces the following applications, the titles thereof consisting of the names mentioned below succeeded by the expression "Alaska Grandfather Application": Nos. MC-2934 (Sub-No. 3), Aero Mayflower Transit Company, Inc., MC-6992 (Sub-No. 6), American Red Ball Transit Company, Inc., MC-8768 (Sub-No. 25), Security Van Lines, Inc., MC-15735 (Sub-No. 15), Allied Van Lines, Inc., MC-22254 (Sub-No. 29), Trans-American Van Service, Inc., MC-26825 (Sub-No. 6), Andrews Van Lines, Inc., MC-36900 (Sub-No. 9), U. S. Van Lines, Inc., MC-40215 (Sub-No. 12), Richardson Transfer and Storage Co. Inc., MC-41098 (Sub-No. 9), Global Van Lines, Inc., MC-42866 (Sub-No. 7), National Van Lines, Inc., MC-52793 (Sub-No. 13), Bekins Van Lines, Co., MC-67234 (Sub-No. 6), United Van Lines, Inc., MC-70272 (Sub-No. 22), King Van Lines, Inc., MC-110149 (Sub-No. 4), Dean Van Lines, Inc., MC-110585 (Sub-No. 11), Republic Van and Storage Co., Inc., and MC-112263 (Sub-No. 8), Martin Van Lines, Inc.

Lines, Inc., and Republic Van and Storage Co., Inc., and the replies to certain of the exceptions filed by North American Van Lines, Inc., and jointly by Alaska Orient Van Service, Inc., Continental Van Lines, Inc., and Smyth Overseas Van Lines, Inc., protestants; and

It appearing, That in Nos. MC-2934 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-52793 (Sub-No. 13) the recommended order of the examiners became effective by operation of law on August 9, 1963; that by petitions filed August 23 and 30, 1963, respectively, applicants in Nos. MC-2934 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-52793 (Sub-No. 13) seek reopening of such proceedings and leave to file exceptions therein to the recommended order of the examiner; that replies to said pleadings have been filed by North American Van Lines, Inc., Alaska Orient Van Service, Inc., Continental Van Lines, Inc., and Smyth Overseas Van Lines, Inc., and that the issues raised in said pleadings in Nos. MC-2934 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-52793 (Sub-No. 13) are related to and should be disposed of concurrently with those in the other above-entitled proceedings; therefore,

It is ordered, That the late filed exceptions be, and they are hereby, accepted for filing in Nos. MC-2934 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-52793 (Sub-No. 13) as petitions for reconsideration; and

It further appearing, That the said pleadings, including the said petitions, raise no new or material matters of fact or law not adequately considered and properly disposed of by the examiners in their report, and are not of such nature as to require the issuance of a report by division 1 discussing the evidence in the light of such pleadings;

It further appearing, That the examiner recommended that the said applications be denied;

Wherefore, and good cause appearing therefor:

We find, That the evidence considered in the light of the said pleadings does not warrant a result different from that reached by the examiners; and that the statement of facts, the conclusions, and the findings of the examiners, being proper and correct in all material respects, should be, and they are hereby, affirmed and adopted as our own; and

It is ordered, That the petitions be, and they are hereby, denied. 95 M.C.C.

It is further ordered, That the said applications for "grandfather" certificates of public convenience and necessity be, and they are hereby, denied, effective February 3, 1964.

The statement of facts, conclusions, and findings of the examiners follow:

These 192 so-called Alaska "grandfather" applications involve related issues, and will be disposed of in a single report.

The several applications were assigned to the examiners for hearing and the recommendation of an appropriate order thereon, and they were heard, on a consolidated record, at Spokane, Wash., June 25 through June 29, 1962, at Chicago, Ill., on September 17 and 18, 1962, and at Anchorage, Alaska, on October 15, 1962. Each of the applications is opposed by one or more motor common carriers operating in the affected territory, and the Department of Commerce, State of Alaska, intervened as its interest might appear.

All of the applications seek authority under the "grandfather" provisions of section 206(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act for the continuance of operation to and from points in Alaska, and most also seek authority for operation between points in Alaska, in the transportation of household goods as defined by the Commission. One applicant, Trans-American, also seeks authority for the transportation of pianos, typewriters, and self-propelled propertyor passenger-carrying vehicles, but no evidence was submitted in respect of the movement of these items to, from, or between points in Alaska on and continuously since the critical date for the determination of "grandfather" rights. The territorial scope of the authority sought by each applicant is set forth in appendix A, hereto. All of the several applicants are seeking operating rights between points in Alaska, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in all or a number of continental States south of the southern Canadian border, hereinafter called the "South-48." The granting of "grandfather" authority for the continuance of such "overhead" service is provided for in section 206(a)(4) of the act. In addition, all applicants except Mollerup, Andrews, Richardson, Bekins, Dean, and Express seek authority, under the provisions of section 206(a)(5) of the act, for the continuance of operations between points in Alaska. Trans-American has included in its application a request for authority to operate between Seattle, Wash., and points within the South-48, as described in appendix A, and certain other carriers have included a request for authority to operate to and from Hawaii. Such requests are beyond the scope of the benefits bestowed by the respective "grandfather" clauses indicated above.

2Only 17 of the applications are involved in division 1's decision and order of December 18, 1963.

95 M.C.C.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »