Appendix — Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1973

Nos. 73-1055, 73-1069, 73-1070,

73-1071 and 73-1072

BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., JOHNSON MOTOR LINES, INC.,

RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., LORCH-WESTWAY

CORPORATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

and INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

Appellants,

v.

ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.. et ai.,

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, FORT SMITH DIVISION

— ——

LT TS

APPEALS DOCKETED JANUARY 7 AND 8, 1974

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED APRIL 29, 1974

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

INDEX

Volume I

Appendix Page

\ The statutes involved 93

B Report and Order of the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission in Herrin Transportation Company, Ex

tension—Atlanta, Georgia, served January 24

1972. 114 MCC, $71 LO]

( Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in

Herrin Transportation Company, Extension—aAt-

lanta, Georgia, served September 6, 1972, over-

ruling petitions for further hearing and reconsidera

ton

yy)

o

a

D Transcript of hearing before Hon. John E. Miller,

United States District Judge, on November 1, 1972 371

i Transcript of hearmng before Three-Judge District

Court on July 24, 1973 453

I Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conc!usions

of Law submitted by the United States of Amenca

and the Interstate Commerce Commission filed

August 13, 1973 S85

) G Proposed Opinion, Findings cf Fact and Conclu

' sions of Law submitted by defendants, Red Ball

Motor Freight, Inc., Johnson Motor Lines, Inc

and Lorch-Westway Corporation, et al., filed Au-

gust 13, 1973 615

H Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law

and Opinion submitted by Bowman Transportation,

Inc 647

Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclu-

sions of Law served August 16, 1973 ...

Order and Judgment of the United Stetes District

Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort

Smith Division, in Arkansas-Best Freight System,

Inc., et al. v. United States of America and Inter-

state Commerce Commission and Red Ball Motor

Freight, Inc., et al., entered September 11, 1973 ..

Motion of the United States of America and the

Interstate Commerce Commission for Amendment

of Judgment and Memorandum in Support thereof

SN SED Bee GOOD cccceseveneesescass

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States filed by Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.,

on September 27, 1973

Natices of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States filed by Bowman Transportation,

Inc., on October 2, 1973, from the Order entered

on September 11, 1973, and an October 19, 1973,

from the Orders entered on September 11, 1973

and October 4, 1973, separately and severally ...

Order and Opinion of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort

Smith Division, filed October 4, 1973, overruling

and denying the Motion of the United States and

Interstate Commerce Commission for amendment

of the judgment entered on September 11, 1973 ..

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States filed by Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.

CI GT, GSS 0 on cheetahs intercede

697

739

795

801

803

807

W

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States filed by Lorch-Westway Corporation,

et al., on November 5, 1973 . is aT Ttkh

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the

United States filed by the United States of America

and the Interstate Commerce Commission on No-

vember 9, 1973 ... ' eek

Application to Fix Time for Extension of Time to

Docket Case on Appeal and to File Jurisdictional

Statements filed with the Clerk of the United States

Supreme Court on November 12, 1973 835

Request for Designation and C-rtification of the

Record filed with the Clerk of the United States

District Court on November 14, 1973 84]

Order of Hon. Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Jus-

tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, en-

tered November 13, 1973, fixing the time for

docketing appeals to and including January 8, 1974 845

Volume Il

The Relevant Docket Entries . 847

The Report and Order Recommended by Gerald E.

Jessup and Edward E. Kobernusz, Hearing Exam-

iners, in Herrin Transportation Company, Exten-

sion—Atlanta, Georgia, served November 14, 1969 863

The Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission

dated October 6, 1972, denying petitions seeking

a declaration by the Commission that Herrin Trans-

portation Company, Extension—Atlanta, Georgia,

involved an issue of Genéral Transportation Im-

portance .. -wb.oe8bs OS ep Reewes errr

Order and Judgment of the United States District

Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort

Smith Division, in Arkansas-Best Freight System,

Inc., et al. v. United States of America and Inter-

State Commerce Commission and Red Ball Motor

Freight, Inc., et al., entered September 1’, 1973

(originally printed as Appendix J in the Joint Ap-

pendix to Jurisdictional Statements, pages 739-744,

inclusive. Reprinted in full herein)

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

APPENDIX A

Page

The Statutes Involved

i

49 United States Code Annotated, preceding ¢ |

note 301 note, : 901 note, and : 1001 note 93

+9 United States Code Annotated. Sections 17(4)

and iS) yd

{9 United States Code Annotated, Sections 307(a)

and (b) 95

5 United States Code Annotated, Sections 556, 557

anc 706 94

28 United States Code Annotated, Sections 2284(1)

and (5) 1

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

»PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

Pages 1-92 intentionally left blank

ea

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

(1) 49 United States Code Annotated, pre-

ceding FL not §301 note, §901 note,

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY

It is here cec'aread to be the national trans-

portation policy of the Corgress to provice for fair

an 2 imnrartia’ reeulation of e'l modes of transportation

sudiect to the pro s of this Act, so administered as

‘oy recor: e i ve the inherent advantages of

; , rs

f . 7 hs < ine S| =

each; to promote safe, aceruate, economical, anc ei

' f ? ; . Iitinre ;

“cient service and foster sound economic conditions in

a | bi. ° " ‘ ‘ ;

,

transportation and among ¢

he severa! carriers: to en-

’ maintenance of reason-

courage the establishment anc

able charuves for transportation services, without un-

just discriminations, undue preferences or advantages,

or unfair or cestructive competitive practices; to co-

operate with the several States and the duly authorized

officials thereof; and to encourage fair wages and

equitable working conditions;—al! to the end of de-

veloping, coordinating, and preserving a national trans-

portation system by water, highway, and rail, as well

as other means, adequate to meet the needs of the com-

merce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and

of the nationa! defense. All of the provisions of this

Act shall be administerea’ and enforced with a view

’ +s i

to carrying out the above dec!aration of policy.

93

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

(2) 49 United State

Cs

Sections 17(4) and (5)

ewers eof divisions, boards, etc.; eflect of erdera, ete

* A G.V.d.0-8, GN INGiIViIGUas COM MIss.Ci.eT, OF AB BOATG SAi. coo de

Suthorety to hear and Getermine, orcer, ceri.iy, report, or ciLerwise

ac. €$ 10 ay WOrK, vES NESS, OF LUNCLIONS GS2.27.€9 OF re lerres inere-

20 UNCer The PFOVIS,ONS OF THiS SECTION, Gla Wilh respect tsereto shi.i

HOVE Gus THE GETISGICLLON ONG Powers CODierlea Cy law spon the C

18.02, 28G G2 SUBjeCt tO ine SaMe Cuties and cb.izgations. Tne

secretary anc seal of the Commission shail be ihe secretary and seai

os each civision, indiv.dua. Commissioner, or boarc. Excent as oth-

erwise povided in this Section, any order, decision, or requirement

OF & GIV.S.0n, an sNdivicue, Comiaissioner, or a board, with respect to

any Matter s0 assigned or reierred, shall have the same force and

eect, arc may be made and evidenced in the same manner as if

Mace ¢f tane.i by the Commission.

Fiadings, ct:., of Commissioner of board: accompany) .og atatcement

eed recommended urder; ceopice te Parties; craceptiions;

recommended erder ae Ceuimiiesion'’s order

(5) any finding, report, or requirement of an individual Commis-

sioner or board, with respect to any matter so assigned or referred

volving the taking of testimony at a pubiic hearing, shall be ac-

companied hy a statement in writing of the reasons therefor, to-

gether with a recommended order, which shall be Aled with the Com-

mission. Copies thereof shall be served upon interested parties (.n-

c:. ting, in proceedings under chapter 8 of this title, persons speci-

fied in section 305(e) of this title), who may file exceptions there-

to, but if within twenty days after service upon such persons, or

within such further period as the Commission or a culy designatec

division thereof may authorize, no exceptions shai! have been fled,

such recommended order shal! become the orcer of the Commission

nd become effective uniess within such period the order shal! have

been stayed or postponed by the Commission or by a duly designated

division thereof. The Commission, or a duly designated division

thereo?, upon its own motion may, and where exceptions are filed it

shall, reconsider the matter either upon the same record or after

further hearing, and such recommended order shall thereupon be

svayed or postponed pending fina! determination thereof.

94

§ 307. Issuance of certificate—"esuance nuthorlved to quatl-

fied applicants for reciulur routes and between fixed

termini

(n) Subsect to section 310 of this title, a certificate shall Se is

sued to any qu ° ’ 8 o th ‘

any part of the operations covered by on, if it is J

that the amr mt i6 it @ no nec e -ro’ y to nerforn

service proposed and to conform to ¢ r 4 s ch

, ft a ae "

e 7 ron —

thereunder, and that the proposed servi o the extent to De

thorized by the certifics'e, is or will * rec by the preser r

future public convenience and necess:*y otherwise such applica-

on shal! be deniec Provided, however, That no such certificate

shall be issued to any common carrier of passengers Sy motor '

hicle for oper:.tions over other than a regu'ar route or routes, anc

between fixed termini, except as such carricrs may be author:zec

to engage in specia! or carter operations

Certificate net te confer proprietary or property rights ia highway

(b) No certificate issuee’ under this chanter sha‘! confer any pro-

prictary or property rights in the use of the puy.tc highways, Fe».

4. 1887, c. 104, Pt. I, $ 297, as added Aug. % 1935, ¢. 498, 49 Stat

551

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

(4) 5 United States Code Annotated,

Sections 556, 557 and 706.

§ 556. Ilcarings; presiding employees; powers and duties;

burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of de-

cision

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to

hearings required Ly section 553 or 554 of this title to be conducted

in accordance with this section.

(b) There shall preside at the taking of evidence—

(1) the agency;

(2) one or more members of the body which comprises the

agency; or

(S) one or more hearing examiners appointed under section

3105 of this title

This subchapter does not supersede the conduct of specified classes of

proceedings, in whole or in part, by or before boards or other em-

ployees specially provided for by or designated under statute. The

functions of presiding employees and of employees participating in

decisions in accordance with section 557 of this title shall be cen-

ducted in an impartial manner. A presiding or participating em-

Pioyee may at any time disqualify himself. On the filing in good

faith of a timely and sufficient affidavi: of personal! bias er ether

disqualifieation of a presiding or Participating employee, the agency

shall determine the matter as a part of the record and decisien in the

case.

(ce) Subject to published rules of the agency and within its powers

employees presiding at hearings may—

(1) administer oaths and affirmations;

(2) issue subpenas authorized by law;

(3) rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;

(4) take depositions or have depositions taken when the ends

of justice would be served;

(5) regulate the course of the hearing;

(6) hold conferences for the settlement or simplication of the

issues by consent of the parties;

96

ee

’ : 3? .

7) dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;

recommend decisions in accordance with section

3) mand OF

-“—7-

557 of this title; anc

9) take other action authorized by agency rule consistent with

this subcnapter.

Except as otherwise previded by statute, the proponent of a

the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary ¢evi-

ru.e O. rder has v .

on be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall

t. immaterial, or unduly repeti-

. nay Oo . e ager

vide for the exc.usion oO: irresevan |

ion may not be imposed or rule or order

ys evidence. A sanct

the whole record or those parts

ed except on consideration of

} _ ian . .¢) ;

{ cited by a party and supported by and in accorcance with the

ws es - » . be . “! a * .

nrobative nd substantial evidence. A party 1s entitled

i< ‘ Veivi® . ehats tae ‘ Pa

» I ;

‘VU

i. case or defense by oral or documentary evidence,

t3 ttal evidenee, and to conduct such cross-eXamination as

y be required for a ful! and true disclosure o: the facts. In rute

-.king or determining claims for moncy or l« nefits or applications

‘r initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced

by, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the

ra

( ec in written form.

(ce) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all

naners and requests filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exciusive

ision i it} 5 is title and, on

record for decision in accordance with section 557 of this title a

% |

ment of iawfully prescribed costs, shall be made available to the

When an agency decision rests on official notice of a

! fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is

m..teTias 3

ntitled. on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.

Pubd.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 336

4)

parties

§ 557. iitial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency;

su/missions by parties; contents of decisions; rec-

ord

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, when

a hearing fs required to be conducted in accordance with section

556 of this title.

(b) When the agency did not preside at the reception of the evi.

dence, the presiding employee or, in cases not subject to section O54

(d) of this tit!e, an employee qualified to preside at hearings puree

ant to section 556 of this title, shal! initially decide the case un'css

the agency requires, either in specific cases or by gencra! rule, the

entire record to be certified to it for decision. When the presiding

97

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

employee makes an initia! decision, that decision then becomes the

decision of the agency without further proceedings un!ess there is an

appeal! to, or review on motion of, the agency within time provided by

rule. On appea! from or review of the initia! decision, the agency

has al! the powers which it wou'd have in making the initial deci-

sion except ay it may !imit the issues on notice or by rule. When

the agency makes the cecision without having presided at the

reception of the evidence, the presiding emp'oyee or an employee

qualified to preside at hearings pursuant to section 556 of this title

shal! first recommend a decision, except that in rule making or

determining applications fer initial licenses—

(1) instead thereof the agency may issue a tentative decision

or one of its responsible employees may recommend a decision

or

(2) this procedure may be omitted in a case it which the

agency finds on the record that due and timely execution of its

functions imperatively and unavoidably so requires.

(¢) Before a recommended, initial, or tentative decision, or a deci-

sion on agency review of the decision of subordinate emp!oyees, the

parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to submit for the con-

sideration of the employees participating in the decigions—

(1) proposed findings and conclusions: or

(2) exceptions to the decisions or recommended decisions of

subordinate cmp!oyees or to tentative agency decisions; and

(3) supporting reasons for the exeeptions or proposed find-

ings or conclusions.

The record shal! show the ruling on each finding, conclusion, or

exception presented, All decisions, including initla’, recommended,

anid tentative decisions, are an part of the record and shal! include a

rintement of. -

(A) Slndtingn and? conclusions, and the reasons or basis there-

for, on all Che material lasues of fnet, law, or diserction presented

on the record: and

(13) the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief, or denial

thervoé.

Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 387.

98

ee

as

$ 706. Scope of review ee

“tet extent necessary ‘© Cecision and when presented, e

moh + shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret

| and determine the meaning

® eourt Shaliik Ceci

, -v , a

Stik ry prov.sions, ,

te The reviewing

ty of the terms of an agency action.

awfully withheld or unreason:bly

1) compel agency action un:

; ye ! | ‘

. : untawfu! and set aside agency action, findings, an

~ j a UN.a u ‘ } Se. «

conc! wns .< und to 0c

; , —_

A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or othe

wise not in accordance with law; a ;

“B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, ©

immunity; =

f statutory ,urisdiction, authority, or limi-

A in excess O-

tations, or short of statutory mgat,

1D) without observance of procedure required by law;

supnorted by substantial evidence In a case subject

350 "57 of this title or otherwise reviewed on

To sect:uNs voy alec vel ©

the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; er

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts

are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. ;

making the foregoing determinations, the court shal! review the

he le seoand p- those parts of it cited by a party, and due account

taken of the rule of prejudicial error. Pub.L. 89-554, Sept.

+

eiath VE

i, 1966, 80 Stat. 393.

,

99

(S) 28 United States Code Annotated,

Sections 2284 (1) and (5)

§ 2284. Three-judge district court; composition; procedure

In any action or proceeding required by Act of Congress to be

heard and determined by a district court of three judges the compo-

sition and procedure of the court, except as otherwise provided by

law, shall be as follows:

(1) The district judge to whom the application for injunction or

other relief is presented shall constitute one member of such court.

On the filing of the application, he shall immediately notify the chief

judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges, at least

one of whom shal! be a circuit judge. Such judges shal! serve as

members of the court to hear and determine the action or pro

ceeding.

(5) Any one of the three judges of the court may perform a!!

functions, conduct a!! proceedings except the trial, and enter a'! or-

ders required or permitted by the rules of civi! procedure. A siny'e

Judve shall not appoint a master or order a reference, or hear an:

determine any application for an interlocutory injunction or motion

to vavale the same, or dixmixs the action, or enter a summary or fin.!

judgment, The action of a single judge shall be reviewable by the

full court ut any time before fina! hearing.

A district court of three judges sha!!, befor* final hearing, stay any

action pending therein to enjoin, suspend or restrain the enforcement

or execution of a State statute or order thereunder, whenever it

appears that a State court of competent jurisdiction has staved pro-

ceedings under such statute or order pending the determination in

such State court of an action to enforce the same. If the action in

the State court is not prosecuted diligently and in good faith, the

district court of three judges may vacate its stay after hearing upon

ten days notice served upon the attorney general of the State. June

25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 968; June 11, 1960, Pub.L. 86-507, § 1419)

74 Stat. 201. ore

100

Jide th Dea:

ee eee ee

Sh ees et Rd ONE Din ic NR, LO AOE LESLIE, AON) Fat Mae SF

ed

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

APPENDIX B

Report and Order of the Interstate

Commerce Commission in Herrin

Transportation Company, Extension

Atlanta, Georgia, served January 24,

1972, 114 M.C.C. 571

ee ee eee Pn ery SA lh els OIE 90 Nl Se dint BP IEE rola iA

ee

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

Served January 24, 1978

———___

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

No MC-1124 (SuB-No 206)

HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION—

ATLANTA, GA.’

Dex aed December 0) 197)

In No. MC-2229(Sub-No 132). public convenience and necessity found to require

operation by applicant as a comraon carrier by motor schicie of general

commodities. with exceptions, over 4 system of described routes extending (1) be

tween Atlanta, Ga. and Texarkana. Ark.. (2) between Jackson. Miss. and Atlanta

Ga. and (3) between Meridian. Miss, and Tuscaloosa. Ala, subject to a restric

tron and certain conditions. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance

by applicant with certain conditions. and application im al! other respects demed

2. In No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56). public convenience and necessity found to require

operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general

commodities. with exceptions, over a system of described routes gencrally

extending (1) between Mobile, Ala. and Houston, Tex. (2) betwcen Poplarville

Miss., and Baton Rouge. La. (3) between Montgomery, Ala. and the junction of

U.S. Highways !! and 80 and Interstate Highway 59, (4) between Tuscaloosa,

Ala. 20d Fort Worth. Tex, (5S) between Memphis, Tenn... and Topeka, Kans. (6)

between Memphis, Tenn.. and Littie Rock. Ark; (7) between West Memphis

Ark., and Little Rock. Ark.. (8) between Littie Rock, Ark.. and Greenviiic, Miss

(9) between Houston. Tex., and Dalias. Tex . and (10) between Littie Rock. Ark.

and Texarkana. Tea. subject to a condition and certain resirictions. Issuance of a

certificate appros.d upon comphance by applicant with certain condiusons. and

application in all other respects denied

3. In No MC. 10640! (Sub-No 18). public convemence and necess't found to

require operatiwn by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general

commodities, with exceptions. over a system of described routes extending (1) be-

tween Atlanta, Ga. and Fort Worth. Tex. (2) between New Orleans, La. and

Houston. Tex. and (3) between “aontgomery Ala. and the junction of US

Highways |! and 8C near Cuba. Ala. subject in parts and (2) to certain

restrictions Issuance o! a ccruficate approved upon compliance by applicant with

certain conditions. and application in all other respects denied

This report also embraces ihe caght appli. ations identified in appends A to thes report In the

absence of exceptions. the recommended order with respect to the application of Roadway

Express. Inc. im No MC-2202 (Sub-No 273). Decame effective Ds operation of law By order

entered Decemrecr [8, (969. McLean Trucking Company «as substituted as applicant ir No MC

124 (Sub-No 26) m beu cf Herrin Transportation Company

Retuled McLean Treckirg Compars Extension——Atlanta. Ga

i14sMCC .

101

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

$72 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

1. In Nos. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206), MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233). MC-1S088 (Sub-No

36). MC-S9680 (Sub-No. 147). MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304). and MC-111231 (Sub

No. 67). public convenience and necessity found not shown to require the

operations proposed Applications denied

Maurice F. Bishop, James B. Blair. “W. T. Brunson, Jonn P

Carleton. William A. Chestnutt, R. UW. Coallinsworth. David

Crockett, Donald E. Cross, Dougias Faris, Leroy Hallman, William

P. Jackson, Jr.. Claude N. Knox, A. Alvis Layne. William E

Livingstone Ill. Donald B. Lockridge. Emmet McCaffery. Kim D

Vann, Charles D. Matthews, Carl L. Phinney. Jerry C. Prestridee

Ralph W. Pulley, Jr. Robert S. Richard. Harry G. Silleck. Jr

Thomas G. Sloan, Samuel W. Taylor. and William O. Turney for

applicants, and for certain of the applicants as protestants to other

applications.

M. Ward Bailey. Richard A. Bishop, Lennox O. Boyles, Homer §

Carpenter, Drew L. Carraway, James N. Clay Ill, Morris G. Cobb

John A. Crawford. Paul M. Daniell, Lewis B. Doggett. S. Earl Dove

James H. Epps I11, Dan Felts, John S. Fessenden, Charles L. Ford.

Jr. Robert W. Gerson, Charles O. Gillogly, Richard M. Gleason

Wentworth E. Griffin, Stephen L. Grossman, W. F. Goodwin, G. fF

Gunn, Jr. Harold G. Hernly, Harold G. Hernly, Jr. John ©

Henderson, Clifford E. Hillerby, Rolio £. Kidweil 8B. W

Latourette, Jr.. Leon E. Ledfor '. W. C. Mauldin, J. E. May, Harold

D. Miller, Jr., James W. Nisbet, V. R. Oldenburg. Guy H. Posteil.

Sol H. Proctor, John M. Records, Lee Reeder, R. J. Reynolds. Jr.

R. J. Reynolds 111, Lloyd M. Roach, Phillip Robinson, Clifford E

Sanders, John Schwab, Alan E. Serby, Keith Y. Sharpe, S. E.

Somers, Jr., Mert Starnes, Phineas Stevens, F. T. Stroud, Robert E

Tate, Frank W. Taylor, Jr., Eugene K. Walburn, and Ed White for

protestants.

Winston M. Hay’ne, Courts Oulahan. and Charles S. Rhyne for

interveners in support of the application in No. MC-106401 (Sub-

No. 18).

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

Division 1. Covissioners MURPHY. DEaSON. AND GRESHAM

The examiners recommended that the application of Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company. Inc

be denied Although this applicant did not take exceptions to this recommendation. it *as

prevented from becoming effective by operanon of law since the exceptions of other parties

nominally embraced this proceeding This application will be ‘isposed of in our findings and

order herem. but »uhout further discussion

192 laMce

pe Pee

tiniest ttenieiaite:

HERRIN TRANSP CQ) ENTE NSION ATLANTA GA

D:i ason Comrniscioner

These proceedings involve eight applications by the same number

of motor common carriers to extend their general commodities

operations to points generally in that portion of the United States

west of Atlanta Ga. Birmingham, Ala.. and Pensacola, Filia. and

east of Houston. Dalias. and Fort Worth. Tex. Bowman Transporta-

tion, Inc.. seeks to extend its operation. in addition to points in the

above-described area. to Topeka. Kans.. and to Kansas City. Mo.-

Kansas City. Kans. The authority sought in each application is fully

described in appendix A to this report. With the exception of

Deaton. Inc. (which requests irreguiar-route authority). each

applicant has applied for regular-route authority which " proposes

to join with the authority it presently holds. Generally speaking,

four southwestern carriers (namely. Herrin, Red Ball. Strickland,

and Jones) seek to extend their operations to B rmingham and

Atlanta, while four southern carriers (viz. Deaton, Baggett.

Bowman, and Johnson) would extend their authorized services to

the Southwest. The numerous motor carriers descriti d in appendix

B oppose the applications.

These applications were heard on a consotideeed record, involve

what is perhaps the most extensive record ever developed in

connection with a single group of motor carrier application

proceedings before this Commission, and were the subject of a

single report and recommended order by two examiners. The

examiners recommended that all of the applications be denied.

Exceptions to the order recommended by the examiners were tiled

by all of the applicants, except Roadway Express, Inc., and Fioyd &

Beasley Transfer Company, Inc. Exceptions were also filew oy a

number of shippers’ intervening in support of the applic.:ion of

Johnson Motor Lines, Inc. Both the exceptions of Johnson Motor

Lines, Inc., and the intervening shippers embrace a request for oral

argument. Additionally, “conditional” exceptions were filed jointiy

by Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc., and Gordons Transports, Inc.,

protestants. Those protestants described in appendix C submitted

replies to applicants’ and interveners’ exceptions.‘ Johnson Motor

Lines, Inc., filed a reply to the above-described “conditional”

exceptions and to the exceptions of other applicants: while Bowman

B. order entered March W. 1970. 41 named petitioners were permitted to intervene in No

MC-10641 (Sub-No. If: Johansen Motor Lines. Inc . Ewerston—Dallas. Ter. «ith the mght to

appear and participate io ail further proceedings therem and thew jointly tiled tendered

exceptions were accepted .or filing

As noted in appendix ©. tre reply 5) ETA WNC Fransportation Company to the exceptions of

applicants im Nos MC-76!°7 (Sut-No MOS) and MC 920!) (Sub No S@) was tendered late

HaMcc

103

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

S74 INTERSTATE COMMERCE ( OMMISSION REPORTS

Transportation, Inc., has tendered a late reply to the exceptions of

Gordons Transports, Inc. Our conclusions differ in three of the

embraced proceedings from those recommended by the examiners.

The parties will sometimes hereinafter be referred to by appropriate

short titles.

PLEADINGS

The contentions of the parties which filed the numerous exceptions

and replies are set forth in appendix D. In general, of the eight

applicants filing exceptions, two (Deaton and Baggett) filed

“conditional” exceptions stating that a grant of their applications

would be a necessary corollary to a grant of any of the other

applications. They wish to avoid a situation in which their

applications would stand finally denied while one or more of the

other consolidated applications are pending final decision. Another

applicant (Jones) asserts that it should receive at least a partia!

grant of authority since the record allegedly demonstrates a need

for additional service on commodities requiring refrigeration, and it

is willing to accept a restriction against the transportation of traffic

between Atlanta and Dallas which does not require temperature-

controlled trailers. Applicant Bowman maintains that it should be

granted the authority sought, or in the alternative (inasmuch as its

proposal is divisible), that it should be granted authority to serve 10

named Mississippi points, Topeka and Kansas City, Kans. and

Springfield, Carthage, and Kansas City, Mo. The remaining

applicants (Herrin. Johnson, Red Ball, and Strickland) contend

generally that they should be authorized to provide the services as

proposed.’ Collectively, applicants except to the basic approach

taken by the examiners in assertedly considering those applications

on the erroneous concept that either all must be granted or all must

be denied. It is averred that the examiners should have evaluated,

and made findings and conclusions relating to, each application as a

separate and independent matter, and that the supporting testimony

should not be treated only in relation to the commodities shipped

to the substantial exclusion of the territories and points involved.

The intervening shippers, in general, maintain that an affirmance of

the examiners’ report would result in a monopoly, contrary to the

"As noted in footmote | in appendix A. Herrin has been merged into McLean Trucking

Company. Although the latter has been substituted as applicant heres. the formers name «ill be

used for the sake of continuny of discussion.

It ts noted that Red Ball Indicates a willingness to have “Performance Report conditions

imposed on any grant of authority to it

H4aMc’rc

pak shield edie

HERRIN TRANSP CO) EXTENSION ATLANTA GA Ph,

interests of business in the area served or proposed to be served by

Johnson. In their jountis filed “conditional” exceptions Campbell

and Gordons represent that the applications of Bowman. Baggett,

Johnson, Red Ball, and Jones present problems with respect to the

joinder of regular- and irregular-route service. and that the proposal!

of Bowman is administratively undesirable because of contusing

restrictive amendments

Protestants. replying to applicants’ and interveners’ exceptions,

maintain generally that the findings and recommendations of the

examiners are tully supported by the evidence and should be

atfirmed. In scoarate replies to the jointly filed “conditional

exceptions of Campbell and Gordons. Johnson asserts that these

carriers Contentions regarding joinder problems are without merit.

and Bowman submits that its propused restrictions are acceptable

and that, masm ich as it has applied for appropriate authority to

convert us ex .t) -@ irreguiar-route authority, the issue o! joinder

problems is m ct as to it”

The evidence, the recommendations of the hearing examiners,

and the pleadings have been considered. Inasmuch as no exception

is taken to the examiners summary of the evidence presented by the

protestants as to their authorities, equipment, and operations, this

portion of the examiners report is hereby adopted and ts set ‘orth in

appendix G to this report

PRELIMINARY MAITERS

Johnson and the shippers intervening in support of its ar olication

request oral argument. citing the complexity of the ca nd ‘ts

importance in terms of public interest as reasons. In rep!) vo these

requests, certain protestants’ submit that the issue. ire not

complicated and relate principally to a question of fact. ond that the

request for oral argument should theretore be denied Ina .much as

the parties seeking oral argument have not shown either that it is

required or that u would be beneficial in reaching our

determination in these proccedings. this request is herety demed

“In 2 report and rcommended odes in No MC .9420 (Sub-No &6) sersed VEocch 29, 197

which Became effective *. operator of law on Vy .* ¥> Bowne s arp.ca wer sevaing the

Cofversion of Ms Wee gular route authori. mm its Cerutneles Nos MC 94200) and VIC 94201 (Suh

Nos. 38 and 53) was gr. ated A certify, ate authorizing the corresponding rege. v! ve raters

was nswed July | iv? + Bowmans lead docke: rumbeor

“Mercury » Fos! Texas heer pornt reply to the exceptions of appiwasats «ox ‘ N

smipoers anc Abyr trasecil C empthe< Gordons, Rowdwar Tittt Tes ard Woseon

thew jot reply te we tecepnen t Johnson

maMcr

105

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

s"e INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

The joint reply filed by certain protestants to Bowman s

exceptions contains a renewed motion to strike append'xes A and B

to exhibit 1985 on the grounds that such evidence represents

improper rebuttal evidence and that the method of its preparation

makes the data unreliable. We agree with the examiners finding that

the challenged appendixes constitute proper rebutta! to information

and iransit time studies presenfed by Protestant with respect to

certain of Bowman's interline services. We also concur in the

examiners conclusion that the objection as to the method ot

preparation of the questioned appendixes goes to their weight and

not their admissibility. The examiners’ ruling is hereby sustained

The replies of applicant Bowman and protestant ET & WNC were

both filed | day after the due date. Inasmuch as no party has been

prejudiced by that delay and because their positions are entitied to

full consideration in this decision. those late-tendered replies are

hereby accepted for filing.

As indicated in appendix D. certain protestants request that

official notice be taken of specified motor carrier changes. in the

involved area, that have been approved and authorized by this

Commission since the close of these hearings in August 1967. We

may take official notice of our action in other proceedings which

bear materially upon the issues under immediate consideration

West Brothers, Inc., Extension—Baton Rouge. La.. 108 MCC. 485.

489 (1969): and Ayers Extension—Cheyenne. Wvo.. 99 M.C.C. 795.

797 (1965). Accordingly. the actions affecting protestants have been

noted in appendix G and those actions affecting carriers not

parties'' to this proceeding, although not specified in detail in this

report, have nevertheless been accorded full and careful!

consideration in our present determinations.

The interveners in support of Johnson's application in No. MC

106401 (Sub-No. 18) and applicant Bowman in No. MC-94201 (Sub-

No. 56) have separately filed petitions requesting leave to

supplement their exceptions, embracing tendered supplemental

exceptions. A number of protestants have replied to these petitions.

and request an opportuni:y to reply to the supplemental exceptions

should they be accepted for filing. © Petitioners seek the acceptance

Roadway. West Transcon. Holloway. T1ME. Consolidated. Akers. Yellow Freight. and

Braswell

Bell Transfer Company. lac. Imerstate Motor Freight System. Besteay Express. Inc Deon

Truck Line. Inc. England Transportation Company. Inc.. Saia Motor Freight Line tne and

Terminal Transport Co. Inc

Replies to the petition im No MC-10e46) (Sub-No. 18) were tiled jounths Ps Mercury and L is!

Texas: separately by Ryder. jorntls by Akers. Braswell, Campbell. Gordons. Radway Express

Inc.. Roadway Express of Mississippi. Inc. T 1 WE . and Transcon (A reply to both per imns was

filed by Jack Cote-Dinse Highway Company. hile Mer reght Lines. Inc . and East Texss

filed a joint reply to Bowman's petition in No € f SubNo Se

iauMcc

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION LTE ANTA. GA

for tiling ot their supplemental exceptions on the grounds that

certain economic pronouncements have urged that regulatory

agencies should consider competition as a “critical tactor’ when

performing their adjudicative functions. and that certain recent

court and Commission decisions should be considered in

determining the issues here involved. Generally. protestants reply

that this Commission's General Rules of Practice do not permit the

filing of supplemental exceptions: that the economic pronunce-

ments are immaterial and irrelevant, and that, for the most part. the

decisions cited were available when the original exceptions were

filed. As pointed out by certain protestants, an earlier petition of

several of the opposing parties to reoper this proceeding to submit

evidence of authorities granted since the hearing was demied on the

grounds that the examiners would take official notice of any

Commission action and that no useful purpose would be served by

adding these pleadings to this already voluminous record. Whereas

we will take official notice of all pertinent evidence and

Commission decisions. we see no reason to prolong the disposition

of this proceeding and. therefore. the petitions will be denied and

the tendered supplemental exceptions will be rejected

APPLICANTS ENIDENCE

Herrin holds regular- and irregular-route motor common -arrier

authority to transport general commodities in an area bounded

generally on the north by Little Rock. Ark.. Memphis, Tei:n.. and

Atlanta. Ga.. on the south by Houston, New Orleans. Le. anc

Pensacola and Jacksonville, Fla; on the west by Fort Wort!. Jailas.

and Waco. Tex.: and on the cast by Savannah. Ga Its auiuorized

routes. which include service to numerous intermedia: points

extend between (1) Houston and New Orleans through Orange.

Tex., (2) Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth; (3) Houston and Waco;

(4) Dallas and New Orleans through Lufkin, Tex., and De Ridder.

La: (5) Dallas and Monroe, La.. through Shreveport. La. (6

Shreveport and New Orleans through Alexandria La. (7) New

Orleans and Baton Rouge. La.; (2) Shreveport and Memphis through

El Dorado. Ark.. (9) LE! Dorado and Little Rock: and (10) New

Orleans and Jacksunville. through Crestview. Marianna.

Tallahassee. Pensacola. and Lake City. Fla.. and numerous points in

south Georgia. including Macon. Savannah. Valdosta. Thomasyil'e

and Waycross.

Pave €

107

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

ss INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Herrin’s routes into Macon and Savannah extend along LS

Highway 80 through Jackson, Miss.. Montgomery. Ala. and

Columbus, Ga. which points are traversed for operating

convenience only. It operates between Memphis and Jacksonville.

traversing (for operating convenience only) Tupelo. Miss..

Birmingham, and Columbus. Herrin also holds authority to operate

between Macon and Atlanta. limited to traffic moving to, from, or

through Monroe, New Orleans, Baton Rouge. and Memphis. and

further restricted against the transportation of traffic moving

between Little Rock and Memphis, and their respective

commercial zones, on the one hand. and. on the other, Atlanta and

its commercial zone. Applicant has been granted alternate-route

authority generally over Interstate Highways 85 and 26 and US.

Highway 78 to and from Atlanta which eliminates the necessity ot

observing the Macon gateway on Atlanta Traffic.'’ This alternate-

route authority is restricted to the transportation of shipments

moving to, from, or through Monroe. Baton Rouge. or New Orleans

It now operates to or through Birmingham, Mobile, and

Montgomery, Ala. Jackson, Columbus, Atlanta, and Pensacola. The

last two points are service points

Herrin maintains terminals at Houston. Beaumont, Dallas. and

Waco, Tex.. Shrevewort, Lake Charies, Lafayette, New Orleans,

Baton Rouge, asd Alexandria La; El Dorado. Memphis, and

Jacksonville. Commission ayer -y stations are maintained at Houma,

Abbeyville, and Monroe, L 1; Macon, Savannah, and Waycross, Ga;

and Pensacola !* its application is granted, it will establish

terminals at Atlanta, Columbus, Birmingham, Mobile. Montgomery.

and Jackson. Additionally, it will reestablish a terminal at Little

Rock. Herrin operates 252 tractors (including 5 sleeper cabs), 441

trailers, and 225 trucks. It would add 41 tractors, 80 trailers, and 67

trucks to its fleet upon approval of this application.

By this application. Herrin seeks (1) to serve Birmingham.

Mobile, Montgomery. Columbus, and Jackson as intermediate

points on its presently authorized routes, (2) to remove the

restriction on service at Pensacola to traffic moving through New

Orleans, (3) to operate over all feasible routes between the territory

it now serves, on the one hand, and, on the other, Atlanta; and (4) to

remove the restriction against the transportation of traffic between

Memphis and Little Rock, on the one hand, and, on the other,

Atlanta

See certeficate No MC-31389 (Sub-No 119) wsued March 19. 1970

108 i4aMCcc

nieiimntemeemeanteneeemes eae

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA S79

Heirin introduced proposed operating schedules between Dallas,

Houston. New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport, on

the one hand. and. on the other, Atlanta, Birmingham, Columbus,

Mebile. Montgomery, Jackson, and Pensacola The schedules are

based on a4i-mile per hour average running time. To illustrate, be-

tween Dallas ard Atlanta (815 Herrin operating miles) and between

Houston and Atlanta (813 operating miles), Herrin proposes first-

afternoon service on volume traffic and second- morning delivery on

less-than-truckload (LTL) traffic, with vehicle running times of 19

hours and SS minutes, and !9 hours and 49 minutes, respectively.

On volume shipments, it proposes first-morning service between

Birmingham, Dallas. and Houston; first-afternoon between

Columbus, Dallas, and Houston, first-afternoon between Dallas and

Mobile, first-morning between Houston and Mobile, first-afternoon

between Montgomery. Dallas, and Houston, and first-morning serv-

ice between Jackson. Dallas, and Houston. On LTL traffic, Herrin

proposes f rst-afternoon service between Birmingham, on the one

hand, and. on the other, Dallas and Houston, second-morning be-

tween Columbus, on the one hand, and, on the other, Dallas and

Houston, first-afternoon between Mobile and Dallas, first- morning

between Mobile and Houston; second-morning between

Montgomery and Dallas, and first-afternoon between Montgomery

and Houston, and first-morning between Jackson, on the one hand,

and, on the other, Dailas and Houston. Between Atlanta,

Birmingham, Columbus. Mobile, and Montgomery, on the one hand,

and, on the other, New Orleans and Memphis, Herrin would offer

first-morning service on truckload shipments. Applicant proposes

the same service on LTL shipments between those points, except

between Atlanta and New Orleans which will be first-afternoon.

First-morning service is proposed on both truckload and LTL traffic

between Pensacola and New Orleans and first-morni. 2 service would

be provided between Atlanta, Birmingham. Columbus. Mobile. and

Montgomery. on the one hand, and, on the other, Baton Rouge and

Shreveport. on both LTL and truckload shipments. with the

exception that service between Atlanta and Shreveport on LTL

traffic will be second- morning. Points in Texas and Louisiana served

by Herrin and not specifically named would receive | -day later serv-

ice than movements to or from New Orleans on LTL. The proposed

schedules on volume shipments would be the same to other

Louisiana and Texas points as that to and from Houston. The

Arkansas points served by Herrin and not named specifically would

be served | day later than Memphis on LTL and the same as

109

H4uMecc

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

<80 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Memphis on volume shipments. Applicant would. at least initially.

operate sleeper cabs between Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth Be-

tween Atlanta and New Orleans, service would be provided either

with sleeper cabs or by driver relay.

Red Ball holds motor common carrier authority to transport

general commodities, with the usual exceptions.’ over regular

routes within a territory generally bounded by Denver, Colo.. and

Santa Fe, N. Mex.. on the west: Mobile. Jackson. and Memphis, on

the east, Kansas City and Denver. on the north. and Houston. New

Orleans, and Mobile, on the south. Applicant's operations extend

over regular routes generally (1) between Denver and Dallas.

through Pueblo. Colo.: Clayton. N. Mex.; Amarillo and Wichita

Falls, Tex, Lamar, Colo.. and Boise City. Okla: (2) between

Denver and Memphis through Oklahoma City. Okla. and Little

Rock, (3) between Dallas-Fort-Worth and Houston: (4) between

Houston. Dallas. Fort Worth. and Jackson. through Shreveport and

Monroe; (5) between Dallas-Fort Worth and Memphis. Tenn.

through Shreveport and Little Rock; (6) between Dallas-Fort

Worth, on the one hand, and. on the other, Baton Rouge and New

Orleans, through Shreveport; (7) between New Orleans. Baton

Rouge, Jackson, and Memphis; (8) between Memphis and Kansas

City, Mo.-Kansas City, Kans., through Little Rock and Fort Smith;

(9) between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, on the one hand. and,

on the other, Natchez, Vicksburg. and Jackson. Miss.; (10) between

Memphis and Jackson, Vicksburg, Natchez, and Gulfport, Miss.:

(11) between Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth. and Mobile, through

Shreveport, Monroe. and Jackson, and also through Baton Rouge

and New Orleans; (12) between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. on

the one hand, and, on the other, Kansas City. Mo.-Kansas C itv.

Kans.; and (13) between Houston and New Orleans through Baton

Rouge, Lake Charles, and Beaumont. Approximately |.450 points in

10 States (not including Kansas City, Kans. and applicant's

explosive authority to Pensacola, Fla) are served direct by Red

Ball. The points include approximately 550 in Texas. 475 in

Louisiana, and 125 in Arkansas.

Ninety-two terminals are maintained by applicant throughout its

system. with 44 located in Texas. !7 in Louisiana. 8 in cach of

Arkansas and Colorado. 6 in New Mexico. 4 in Mississippi. 2 in

Oklahoma. and | each in Missouri. Tennessee. and Alabama. If the

application is granted. Red Ball proposes to establish terminals at

Atlanta, Birmingham. and Greenville. Miss. lt operates 654 tractors

‘Red Ball is. however. authorized to transport eaplusnes

4110 H4aMCEL

rope Tee

ee

ee ee

HERRIN TR ANSP Ce S TENSION ATLANTA GA SS)

-

and 1.520 tratlers. inclucing 23 convertavans and 47 refrigerated. 20

insulated. and 40 open-top trailers: and u will add to its fleet if

Necessary

Red Ball proposes to extend its authority (1) between Texarkana

and Greensille. Birmingham. and Arlanta. (2) between Jackson and

Aclanta: and (3) between Meridian. Miss.. and Tuscaloosa. Ala.. for

the purposes of joinder only. restricted against transportation be-

ween Memphis and ts commercial zone. on the one hand. and. on

the other. Greenville. Birmingham. or Atlanta. and the respective

commercial zones of each. The authority sought. if granted. will be

tasked so that applicant would be able to provide service between

Atlanta. Birmingham. and Greenville. on the one hand. and. on the

ther. its authorized pomts (except beiween Greenville and

Memphrs)

On LTL traftic. Red Ball proposes next-moroing service between

Dallas-Fort Worth and Greenville. between Texarkana and

Shreveport. on the one hand. and. on the other. Birmingham and

Greenville. between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. on the one hand.

and. on the other. Greenville: between Baton Rouge and

Birmingham: between Monroe and Lutle Rock. on the one hand. and,

» the other. Birmingham and Greenville. between Jackson. on the

one hand. and. on the other. Avianta. Birmingham. and Greenville.

and between Atlanta and Birmingham. Second-morning service ts

proposed trom Denver to Greenville: between Texarkana and

Amarilio. Tex. on the one hand. and. on the other. Atlanta.

Birmingham. and Greenville. between Dallas-Fort Worth. on the one

hand. and. on the other. Atlanta and Birmingham. between

Shreveport and Atlanta. between New Orleans. on the one hand. and,

on the other. Adianta and Birmingham. between Baton Rouge and

Atlanta. between Monroe and Atlanta: and between Little Rock and

Atlanta And. third-morning service is proposed between Denver. on

the one hand, and. on the other. Atlanta and Birmingham, and from

Greenville to Denver. The schedules would involve an additional day

for service at points beyond the above-described terminals

Truckload traffic will be handled on a call-on-demand basis.

Applicant's proposec scheuules are based on an average over-the-

road speed of 40 miles per hour. Single-driver operations and two-

man teams will be used between Denver. Amarillo. Dallas. Fort

Worth. Texarkana. and Shreveport. on the one hand. and. on the

other, Birmingham and Atlanta. Red Ball purposes 17 westbound

schedules. !8 eastbound. | northbound (from New Orleans and Baton

Rouge to Greenville). | southbound (from Greenville to Baton Rouge

iM4aMecc 411 .

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

$82 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

and New Orleans). and | schedule between Jackson and Greenviile

Deaton holds irregular-route motor common carrier authority to

transport specified commodities. It is authorized. under its general-

commodity authority. to transport traffic (1) between Birmingham

and points in Alabama within 65 miles thereof, on the one hand, and.

on the other, New Orleans and points in Mississippi: and (2) between

Atlanta, on the one hand, and, on the other. eight specified Alabama

points which are located withih 65 miles of Birmingham. restricted

against the transportation of traffic between Atlanta and

Birmingham. Its general-commodity authority has been converted

from irregular-route to regular-route authority. Under its remaining

authority i transports specified commodities generally between

points in Alabama, Arkansas. Colorado. Florida. Georgia. Kansas.

Kentucky, Louisiana. Mississippi. Missouri, New Mexico. North

Carolina. Ohio, Oklahoma. South Caroiina. Tennessee. Texas, and

Virginia. Applicant maintains terminals at Atlanta: Birmingham

Mobile, and Anniston, Ala.. Columbus, Greenville. Tupelo. Jacksuon.

and Natchez. Miss.; New Orleans, Memphis, and Tampa. Fla. It

proposes to establish terminals at Dallas. Houston, Beaumont.

Monroe, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. A substantial fleet of

equipment is operated by applicant. and if its application is granted

Deaton would add 20 tractors and 40 trailers.

Deaton proposes to tack the authority sought with some of its

existing authority and render a call-on-demand service with an

anticipated transit time of 2 days from Housion and Beaumont tw

points in Georgia and Alabama. Volume traffic tendered at a certain

time of day. handled by a two-man operation. might be delivered by

the first afternoon. Some of the LTL traffic, also handled by a two-

man operation. would be delivered on either the second day or third

morning. Between Atlanta. Anniston. and Birmingham. on the one

hand, and. on the other, Monroe, Shreveport. and Baton Rouge. La.

and Orange. Beaumont, Texas City, and Houston. Tex., truckload

traffic would be delivered in | day and LTL traffic would receive 2-

day service. From Atlanta to Dallas and Fort Worth, volume traffic

would be delivered on the next afternoon and LTL traffic would be

delivered on either the second day or third morning. Deaton believes

that the traffic it presently interlines would support one schedule of

LTL traffic a day from Altanta to Monroe. Datias, and Fort Worth

and one a day from Birmingham and Anniston to the Baton Rouge

and Houston areas.

Strickiand holds regular-route motor commun carrier authority to

‘ransport general commodities over a network of routes extending

112 14Mcc

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION—ATI ANTA. GA Sma

between the Northeast. the Midwest. and the Southwest. Its regular

routes in portions of Texas. Arizona, and Louisiana extend to the

major points of Memphis. St. Louis. Mo.: Milwaukee. Racine. and

Kenosha, Wis.. Aurora. Joliet. and Chicago. HL. Detrou. Mich..

Cleveland. Ohio: Philadelphia. Pa.: Camden. Atlantic City. and South

Kearney. NJ. New York. N_Y.. Bridgeport. Orange. New Haven. and

Hartford. Conn.: and Springfield and Boston. Mass. Applicant

maintains 38 terminals including those located at Shreveport and

Texarkana. If its application is granted, terminals would be estab-

lished at Atlanta. Birmingham. Jackson. Monroe. and Greenville. It

operates 488 tractors. about 1,055 trailers, and 190 trucks.

Strickland seeks authority (1) between Atlanta and Texarkana. over

a specified route. serving Birmingham. Greenville. and those points

on US. Highway 82 in Arkansas. as intermediate points. and (2)

between Atlanta and Shreveport. over a specified route. serving

Jackson as an intermediate point and Monroe as a point of joinder

The proposed routes would permit service between Atlanta,

Birmingham. and Jackson. on the one hand, and. on the other,

Strickland’s presently authorized points in Arkansas. Mississippi.

Louisiana. and Texas through Monroe. Shreveport, and Texarkana

Numerous schedules to and from the involved major points are

proposed by Strickland. All of the schedules prc pose either }- or 2-

day service. To illustrate, a schedule proposed under route ! (viz. be-

tween Atlanta and Texarkana) would leave Atlanta at 8 p.m.. traverse

639 miles at 38 miles per hour. and arrive in Texarkana at 12:50 p.m.

of the next day. Another example would be schedule 1017. under

route (2) between Atlanta and Shreveport. which would leave Atlanta

at 8 p.m.. traverse 808 miles in 21 hours and 15 minutes. and arrive in

Dailas-Fort Worth at 5.15 p.m. the following day. with second-day

delivery expected. The proposed schedules will be performed by two-

man teams with sleeper cabs and are direct terminal-to-terminal

operations without intermediate stops. with the exception of the

pedal run between Greenville and Texarkana.

Strickland introduced two abstracts of shipments transported by ut

in interline service during March 1965S. The first. appendix H to

exhibit 38, covers 887 shipments weighing a total of 731,892 pounds,

which originated at points in Texas. were transported by Strickland

from specified Texas points (mostiy Dallas). to Memphis. Shreveport.

St. Louis, Little Rock. and New Orleans. where they were interlined

for delivery to points in Alabama. Florida. Georgia. Mississippi.

North and South Carolina. and Virginia. Approximately 250 of these

shipments were originated by a carrier tk than Strickland and

14MCc

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

Sad INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

interlined to the latter at Dallas or another specified Texas point

Applicant here proposes to transport these shipments from the Texas

points directly to Atlanta. The second, appendix I to the same

exhibit. covers 1.942 shipments weighing a total of 1.4 million pounds

which originated at points in Alabama. Florida. Georgia. Mississippi.

and North and South Carolina. They were interlined to Strickland at

Memphis (approximately | .850 of the shipments). Little Rock (34), or

New Orleans (58). and were transported by applicant to points in

Arkansas, Texas. and Louisiana. Approximately 650 such shipments

were again interlined for delivery to their ultimate destination points

The average elapsed time from the origin carriers billing date to the

time of Strickland’s billing date on 1,855 of these shipments was 3.6

days.

Baggett holds motor cominon carrier authority to transport

general commodities, with certain exceptions, (1) over regular

routes which extend generally between Chattanooga. Tenn... Rome.

Atlanta, and Columbus, Ga, Florence, Decatur. Birmingham,

Montgomery, and Mobile, Ala. and New Orleans, La; and (2) over

irregular routes from Montgomery, Ala. to points in Alabama

within 125 miles of Montgomery. It also holds authority to transport

uxplosives between, rom, and to specified points and areas in 44

States and the District of Columbia, and specified commodities

generally between, from. and to points in Alabama Florica

Georgia, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

Additionally, a wholly owned subsidiary and a carrier under

common control with applicant hold certain interstate authority.

Baggett maintains 20 terminals, 14 of which are located in

Alabama. It proposes to establish terminals at Dallas-Fort Worth,

Houston, and Beaumont. With its subsidiary, applicant operates 353

tractors, 856 trailers, and 220 trucks. including tractors used in

local service.

Applicant proposes second-morning delivery from Chattanooga,

Tenn., Atlanta, Birmingham, and Mobile to Fort Worth, Dallas. and

Houston, with dropoffs at Beaumont. An additional day will be

required on movements from Baggett’s other terminal points.

Bowman holds both regular- and irregular-route motor common

carrier authority to transport general commodities (with the usual

exceptions) generally from, to. and between points in a territory

bounded by Chicago, IIL, and points within 35 miles of Columbus

Circle, N.Y.. on the north: Miami and Pensacola. Fila. and Mobile.

on the south, Memphis and Tuscaloosa. Ala. on the west: and

points along the eastern seaboard. Its irregular-route authority to

i114 HaMcc

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION—ATLANTA GA Sas

serve generally points in Florida. Alabama, Georgia, South and

North Carolina. Tennessee, Maryland. IIlinois, Indiana, and Ohio

has been converted to corresponding regular-route authority. © As

here pertinent. applicant was granted authority to operate over 7!

specified routes. the western termini of which are Memphis,

Tuscaloosa. Montgomery. and Mobile.

Bow man maintains 25 terminals. most of which are located in the

Southeast. including those located at Atianta) Birmingham.

Memphis. Mobile. Montgomery. and Pensacola. It proposes to

establish terminals at New Orleans. Baton Rouge, Lake Charles,

Shreveport. and Monroe. La; Beaumont. Houston, Dallas-Fort

Worth, Marshall. and Texarkana, Tex.. Vicksburg Jackson,

Meridian. and Greenville, Miss.. E! Dorado. Little Rock, Fort

Smith. and Jonesboro. Ark.. and Springfield. Carthage. and Kansas

City. Mo. Agency stations will be established at Topeka, Kans..

Laurel, Miss.. and Tuscaloosa. Ala. Its fleet consists of 478 tractors,

including 359 sleeper cabs. and 978 trailers. It the application ts

granted, applicant will add 100 tractors. 100 trucks. and 200

trailers .

By this application. Bowman seeks to extend its operations over a

series of regular routes between its present terminal points at

Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham. Montgomery. Mobile, and

Pensacola to serve 8 points in Arkansas. 2 in Kansas, 9 in Louisiana,

10 in Mississippi. 3 in Missouri. and 15 in Texas. It does not seek

authority to serve between any points west of its presently

authorized points. Also. Bowman does not propose to handle traffic

originating or interlined at Memphis and moving to Dallas, Fort

Worth. or other points in the territory it seeks to serve. However, it

indicates that it will handle shipments through Memphis which

originate and are received by applicant at points cast of Memphis.

Bowman's proposed LTL schedules are based on a 35-mile per

hour average over-the-road running time and take into

consideration the time required for handling traffic at its terminals.

Applicant operates over the highways on weekends. and proposes to

use two-man teants with sleeper cabs on ail movements between

points requiring more than 10 hours driving time. It proposes to

render |- or 2-day service generally between Chattanooga and

See taum te § supra Ale on Augus: 1908 Bowman acquired & portion ot the operating reghts

AtuPams Hignwas bt vpress & ch on tuded. an mg oer authority. ihe tfarspotiain a 6 genets

comoneduaes (aah cxcepretst Bemecer Birmingham and punts wm Alabarw within 6% mules |

Birmingham om the one hand. ond om the other. Lowenedle. As . and pots in Indians Tennessee

ood porte of Flora. Uimons. and Ohne: So MC-F-9921. Bowman Truasportation. inc —Purchase

(Portior:—Alatema Higheas Exprest. fac. ima prom.) decanted July &. Ives

namec 215

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

S86 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Memphis, Tenn., and Birmingham, Gadsden (located 50 miles east

of Birmingham), Montgomery, and Mobile, Ala. on the one hand,

and, on the other, point in the territory it seeks to serve. Applicant

introduced exhibits showing that on the 546 shipments moving from

its Miami to its Atlanta terminals (744 operating miles) during a

specified 1-week period in 1966, the average transit time was |.9

days; that on the 32] shipments moving from its Birmingham

terminal during the same period and delivered or interlined at

Charlotte (408 operating miles), the average transit time was 1.5

days; that on 206 shipments moving from its Richmond, Va,

terminal to its Memphis terminal (855 operating miles) during the

same period, the average transit time was 2.5 days, and that on 26

shipments handled from Birmingham to New York, N.Y. (1030

operating miles) during the !-week period, the average transit time

was 2.8 days.

Johnson holds regular- and irregular-route motor common Carrier

authority to transport principally general commodities, with the

usual exceptions. Its regular routes extend between points in a

territory bounded by Boston and Worcester, Mass., and Niagra

Falls, Oswego, and Glen Falls, N.Y.,."* on the north, and Pensacola,

Mobile, Pascagoula and Gulfport, Miss.. and New Orleans, on the

south, generally by way of Providence, R.I., Hartford, Conn., New

York, N.Y., Camden, N.J., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Md.,

Washington, D.C., Richmond, Charlotte, N.C., Atlanta, and

Montgomery. Applicant's irregular-route general-commodity

authority extends generally to points in New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina.

Georgia, and Florida As here pertinent, applicant holds irregular-

route authority to transport general commodities (with the usual

exceptions) between Graniteville and Charleston, S.C., on the one

hand, and, on the other, points in South Carolina and Georgia

(except between Graniteville and Atlanta). Irregular-route authority

to transport specified commodities from, to, and between points in

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Yo < is also

held by applicant.

Applicant maintains about 35 terminals at principal points on its

routes and in its irregular-route territory, including those located at

New Orleans, Gulfport. Mobile, Pensacola, Montgomery, Atlanta,

Savannah, and Charlotte, its home office and main bresk-bulk

Review Board Number §. by order entered December |* 1970. m No. MC -F-11006. Johnson

Movror Lines. Inc —Merger—Johason Motor Lines Corp.. amhorzed the merger of the opere'ing

ngs and the property of Jobason Motor Lines Corp. into Johason Motor Lines. Inc The merged

operating mgits are set forth m cerniicate No MC-106401 (Sub-Nu. 31), sswed July 19. 197!

416

14 M.CC

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 58”

terminal. Proposed terminal points include Baton Rouge,

Beaumont, Dallas. Houston, Jackson. Monroe. and Shreveport.

Applicant operates approximately 500 tractors and 1.000 trailers,

including 44 temperature-controlled vehic'es, and it will add S50

tractors and 100 trailers to its fleet if its application is granted.

Johnson proposes to operate over two service routes, which it

describes as the proposed northern route and the proposed southern

route. The former involves general-commodity, regular-route

operations between Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth, with service at

the intermediate points of Jackson. Monroe, and Shreveport,

restricted to traffic moving to, from, or through Atlanta The

southern route involves the same type of operations between New

Orleans and Houston. with service at the intermediate points of

Baton Rouge, Orange, and Beaumont, and service at Texas City,

Tex., as an off-route point. restricted to traffic moving to, from, or

through Gulfport. Miss. In other words. no service is proposed be-

tween New Orleans and points on the southern route. The stated

purpose of the proposal is to permit service of an “over-head™

nature between points on Johnson's present system, on the one

hand, and, on the other. points on the proposed routes. No service

is proposed between points on the southern route and points on the

northern route. Applicant indicates that it will offer daily,

scheduled, LTL service between Dallas and Savannah, by tacking its

above-describec irreguiar-route authority with its regular-route

authority at Graniteville. Johnson also seeks authority to operate

over two alternate routes. It is submitted that one (which is between

Shreveport, a point on the northern route, and Baton Rouge, a point

on the southern route) would enable applicant to move its empty

equipment from the norther.1 route to the southern route to pick up

traffic from the Pascagola, Mobile, and Pensacola area The other

(which is between Montgomery and the junction of U.S. Highways

11 and 80 near Cuba, Ala.) would enable applicant, on its northern

route, to move eastbound traffic from Dallas through Montomery

and Opelika, Ala. making pickups at these two points, and then

proceeding to Atlanta

Presentiy, traffic moving to and from Texas, Louisiana, and

Mississippi and points beyond is interlined by applicant mostly at

New Orleans and Mobile. with some being interlined at Atlanta

Under the proposal, applicant's traffic lane patterns would be

revised and all traffic moving to and from the proposed service area

from and to points in North Carolina, Wallace. $.C.. and points

north and east thereof, will break bulk at Charlotte, and move by

HaMcc 41'°7

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

two-man teams'’ on a direct nonstop basis between Charlotte and

the seven proposed terminal points. Traffic originating or

terminating at points in Georgia, and in the Montgomery and

Opelika terminal areas, and in South Carolina (except Wallace,

S.C.) will break bulk at Atlanta, and will move by a two-man team

on a direct, nonstop dispatch between Atlanta and the seven

proposed terminal points. Traffic moving to and from points on the

southern route and applicant's present terminals of Gulfport.

Pascagoula, Mobile, and Pensacola will be handled by schedules

originating and terminating in Mobile and Pensacola Two-man

teams will handle the schedules originating and terminating at

Mobile, which traffic will move between Pascagoula and Gulfport

and the proposed terminals at Beaumont and Houston. A single

driver will handle the schedule originating and terminating at

Pensacola on the traffic moving to and from Mobile, Pascagoula,

and Gulfport, and to and from Baton Rouge. The Mobile schedule

will be dispatched through Pascagoula and Gulfport to pick up en

route and deliver at Beaumont en route to Houston. Eastbound, the

Houston schedule will be dispatched through Beaumont to pick up

en route aid will stop en route to Mobile at Gulfport and

Pascagoula to deliver. The Pensacola schedule will be dispatched

through Mobile, Pascagoula. and Gulfport to pick up en route and

then proceed to Baton Rouge where it will terminate. Applicant

proposes 17 westbound schedules (each schedule representing |

vehicle) from Charlotte and 7 westbound from Atlanta daily, 5 days

a week (excluding holidays). Eastbound, nine schedules would move

daily to Charlotte and four would move to Atlanta One westbound

vehicle would be dispatched from Mobile and one from Pensacola

Eastbound, one vehicle would be dispatched from Houston to

Mobile and one from Baton Rouge to Pensacola Additionally. ap-

icant proposes dispatched movements, which are not set up as

= schedules, 10 handle overflow freight from Charlotte and

Atlanta to points on the proposed northern and southern routes.

Thus, not including the two above-described dispatched movements

from Charlotte and the two from Atlanta, applicant proposes 4!

schedules daily, namely: 17 from Charlotte, 7 from Atlanta, | from

"On March 13. 1966. the change in Johason s operations tv include two-man operatnins Decame

efiectwe Applicant miroduced a summary «of a survey of two man operations between Charlotte. on

the ome hand. and. on the vther. Pensacola. Mobile. Pascagoula. Gulfpor. and New Orleans Be-

tween January 2 and January 26. 1966. applicant's two-man teams made 253 trips ange tee

above-described points in a total of 4.491 howrs ower 176.115 mules for an os eral average wf 59 2

mites per hour.

118 14aMCL.

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION—ATLANTA,. GA SRO

Pensacola, | trom Mobile, 9 eastbound to Charlotte, 4 eastbound to

Atlanta, | castbound out of Houston to Mobile, and | eastbound out

of Baton Rouge to Pensacola.

Originating and delivering traffic only between Monday and

Friday (excluding holidays), applicant generally proposes to render

between |- and 3-day LTL service between its authorized territory

and the seven terminal points it seeks to serve. The |-day service

would generally be rendered only on either the “Express schedules

over the southern route or between Baton Rouge and applicant's

southernmost terminals (except New Orieans). To illustrate

Johnson's proposal, a shipment moving from Medford (Boston).

Mass.. over Charlotte to Houston would depart from Medford at 9

p.m. on a Monday and arrive at Charlotte at 9:30 p.m. of the follow-

ing day. At 35% miles per hour. the 816 miles between these

terminals would be traversed in 24.5 hours. Four hours would be

allowed for break-bulk operations at Charlotte and departure from

Charlotte would occur at 1:30 a.m. Wednesday. The 1,110 miles be-

tween Charlotte and Houston would be traversed in 28 hours at a

speed of 39.6 miles per hour. Thus, the movement would arrive in

Houston at 4:30 a.m. on Thursday

Jones holds regular- and irregular-route motor commen carrier

authority to transport general commodities (with the usual

exceptions) and specified commodities. including frozen and

prepared foodstuffs. Its regular routes extend generally between

points within a territory bounded, on the north, by Kansas City and

Chicago; on the south by Dallas-Fort Worth and Greenville and

Winona, Miss.; on the west by Oklahoma City, Okla. and Wichita,

Kans., and on the east by Memphis Applicant presently tray crses a

portion of the proposed routes, viz, generally vetween Winona and

Texarkana, from Winona over U.S. Highway 82 to Texarkena. de-

tween Texarkana and Dallas. from Texarkana over U.S. Highway 67

to Dallas, and between Texarkana and Sherman, over U.S. Highway

82. Jones’ irregular-route authority generally authorizes the trans-

portation of general commodities within portions of this same atca

Applicant maintains 24 terminals including 6 in each of Arkansas

and Oklahoma. 3 in each of Mississippi and Missour’, 2 each in

Texas and Kansas. and | each at Chicago and Memphis Additional

terminals will be established at Atlanta) Birmingham, El Dorado,

and Texarkana Ark. lis equipment consists of 310 tractors, 120

trucks. and 636 trailers, including 11! equipped with mechanical

refrigeration. If the application is granted, 10 tractors and 20 trucks

will be added te Jones fleet.

N4auMecc 119

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Jones proposes to serve (1) between Atlanta end Texarkana over a

specified route. serving the intermediate ponts of Birmingham.

Greenville. and those on U.S. Highway 82 ir Arkansas. between

Texarkana and Sherman over a specified route, serving all

intermediate points: between Texarkana and Dallas over a specified

route. serving all intermediate points: and between Birmingham and

Memphis serving no intermediate points. The proposals are

restricted against the handling of traffic to or fom Memphis and its

commercial zone, on the one hand. and, on the other. points east of

the Mississippi River.

Applicant would render overnight serice to and from

Birmingham and Atlanta, on the one hand. and. on the other. those

points served in northeast Arkansas and southeast Missouri. points

on U.S. Highway 70 between Memphis and Little Rock (including

Little Rock), the Mississippi River Delta area and points on US.

Highway 82 as far west as E! Dorado. The remaining territory Jones

serves would receive second-morning service or LTL traffic moving

to and from Atlanta and Birmingham. Volume shipments will

receive next-day service up to 800 miles. LTL shipments between

Birmingham and Atlanta. on the one hand. ard. on the other, St

Louis. Mo., would receive second-morning service and truckload

shipments would receive overnight service.

Jones proposes one schedule initially from Atianta which would

stop at Memphis for a relay of drivers and thence move to

Springdale, Ark.. for break bulk and delivery to local areas and

transfer to units moving to the terminalis of Springsfield and Joplin.

Mo.,. Muskogee, Okla. and Wichita Kans. In the reverse direction,

shipments will move from those points at 10 am. and will be

relayed through Memphis for delivery to Atlanta on an overnight

basis. Another schedule will move between Atlanta and Memphis

which will be coordinated with schedules between Memphis and

Jonesboro and Little Rock, Ark., allowing for overnight service be-

tween these Arkansas points and Atlanta A schedule is proposed

between Memphis and Birmingham with a transfer providing for

overnight and second-morning service from Atlanta’ Another

schedule would move between Atlanta and Greenville with pickups

and dropoffs at Birmingham. At Greenville and Memphis. shipments

would be combined with the other schedules and would be

dispatched along with the present dispatching system of Jones on an

overnight basis between Greenville and Dallas and S'.e-man and be-

tween Memphis and other major terminals. Although Jones

proposes to use driver relays. it indicates that if two-man. sleeper-

420 Named

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO) ENTENSEOIN \TLANTA GA sy

cab operations prose beneficial, they will be used. Jones schedules

are based on a 40-mile per hour average running time which

includes intermediate stops for rest and meals. The schedule be-

tween Atlanta and Fort Worth-Dallas would stop for combining at

Greenville and proceed from Greenville to Dallas-Fort Worth the

next evening. with about a 10-hour layover at Greenville on LTL

traffic. It would leave Atlanta at 7 p.m. make a pickup at

Birmingham, and arrive in Greenville at 6 am. the following

morning The schedule wou'd leave Greenville about 10 hours later

for Dallas-Fort Worth and make a dropoff at Texarkana. Traffic be-

tween Greenville and E! Dorado would be handled separately from

the through sechedules. Jones hopes to interline perishable

products from Florida with Ryder at Atlanta. which traffic Jones

cannot now interchange at Memphis because of the length of time

involved in the Jones refrigerator unit being off its tine

Each of the applicants is financially and otherwise fit and able

properly to conduct the proposed services

Si. PPORTING EVIDENCE

Nine hundred and thirty-three witnesses—collectively

representing shippers, receivers, 4 transportation consultants, 12

motor carriers which wish to interline, chambers of commerce. and

port authorities—testified in support of the applications. The

examiners grouped the supporting witnesses evidence according to

the commodities shipped. Certain of the applicants contend that

handied in this manner. the supporting evidence did not receive

adequate consideration and treatment in relation to the territories

and points involved. We believe that a clearer picture of the

suppori'ng witnesses needs in these proceedings. in view of their

magnitude and complexity, can be presented by a grouping of the

supporting evicence on 4 georgraphic basis. We have acco: dingly

restated the supporting evidence im appendix E to this report. Those

shippers which suppoii only Roadwey or Floyd & Beasley,

applicants which did not file exceptions to the recommended denial

of their respective applications, are neither discussed in the

appendix, nor included in the statistical data below. Roadway has

since acquired contro! of much of the authority it sought herein and

can now generally serve the shippers which supported its

application. The shippers which supported Floyd & Beasley are

located generally in the same territory as those treated in appendix

E and their evidence, although not specifically discussed herein, has

hH4MCC 121

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

$92 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

been considered. As a consequence. the evidence presented by 824

supporting witnesses is summarized in appendix E and below

Generally, the involved traffic moves ()) between points in the

Southwest, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the

Southeast. Middle Atlantic, and New England States; (2) between

points in the Midwest, on the one hand, and. on the other, points in

the East and Southeast; and (3)-between points in the East and

Southeast, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Mississip:

It consists of an exteremely wide variety of commodities (the

examiners catagorized the shipper evidence according to

approximately 45 different commodity descriptions) including

clothing, pharmaceuticals, metal articles, leather goods, machinery

toys. grocery and department store items, commodities requiring

refrigeration, and furniture.

As indicated above, the shippers’ are listed geographically in

appendix E according to the location of their factlities at which they

receive or from which they ship the involved traffic. When a shipper

has facilities in more than one State, it has been listed more than

once, except when the involved movements are between its own

facilities. Thus. the 8 remaining applicants are supported by 482

shippers with facilities located in the Southwest,’ 340 shippers in

the Southeast,’ 44, collectively, in the Middle Atlantic and New

England States;' and 42 in the Midwest.”

In addition to shipper evidence in support of its application.

Johnson submitted an economic study prepared by the chairman of

the Deg vent of Transportation, U fiversity of Houston. The study

deveiops <« theses that the areas presently served by Johnson and

the areas Johnson proposes to serve have grown significantly in

recent years. that there is substantial trade and commerce between

these two areas. and that comparatively there is a paucity of single-

line motor carrier service available to meet the demonstrated

growth. In this respect it is noted, as se) forth in appendix F. that on

“The term “shippers.” as used hereim. represents the witnesses which appeared in support of

the applications It s muted that sometimes more than one witness appeared for the same

stupper. that the same «stness may have appeared and Scen counted more than once. and tha:

some of the wunesses do not represent shippers im the strict sense of the word

“Specifically. 84 shippers have facilities in Arkansas. 6 in Colorado. 84 in Lowisiana. | m New

Mexico. 32 m Okishoma and 275 in Texas

Eighty-four shippers have facilines in Alabama. |S im Florida. |i4 in Georgia | in Kentwck,

54 in Mississippi. 25 in North Carolina. 24 im South Carolina. 17 in Tennessee. and § in Virgina

‘Four shippers have facitines in Connecticut. | in Delaware. 3 in Maryland. & mm

Massachusetts. | in New Hampshire. 9 in New Jersey. § in New Y ork. 9 in Pennsyt ania. and 4 in

Rhode Isiand

‘Fifteen shippers have facies in Kansas and 27 have facilies in Missour!

H4aMcc.

HERRIN TRANSP C¢ EN TENSION ATL ANT A GA S93

the whole the population in the States in which supporting shippers

are located (except Mississippi). has increased substantially be-

tween 1960 and 1970

Southwest.—The 84 Arkansas shippers collectively have facilities

at 83 points in this State. with the greatest concentration of shippers

at Fort Smith (9), El Dorado (8). Fayetteville (8), Litthe Rock (8),

and Springdale (8). ' Of the six shippers with facilities in Colorado,

three are located at Denver. two at Colorado Springs, and one at

Littleton. The 84 Louisiana-based shippers have facilities at 29

points, with most located at Baton Rouge (19). Shreveport (14),

New Orleans (11). and Monroe (8)

The one shipper with tacilities in New Mexico states that, in

addition to having stores in this State. it has a warehouse at

Albuquerque. N. Mex. Ot the 32 shippers with facilities in Oklahoma,

16 are located at Tulsa, 9 at Oklahoma City. 5 at Muskogee, and | at

each of the points of Spiro. Stigler. Stillwell, Tahlequah, and

Westville. Also, two shippers indicate that they have stores located

in Oklahoma.’ The 275 supporting Texas shippers collectively have

faciiuties at SS points in this State. One hundred and thirty-two

shippers have facilities at Dallas (which includes the Dallas

Chamber of Commerce), 57 at Houston, and 20 at Fort Worth.”

With respect to the remaming Arkansas ports. one shipper ss located at Ashdown, three at

Bentonville. one at Biytheville. one at Cabot. three at Camden. five at Conway (includiag one

motor carrer), three at Crossett. two at Gravetic. three at Hamburg one at Hiwassee. two at

Hope. one at Lincoin. one at Lowell. three at Magnolia. one at Marked Tree. one at Osceola,

one at Pine Bluff. one at Rector. two at Rogers. ro at Russelivilie. three at Searcy (imc lading one

motor carrer). one at Sheridan. six at Siloam Springs three at Texarkana (inc tuding the chamber

of commerce thereof), and one at Van Burea Two Arkansas shippers |11.(240) and 25(452))

indicate that they have a number of stores un thes State Considering Arkansas shipper 11 (240), it

should be neted. as 1s described in footnote | of append E. that the number |! indicates that

thes os the | ith witness. in order of appearance which has facilies in Arkansas. and that the

number in the parenthesis is the wuness number used by the examiners

The sumber of shippers located at Shreveport and Monroe includes one motor common

carrer which wishes to interline at both of these points The remaining Lousiana shippers are

located at Abbeville (1). Addis (1). Alexandria (2). Alpine City (2). Bastrop (1). Bossier City (3).

Goiden Meadow (1). Haynesville «!). Howma (1). Kenner (1), Lafayeue (5). Lake Chartes (3),

wchading the harbor and terminal district. Lockport (1) Mansfield (1). Morgan City ()

Opelouses (1), Pineville (1). Rayne (1). Ruston (1). St. Francisville (1) Sprongfieid (1). Supreme

(1) Thibodeaux (1) West Monroe (3). and Zachary (1) Three Louisiana shippers. viz. 7.240),

22.1452). and 83.(917) wndicate that they have stores located at numerous points in Lousiana

See shippers 2(452) and 26.(828) under the Oklahoma heading The latter aiso has «

warchouse at Oklahoma C ity. Okla

“Additionally. seven shippers have facilities at Texarkana (which inclades the chamber of

commerce thereof). six at both San Antonio and Tyler. five at both Amaniio and Wichita Fait.

four at both Arlington and Greenville. three each at Gariand, Graham and Grand Prairie, two

cach at Bonham, Japer Nacogdoches, Pars, and Suipher Springs. and one at cach of the pom

of Austin. Baytown, Beaumont, Breckenridge. Bryan. Clarksville, Cleburne, Corpus Christi

Denson. Elecwa, Everman. Ferris. Flesesville. Hearne. Irving. ftasca. Jacksonville, Kamay

(footmote continued on fext page)

S¥4 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Southeast.—Of the 84 supporting shippers located in Alabama. 46

have facilities at Birmingham,” 8 at Montgomery (including a motor

common carrier which wishes to interline): 5 at Mobile: 4 at

Gadsden: 3 at each of tne points of Decatur. Tuscaloosa. and

Pelham: 2 at each of the points of Bessemer. Huntsville. and

Scottsboro: and | at each of the points of Boaz. Brent. Centre.

Cullman. Florence. Jackson's Gap. Leeds. Prattville. Springville.

Union Springs, Uniontown, and West Gate. The 15 supporting

shippers located in Florida have facilities at Miami (9). Pensacola

(6), Lakeland (1). and Orlando (1). Most of the 114 shippers with

facilities in Georgia are located at Atlanta (87). with the remainder

located at Columbus (7). Augusta (6), Griffin (4), and a number of

other points in Georgia.** One shipper is located at Louisville. Ky

In Mississippi, 54 shippers have facilities at Cleveland (1).

Florence (1). Greenville (7). including the port commission and the

chamber of commerce thereof. Greenwood (3). Indianola (2).

Jackson (32), Laurel (1), Meridian (3). Moss Point (i}. Port Gibson

(1), and Vicksburg (2).** Twenty-five of the supporting shippers have

facilities at 1S points in North Carolina. Seven are located at

Charlotte, four at Statesville. three at Gastonia. two at both

Cornelius and Greensboro. and one at each of the points of

Asheville. Forest City, Hickory, High Point. Huntersville. Landis,

Old Fort. Raleigh. Sodeyco. and Waynesville. The 25 shippers with

facilities in South Carolina are located at 20 points. Three are

located at Belton and Greenville (including two motor carriers. one

of which, although it is located at Hartsville. S.C., wishes to

interline at Greenville), and two are located at Seneca, S.C. One

shipper is located at each of the remaining specified South Carolina

points.” Twelve of the !7 supporting shippers with facilities in

footnote 26 continued)

Longyete. McGregor. McKinney Marlin. Nocona Palestine. Perryton. Prneiand. Pittsburg

Piano. Port Arthur. Seguin. Sherman. Smith's Biuff. Taylor. Temple. Waco. Winnsboro. sod

Wolfe City. Some shippers have stores at numerous points in Texas. i. ¢.. 28.1240) under the Texas

he ading

Included are shippers located a: pots im the commercial zone of Birmingham such as

Irondale, Ala

“Three shippers have facilines at Rome. to at cach of the points of Hampton. LaGrange.

Savannah. and Stone Mountain: and one at cach of the points of Cedartown. C hichemauga

Claxton, Conyers, Cordele. Datton. Hartecii. Milledgeville. Sparta. and Tucker. Ga

“Shipper S2(917) under the Musissippi heading wndicates that it has stores located im this

State

“Aiken. Anderson. Bethune. Blacksburg Charleston. Chester. Clearwater. Easley. Eas:

Greenwood. Georgetown. Lyman. Mauldin. Orangeburg Rock Hill. Spartanburg Startex and

Westmimster. Also shipper 1 (13) under the South Carolia heading ind cates thai st recemwes

traffic at its 29 plants located at numerous points in South Carolina Another shupper. 18.(574)

under South Carolia. indicates that « has facilities in this State

424 14 MC.

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP C% EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA S94

Tennessee are located at Chattanooga. while § have facilities at

Memphis and | at each of Murfreesboro and Nashville. Two of the

tive Virginia shippers have facilities at Richmond, Va. The remainder

are located at Petersburg. Va

Middle Atlantic and New Engiand States.—The four supporting

Connecticut shippers have facilities at six poimts: one shipper is

located at each of the points of Jewett City, Rockville, Waterbury,

West Hartford. and the shipper located at Waterbury also has

faci'ities at Wailingtord and Bridgeport. The sole supporting shipper

with facilities in Delaware is !ocaied at Rockford. Three shippers

have facilities at Baltumore. Ma. Eight, collectively, have facilities

at 12 points in Massachusetts: three are located at Fall River and

one at each of the points of Ashland. Charlestown. Dodgeville.

Foxboro. New Bedtord, North Eastern, Springfield, Waltham,

Watertown. Westboro. and Worcester. One shipper has facilities at

Nashua, N.H. Nine collectively have facilities at 11 points in New

Jersey: two are located at Elizabeth, and one shipper is located at

each of the remaining named New osecrsey points.” The five

supporting New York shippers collectively have facilities at six

points: one shipper ts located at each of the points of Broklyn. New

York City. Orangeburg. Pear! River, and Pleasant Valley. The New

York City shipper also has facilities in Buchanan, N.Y. Of the eight

supperting shippers with facilities in Pennsylvania, two are locaicd

at York and one at each of the points of Fort Washington, Marcus

Hook, Mount Holly Springs, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Pottsville.

Additionally, a motor common carrier wishes to interline at

Harrisburg, Pa One of the four Rhode Island shippers has facilities

at Warren and Kenyon. while the remaining three have fac:lities,

respectively. at Lincoin, Pawtucket, Warren, and Woonsecket

Midwest.—Ot the 15 Kansas shippers, 10 have facilitres at Kansas

City. including | motor common carrier, and 2 are locate. at each

of the points of Loring, Topeka. and Wichita’’ Most of the 27

supporting shippers with facilities in Missouri are located at Kansas

City (16), including 2 motor common carricrs which wish to

interline. Five supporting shippers have facilities at Springfield,

Mo., and one shipper is located at each of the remaining named

Missouri points.’’

Bound Brook. East Retherford. Hillside. Linden. Moorestown. Morris Plains. Orange.

Plainfield. Princeton and Wharton

Shopper 2.4452) wuder the Kansas heading indicates tha: « has stores located im Kansas

Carl Junction. Marshfield. Noel. St Loun. Stockton. and Webb City Shipper 4 (452) ender

the Missour: headeng indicates that « has stores located m a portion of Missowr

oe

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

The supporting shippers generally express dissatisfaction with the

existing transportation services, with the major complaint directed

against excessive and crratic transit times between pickup and

delivery of their traffic. Approximately 650 shippers have

complained about inconsistent and excessive transit times, and over

200 introduced transit time studies demonstrating the undependable

service they currently receive. "The exhibits show that on a

substantial volume of traffic moving between points which

applicants propose to serve overnight, shippers have been receiving

from I- to 7-day service, with an average transit time of about 3

days. On traffic which applicants propose to render 2-day service.

shippers received between |- and 14-day service, and the average

transit time was about 4 days. A substantial volume of traffic which

would receive 3-day service under the various proposals is

demonstrated to be subject to service ranging from 2 to 12 days. and

averaging about 5 days. And, traffic which would receive 4-day serv-

ice under applicant's proposals is shown to have received between

3- and 15-day service, with an average transit time of about 6 days

Many of the service exhibits do not cover all of the shipper's

pertinent traffic during the study period and some include

shipments which were listed because complaints were received on

this traffic. Nonetheless, in our opinion, the exhibits taken

collectively are respresentative of the service these shippers are and

have been receiving.

About 70 of the shippers located at points in a total of 16 States

complain collectively about certain carriers’ service restrictions and

embargoes as well as about the outright refusals of authorized

carriers to handle traffic.” Thus, Roadway assertedly has refused to

handle shipments, including furniture, and has informed certain

shippers that it does not want to handle their traffic. At Springfield

and Marshfield, Mo., it has refused to handle shipments weighing

less than 5,000 pounds. Ryder has informed a number of shippers

located at Chattanooga that it would not provide service between

this point and points in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North

Carolina, and South Carolina. These shippers were provided a list

by Ryder indicating those points which Ryder was no longer serving.

Ryder has also informed other shippers that it does not wish to

handle their traffic, and it has a 3-line haul restriction on traffic

moving to Mississippi. Campbell Sixty-Six refused to handle traffic

“A tebema, Artansas, Georgian. Louninna Maryland, Massachusetts. Mississippi Mussours New

Hampshire, New Jersey. New Y ork. North Carolina. Okishoma. South Carolina. Tennessee, and

Texas.

126 114M.

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA $97

to a number of Mississippi points dur:ng 1966, and it has refused to

handle some of supporting shippers traffic. Other protestants

generally refuse to interline, refuse shipments of less than a

specified weight, refuse to serve directly authorized points beyond

major gateways, refuse to maintain through routes, joint rates, or

interchange arrangements for furniture and other specified

commodities, and refuse to protect through routes or joint rates on

interline movements of shipments involving more than two carriers.

Pickup and delivery complaints were voiced by about 150

shippers located throughout 18 States."* A number of shippers at

Atlarta have experienced difficulty in obtaining pickup service

especially on shipments to points in L ouisiana and Mississippi. The

shippers collectively complain that approximately 30 of the

protestants either failed to make timely pickups and shipments were

delayed by | or more days, or they failed to make timely deliveries,

forcing the receivers either to pick up the incoming shipment at the

carriers dock or wait until the carrier delivered the shipment | or

more days late. Most of shippers’ pickup and delivery complaints

are registered against Ryder, Roadway, and Campbell.

Approximately 110 shippers complain abou’ interline difficulties

and about 200 shippers collectively complain about loss, damage,

tracing difficulties, and misrouting, much of which occurred in

interchange service. There is a clear and c rect correlation between

the number of times a shipment is interchanged, and the

expeditiousness of the service, the possib '\\y of loss or damage, and

the difficulty of tracing Thus, as a genere! rule, the fewer times a

shipment is interchanged, the greater the cnance that the shipment

will be handled expeditiously, the lesser the chance of loss or

damage, and there should be less difficulty with tracing A number

of the shippers indicates that normally the interchange of LTL

traffic involves, at a minimum, 24 hours. In addition to the

difficulties inherent in interline service, shippers complain that

tracing is unsatisfactory when multiple lines are involved; that

shipments are split in transit and consequently portions of the

shipment are lost or delayed; and that they find it difficult to obtain

prompt claim service when two or more carriers are involved.

Approximately 170 shippers located at points in 20 of the involved

States indicate that they have received complaints from their

customers with respect to the existing service. The shippers with

‘Alabama. Arkansas, Florida. Georgia. Kansas. Louswna. Maryland. Massachusetts.

Missasippi. Missouri. New Jersey. North Carolma. Peansyivania. Rhode Island. South Carolina.

Tennessee. Texas. and Virgin

$98 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

movements to points in the Southwest and Midwest generally

receive complaints from customers located in Arkansas, Kansas,

Louisiana, Mississippi. Missouri, and Texas. Most of the complaints

are voiced by customers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The

shippers in the Southwest receive complaints from customers

located in the Southeast, Middle Atlantic, and New Engiand States,

with most of the complaints coming from customers in Florida.

Georgia, and Mississippi.

The above-described difficulties have resulted in shippers losing

customers, business, and short-term discounts.’* Also, in some cases

shippers have suffered losses under contract penalty clauses for

failure to live up to commitments because of transportation

problems. Many indicate that they or their customers are unable to

maintain minimum inventories or meet production schedules.

Generally, many shippers submit that because of the inadequcy of

existing transportation services. they ave not only unable to expand

but they find it difficult properly to serve their existing customers.

In seeking a solution, some have established distribution

warehouses or have reverted to private motor carriage.

While the examiners found that a cubstantial number of the

supporting shippers had not thoroughly investigated existing serv-

ices, a review of the record indicates that many have made such an

investigation and have in fact used the available singie-line and a

number of feasible joint-line services. While the shippers may not

have utilized every possible combination of joimt-line service

available, they have collectively tried most, if not all. of the

available combinations and found them inadequate. Admitiedly.

some of the shippers failed to specify routings. These failures,

however, must be viewed in the light of the assertions of a number

of the shippers that even whea they routed their traffic they were

unable to obtain adequate service. and this function was relegated

solely in an attempt to obtain better service.

PROTESTANTS

The evidence of the opposing carriers, as summarized by the

examiners, is set forth in appendix G to this report. Those protestants

opposing only the application of Roadway are not included in that

summary.’’ For the most part, protestants are regular-route motor

common carriers of general commodities which collectively, either

“Approximately 80 shippers in a total of 14 Southeast Southwest. and Midwest States

comptained about lost business and customers

“Nose of the protestants opposed only the application of Floyd & Beasiey.

1428 14MCC.

:

-

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERKRIN TRANSP CO) EXNTENSION—ATLANTA. GA SYY

directly or through interchange, are authorized to serve the points

here sought to be served by applicants.

As described in appendix G, 14 of the remaining 42 protestants

introduced transit time studies of traffic handled between the

involved points.” The studies relate to periods of from 1 day to |

year, with most covering |-week periods. They usually embrace all

of a carrier's relevant traffic handled during the period or that

traffic handled for specified shippers during a specified period. The

l-year study of all the relevant traffic handled by one carrier”

demonstrates on-time performances ranging from a low of 2.0

percent (from Fort Smith. Ark.. to South Plainfield, NJ.) and 2.2

percnt (from Fort Smith to Newark, N.J.) to a high of 73.3 percrnt

(from Kansas City. Mo.. to Washington. D.C.). with the average on-

time performance of all the traffic listed being 33.5 percent.

Generally, the exhibits cover periods subsequent to the notice of

the commencement of the hearings in these proceedings. As a

consequence. while they demonstrate that in certain instances

during the study periods expeditious service was rendered by

certain of the protestants. these studies must be considered in the

light of the facts (1) that most either relate to short periods of time

or cover traffic handled for specified shippers and (2) that they were

made when protestants were confronted with the possibility of

grants of authority to additional carriers. When viewed in this light,

we believe that protestants’ studies do not present as valid a picture

as those introduced by those witnesses supporting the applications

here under consideration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, the applications of Red Ball, Bowman. and Johnson

should be granted two the extent set forth in our findings. The

evidence considered in its entirety is convincing that the additional

services so to be authorized will serve a useful public purpose.

responsive to a public demand and need, and that availabie

transportation services between the points and to the extent authority

is granted herein are not reasonably adequate to meet the

demonstrated needs of the shipping and receiving public.

Most of the supporting witnesses justifiably express dissatisfaction

with the transit times and the inconsistency of the clapsed time

“The examiners treatment of the various protestants transit ume (elapsed time) studies is

understandably not all-inclusive Its sufficient for our purposes. however. and we see #0 anced to

expand on i inasmuch as any expansion would not affect our discussion of the studies

the mse ives

“This study was introduced by Consolidated

14MCc 129

600 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

between pickup and delivery on traffic moving (1) between the East

and Southeast. on the one hand. and. on the other, the Southwest. (2)

between the Midwest, on the one hand. and, on the other, the East

and Southeast. and (3) between points in the East and Southeast, on

the one hand. and, on the other, points in Mississippi. Studies

introduced by many of the supporting witnesses show that the motor

movement of much of their pertinent traffic has transit times of at

least | day more than applicants’ proposals. Admittedly. some of

these exhibits cover only a limited number of those shipments trans-

ported between relevant points during the study period. It also

appears that some of the witnesses either have not tried all of the

available motor carrier service or did not route their relevant traffic

These infirmities, however, do not substantially affect the weight

which should be accorded to the documentary evidence collectively

presented by the supporting witnesses. Considered as a whole. the

record demonstrates that many of the supporting witnesses are not

receiving reasonably adequate service. In addition to the above-

described difficulties, many either have been confronted with carrier

restrictions or embargoes which limit the service available or have

experienced outright refusals by existing carriers to handle their

traffic, pickup and delivery problems; interline difficulties relating to

loss. damage, tracing, shortages, and misrouting; lost business and

accounts, and customer complaints. We are thus persuaded that the

supporting witnesses have shown a valid public need for additional

motor carrier service to the extent set forth in our findings.

As indicated, the four southwestern applicants (Herrin, Red Bali,

Strickland, and Jones) generally seek to extend their authority to

southeastern gateways such as Birmingham and Atlanta, and the four

remaining southern applicants (Deaton, Baggett, Bowman, and

Johnson) propose to expand their operations into the Southwest. with

Bowman also seeking to serve Missouri and Kansas points. As a

consequence, the applications of these two groups of carriers differ

“The validity of characterizing Herrin (of Houston) as a southwestern carrier might be questioned

im light of the fact that McLean. of Winston-Salem. N.C.. has been substituted as applicant in No

MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206). Ii is noted. however. that (as will be discussed hereinafter) although Her in

seeks authority to serve southeastern points. with only some eaceptions (20 shippers located a:

Atlanta. 4 at Columbus. 2 at Mobile. and 3 at Memphis) shippers supporting this application are

located in the Southwest. or more specifically. 29 are located in Louisiana and 40 in Texas More

mmportan is the fact that even though Herrin holds suthurity to serve southeastern points. by the

application it s seeking to extend its operations (excep: with respect (vs Memphis) between ports in

the Southwest in can presently serve and pomis in the Southeast which mt either cannot serve or to

which it can render only limited service. Thus. the status of this carrer as a southwestern applicant

insofar a3 this proceeding 6s concerned. has not been altered by the substitution of McLean as

See 130

14MCC

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO. EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 601

not only in their specifics (1.e., the points or territories that would be

served) but also as to those members of the public to whom their

service would primarily be proffered.

In Mayfield Sons Trucking Co. Extension—Kentucky, 108 M.C.C.

65). at page 657 (1969). it was stated that:

the Commussion favers the existence of sufficuent carrier Capacity to encourage

competion and provide imecentives for real innovatuen and improvement tw the

public. howeser. u will not approve the creatuen of excessive capacity and neediess

Jupiicatnon of services which would tend to adversely affect the continuance of

ethicrent operation by exssting carriers: M R. & R. Trucking Co.. Ext.—Birmingham,

1OS MCC 69. at page 80

It has also been pointed out. in Motor Freight Corp.

Ext.—Pottawattamie County, lowa, 106 M.C.C. 654, 657 (1968), that:

Muluiple-application proceedings require care not only to avoid the

prolifteration of operating authorities not needed by the shipping

public, but also *** [to select those] carriers with the ability to

perform the proposed service. We must decide which of the

applicants here betore us should receive authority masmuch as (a)

there are motor common carriers already operating generally

between the territories applicants propose to serve. (b) the present

applications may broadly be characterized as those of either

southwestern carriers proposing to expand their operations to points

in the Southeast or southern carriers seeking, for the most part. to

extend their operations to points in the Southwest, (c) there is not, in

our opinion, sufficient traffic to sustain all of the additional motor

carrier operations here proposed, and (d) the granting of all the

applications would, as a consequence, materially endanger or impair

the operations of existing carriers (and of applicants themselves)

contrary to the public interest. Cf. Pan-American Bus Lines

Operation, | M.C.C. 190, at page 203 (1936).

Turning to the quantum of motor carrier service for which a public

demand or need has been established on the record before us, we

have already expressed our view that. considering the existing

authorized services currently available in and between the

considered territories, the volume of traffic here shown to be moving

by the supporting public witnesses would net sustain the added

services and operations proposed by all eight applicants and that the

authorization of all such services could lead io unhealthy, if not

cutthroat, competition inimical to the public interest. By the same

token, there is on this record presented such substantial evidence of

widespread public dissatisfaction with available transportation

1n4Mcc 131

ou: INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

services (principaily joint-line in nature) from. to. and between the

areas here under consideration. as well as indications of a rapidly

increasing demand therein for added motor carrier service of a

direct. single-line nature. that the issuance of authority to only one of

the remaining eight applicants would not be responsive to the public

transportation requirements in these territories. Considering all these

factors. and others that will be discussed in connection with our

grants of authority to each individual carrier. we conclude that the

volume of traffic moving and to be moved within and between the

considered territories supports. and the public interest requires. the

issuance of somewhat competitive and overlapping authorities to Red

Ball. Bowman. and Johnson.

The southwestern applicants.—Whereas the proposals of some ot

the southern applicants differ somewhat in scope. those of the south

western carriers are basically similar. With respect to this latter

category of applicants. it is our opinion that the evidence of record.

including the traffic volumes shown to be moving and all! other

relevant faciors enumerated in this report. justifies a grant of

authority to only one of them. In deciding which is to be granted such

authority, consideration must be given to the criteria prescribed by

this Commission and the courts for the selection of an applicant

where. as here. it is not feasible to grant all applications seeking

essentially similar authority. Those criteria, as summarized in Kroblin

Regrigerated Xpress, Inc., Ext.—Denison, lowa, 96 M.C C. 233, 237

(1964), are as follow: (1) an evaluation of the existing authorities and

operations of the considered applicants. (2) the location of their

terminal facilities and the equipment operated by them. (3) the

relative date of filing the applications, and (4) the carrier which

produced the evidence supporting the finding of public need. Cf. also

H. C. Gabler, Inc., Ext.—Cement from Md. and Pa. Counties, 86

M.C.C. 447, 469-470 (1961). and cases cited therein. Under these

criteria, it is noted that Red Ball operates over a much more

extensive system of routes in the Southwest than does Herrin.

Strickland. or Jones; that the number of Red Ball terminals (92

terminals located throughout Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New

Mexico. Colorado, and Oklahoma) is about three times the collective

number of terminals operated by Herrin. Strickland, and Jones in the

Southwest. that with the equipment located at these terminals Red

Bali is in a much better position to serve shippers and receivers

located in the Southwest than Herrin. Strickland, or Jones: that Red

Ball would have to establish 3 additional terminals in the Southeast

and proposes to add equipment as it becomes necessary. while (a)

432 1N4mMcc

THIS REPRODUCTION F

AITHFU

PROJECTS ORIGINAL Copy wu ten

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

Pages | 33-148 intentionally left blank

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFUL

LY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL Copy WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION ATLANTA. GA ms

Herrin proposes 6 additional southeastern terminals. the reestablish-

ment of a terminal at Litthe Rock. and would add 41 tractors, 80

trailers, and 67 trucks to its fleet. (b) Strickland proposes to establish

4 additional southeastern terminals. and (c) Jones proposes to

establish terminals at 2 southeastern points (Atlanta and Birming-

ham) and at 2 southwestern points (E| Dorado and Texarkana): that

Red Ball presented 130 supporting witnesses and an additivnal 23

witnesses specifically supported its application. whereas (a) Herrin

presented 87 witnesses and an additiwnal |i supported its applica

tion. ib) Strickland presented 102 shipper witnesses. and an

additional 24 supported mts application. and (c) Jones presented 90

witnesses and an add nal 11° supported its application: and that

Red Ball filed us applicat yn May 16. 1965. Herrin on June 18

1965. Strickland on Jus i¢ 6S. and Jones on June 14. 1965

Clearly. of the southwestern applicants. Red Baill has made the

»?

he above-described

criteria. and. thereture. mu ws selected te recene the authority for

Superior showing will respect tk eacn

which a public need has been tound in this report. Moreover, none of

the other three applicants proposes and none of the protestants (even

considering the operations authurized since the hearing herein) 1s

able to provide the extensive single-iine service proposed by Red

Ball between Atlanta and Birmingham. on the one hand. and. on the

other. the terrnory Red Ball now serves Cf. Herrin Transp. Co

Extension—Georgia, 9S MCC. 700. 718 (1964)

Against these factors. Herrin submits that u 1s the logical choice

because (a) it now has a service and alternate route inte Atlanta. (b) it

does not seek to expand HS operations Inte any new point masmuch

aS Mt MOW conducts operations thrcugh or to. in the case of Atlanta

and Pensacla. al! the points which u here seeks to serve. and (c) Red

Ball is not now a competitive factor in Georgia nor does it conduct

operations even for operating convemence only into Birmingham and

Atlanta. Herrin further points out that Atlanta and Birmingham are

large distribution centers and that the gulf coast region in its territory

west of the Mississippi River is a logical distribution area. This latter

statement signifies the import of us applicatiwen. Albeu this applicant

asks to have certain restrictions on its existing authority removed

with respect to Pensacola and Atlanta. and seeks to serve (excluding

consideration of Atlanta and Birmingham) Mobiie. Montgomery,

Columbus. and Jackson. it produced evidence (excluding shippers

and receivers located in the Southwest) of only four shippers located

at Columbus. two at Mobile (Red Ball now serves between Mobile

and Jackson and points in the Southwest). and three at Memphis. Its

i4aMcc 149

604 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

application, like those of the other southwestern applicants, was filed

primarily for authority to serve southwestern shippers and receivers

on traffic moving between the Southwest. on the one hand. and. on

the other. Birmingham and Atlanta. Clearly. Red Ball is in a better

position than Herrin to render this service. To the extent that

Herrin's proposal differs from Red Ball's. the former has not shown

that the present or future public convenience and necessity require

that these portions of its application be granted

The examiners found that from a commodity standpoint. the only

need shown for additional service relates to LTL shipments of com-

modities requiring refrigeration and not generally to the

transportation of commodities requiring protective service. It

appears that 4 of the 19 shippers whose evidence has been

summarized by Jones require protection from freezing not heat. 3

require truckload and not LTL service, and 6 ship candy and would

require refrigerated service only on a seasonal! basis

Although there may thus be some limited need for LT

refrigerated service, such service was proposed by Jones only in

conjunction with its basic proposal to render regular-route general-

commodity service. It has not been shown that the present or . ature

public convenience and necessity require Jones’ proposed regular-

route services. By the same token, Jones has aot shown a need for

the regular-route transportation of specified commodities.*' and any

grant of authority made herein would have to be irregular-route in

nature. The examiners found, however, that any need was for LTL

refrigerated service which could not rationally be authorized

because, as pointed out in Foxr-Smythe Transp Co Ex-

tension—Okiahoma, 106 M.C.C. |, at page 48 (1967), “Irlestric-

tions limiting service to the handling of less-than-truckload ship-

ments are indefinite and impractical, *** would be difficult to en-

force, and ***will not be imposed by this Commission.” We con-

clude that Jones’ application also should be denied in its entirety

The southern applicants —Of the four remaining southern ap

plicants, we are of the opinion that Bowman has pursuasively

demonstrated a need for its services between specified points in

Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, on

the one hand, and, on the other, those points in the Southeast and

East that it presently serves. This showing is particularly strong with

respect to the first three States named

Approximately 135 witnesses in 13 States support that portion of

Bowman's application seeking authority to serve the 10 specified

“AS pomted owt in Motor Common Carriers of Property—Rowes and Service. 8B MCC 415

430 (1961). reguiar-rowte authorny has sometimes been granted |) motor common camer of only a

few commodues but m recent yean hs has been undormly avowed

14aMCC

PX

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION ATLANTA. GA dS

Mississippi poits. Over 100 of these have experienced difficulties

with inadequate. inconsistent. and excessive transit times. The wit-

nesses transit time studies show that between 3- and 4-day service

1s generally rendered on a substantial amount of their traffic moving

betmeen Atlanta and major Mississippi points. with transit times

ranging between | and ~ days. From other points in the territory

Bowman presently serves. transit times to Mississippi range from 3

to 21 days. Approximately 25 supporting witnesses have complained

of eather refusals by authorized carriers to handle their traffic. and

of carner embargoes or restrictions. and about 50 have experienced

pickup and delivery problems. A number of the witnesses further

complain of loss. damage. difficulties with interline service, lost

business and accounts. and customer complaints. Collectively.

Deaton. Dixie. Campbell, Roadway. and Ryder are cited for refusing

to handle a number of the supporting shippers’ traffic to Mississippi

from points in the Southeast. At least one of the shippers indicated

that tt would be forced to open a warehouse in Mississippi unless

the transit time can be improved. Another shipper represented that

it would be forced to switch its shipping point on traffic to

Mississippi from the Southeast to the Southwest. Other witnesses

located at such points in Mississippi as Jackson and Greenville have

discontinued shipping from Atlanta because of the problems they

have experienced

As pomted out by Bowman. two protestants to its application

(Campbell and Herrin) withdrew their opposition. and of the remain-

ing Protestants to the Mississippi portion of its application. Dixie

serves only 4 of the .O Mississippi points here sought to be served by

Bowman and maintains terminals at only 2 of these points.“ Gordons

does not actnvely solicit any traffic between Atlanta and Birmingham.

vn the one hand. and. on the other. any point in Mississippi south of

LS. Highway 8&2. which would include. as here pertinent. Meridian.

Jackson. Vicksburg. Laurel. Hattiesburg. Moss Point. and Pascagoula

tor 7 of the 10 points Bowman seeks to serve). Shippers complain

that Ryder is not rendering adequate service to Mississippi. and that

it has refused tw handle certain traffic to points in this State. Deaton

holds authority to render single-line service to some of the involved

Mississippi pots. but it assertedly interlines this traffic. Since the

hearings in the mstant proceedings, Roadway. Braswell. and GFA

have been authorized to serve points in Mississippi. While the single-

Tre fall 1971 edmion of the Amencam Motor Carner Dweciory. of wtach ee take offical notice

shows thar Cote Dinse mautains a terminal at and serves onty one of the imvolved Moassasipp: pons

es 151

l4aMecg

two INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

line service which Roadway now holds authority to provide will be

duplicated to or trom a number of the involved Mississippi points.

the coverage of its operating rights in southern Alabama and Georgia

is limited and it dues not hold authority to render regular-route

service at points in Florida. Braswell's single-line operations to or

from Vicksburg. Jackson. and Meridian extend only as far east as

Atlanta, and its authority in Alabama is limited to only the major

points of Birmingham and Montgomery. GFA now holds authority to

serve Jackson. Hattiesburg, Laure!, and Meridian, but tts single-line

operations in the Southeast embrace only a limited territory.

Approximately 80 witnesses support the Kansas-Missouri portion

of Bowman's application. Over 60 of these complain about

inconsistent and excessive transit times, and a number complain

about pickup and delivery problems, loss. damage, shortage, tracing

difficulties. misrouting. interline problems. unsuitable or inadequate

equipment, customer compiaints. and lost business and penalties

Generally, these witnesses have shown that the transit times on a

substantial volume of their traffic between the Kansas-Missouri

points Bowman seeks to serve and points in the Southeast is at least |

day more than is proposed by Bowman. Roadway and Transcon have

declined to handle some of the supporting witnesses’ traffic. Shippers

with traffic moving between points in Florida and points in the

involved Kansas-Missouri territory represent that they must rely on

joint-line service, and while those which utilize Bowman's service

indicate that it is satisfactory, they are not satisfied with the service of

the carriers with which Bowman interlines. Bowman submits that

only three general-commodity motor carriers (Gordons, Watson-

Wilson, and T.1.M.E.“’) oppose this portion of its application, and

while holding authority to serve a broad territory in the South, they

collectively serve only Birmingham and Mobile. Ala.; Nashville.

Chattanooga. and Knoxville, Tenn.: Atlanta. Augusta, Athens, and

Rome, Ga.. and Charleston and Greenville, $.C. Assertedly. even if

these carriers were to serve each of their authorized points, there

would still be no service from the entire State of Florida, no service

from those points in Georgia south of U.S. Highway 80, no service

from those points in South Carolina north of Greenville, Columbia,

"lh w noted that im T./ M£-DC. Inc —dnvenigation & Revocanon of Cems, 113 MCC. 897

(1971). ic was found that respondent T.1.M.E. has been im violation of section 2)0(b) of the

Inverssate Commerce Aci and has failed to comply «ith the terms and conditions of us ceruficares

wm that # has not been rendenng reasonably continuous and adequate service in rhe transportation of

general commodities ai numerous pounts m. among other States. Musour: ans Tennessee The!

proceeding G peading on petition

152

1n4Mcc

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL Copy WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

HERRIN TRANSP CO EATENSION—ATLANTA, GA ao

and Charleston; and no service from the entire States of North

Carolina and Virginia

The eatent of Roadway's opposition to Bowman's application has

been raised in pleadings. In exhibit 1865. at pages 2 and 3. Roadway

indicates that u opposes the Bowman application insofar as authority

is sought (1) between Birmingham. on the one hand, and. on the

other. Houston aad Fort Worth. (2) between Houston and Dallas, and

(3) between Memphis and West Memphis. on the one hand. and, on

the other, Oklahoma City. This is qualified by the statement on page

5 of the exibit that appendix 2 thereto. which is Roadway's systems

map. Shows the Roadway points that are in direct conflict with points

of the applicants. The map includes Kansas City. Carthage. Topeka,

and Springfield. The examiners did not include Roadway in their list

of carriers offering single-line service between Atlanta and/or

Birmingham, on the one hand. and. on the other, Kansas City: and

Roadway has not specificaliy taken exception to this omission. While

Roadway technically opposes the Kansas-Missouri portion of

Bowman's application. it is noted that its evidence is directed

primarily to traffic moving between Texas points, on the one hand.

and, on the other. Roadway terminal points in Georgia, North and

South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Maryland,

Pennsylvania. New Jersey. New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island.

and Massachusetts. In any event, Roadway’s authority in southern

Georgia and Alabama is limited and it does not render service to

points in Florida. Although Consolidated acquired authority to serve

Atlanta since the hearing and can thus render single-line service

between this point. on the one hand, and, on the other, Kansas City

and Springfield. its operations in the Southeast are limited

Additionally. Bowman has shown that the present and future public

convenience and necessity require the extension of its operations to

points in the remaining States it proposes tu serve. The evidence of

the supporting witnesses establishes a clear and convincing public

need for singie-line motor carrier service between the broad

southeasiern and easten seabdard territory served by Bowman. on the

one hand, and, on the other, the Arkansas points it proposes to serve.

Approximately 100 witnesses supported this portion of Bowman's

proposal. Many expressed a need for single-line service between the

Arkansas points, on the one hand. and. on the other. points in

Florida. Georgia, and the Carolinas (other than Birmingham, Atlanta,

and Charlotte) for which no such service is availabie. Existing

carriers which hold authority to operate between the Arkansas

i4Mcc 153

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

oor INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

points and points which Bowman presently serves are limited

territorily either with respect to the Arkansas points they serve or as

to the territory Bowman already serves. As a consequence. none can

provide the comprehensive single-line service that would be offered

by Bowman between the involved Arkansas points and the territory it

now serves. and none of the remaining applicants proposes such an

extensive service.

Similarly. the protestants are unable to provide the full scope of

the single-line services proposed by this applicant between the

Louisiana points (excluding New Orleans from consideration at this

time) it proposes to serve and the territory it currently serves. Over

150 witnesses support this portion of Bowman's proposal. and they

too have demonstrated material inadequacies in the transportation

services they now receive. With respect to New Orleans. the

approximately 30 shippers supporting this aspect of Bowinan’s

application have shown that the service they are receiving between

specified points in Alabama and Tennessee. on the one hand. and, on

the other, New Orleans is not adequate. None of the protestants

provides single-line service between all of the points Bowman serves

in its authorized territory here under consideration and New Orieans.

Regarding Texas, it is noted that more witnesses from the Dalias-Fort

Worth area testified in support of Bowman's application than any of

the other applicants. Also, witnesses from numerous points

throughout Bowman's authorized territory testified in support of this

portion of its application. Many of these shippers do aot presently

have single-line service to this important area, and none of the other

applicants proposes to render the extensive single-line services to be

proffered by Bowman. Of the carriers which operate between the

southern Texas points which Bowman proposes to serve and its

authorized territory, only Roadway and Ryder can provide a service

even remotely comparable to that proposed. Shippers’ testimony.

however. demonstrates that the latter is not rendering adequate

service, whereas the former's authority in the Southeast is. as noted

above, limited in certain respects.

We recognize that. as was pointed out in Hancock-Trucking, Inc.,

Ext.—Gulf and West Coast Routes, 62 M.C.C. $13, 535 (1954), “the

national transportation policy does not tolerate the thought that all

shippers and cil points are entitled to single-line motor carrier

service... Many shippers have nevertheless demonstrated. on the

present record, that they require the single-line service here

authorized to be provided by Bowman. and that the lack of such

service has been harmful to them. See Roadway Exp.. Inc.,

154

14 MCC

Ext —Birmingham, Dalias, Houston, 8- MCC. 089 (1960). Thus. we

believe tha: Bowman has also shown a need tor an extension of us

autherit. onto Arkansas. Lousiana. and Texas in the manner

hereimatter set forth mm our tindings

Johnson proposes an “overhead singie-line service between a

number of major poms in Texas. Louisiana. and Mississippi. on the

one hand. and. on the other. poimts mu serves along the eastern

seaboard and in the gulf territory. Its application 1s supported by 236

witnesses located throughout the areas it serves or proposes to serve

Their testimony establishes that the existing service on small

shipments traffic between the involved territories is generally

inadequate. Many of the supporting witnesses vai Gly complain with

respeci to lengthy and undependable transit times. and their studies

considered on the whole. demonstrate that meconsistent and

excessive transit times have been experienced on a substantial

portion of the involved traffic. Comp!aints also were voiced by many

of the shippers with respect to poor pickup and delivery service.

tracing problems. and excessive loss and damage. Many of the

shippers’ problems can be attributed to the existing joint-line motor

service. As pointed out by Johnson, of the major eastern seaboard

carriers which compete with it and render a portion of the involved

joint-line services. only Akers opposes Johnson's application. Major

east coast motor common carriers such as Associated Transport,

inc., Branch Motor Express. Inc., Hennis Freight Lines, and R. C

Motor failed to participate in this proceeding, and u is therefore

apparent that important segment of the involved joint-line motor

carrier system does not oppose the Johnson application

Of the single-line protestants which serve between the points

Johnson proposes to serve and its present territory, Ryder does not

hold authority to serve the Dallas-Fort Worth area and much of the

Carolinas: Roadway holds authority to perform the proposed

“overhead” service but its service was the subject of many of the

shippers’ complaints, and the authorities of T.1.M.E. and Transcon

are limited to such an extent that they can provide only a portion of

the service proposed by Johnson. It is true that McLean now holds

authority to provide single-line service comparable to that proposed

by Johnson, but that carrier did not protest Johnson's application

and there is no evidence on this record that it is ready and willing to

furnish the needed service. In our opinion, Johnson has demon-

strated that there is a need for its proposed service. except to the

extent set forth below. The stated purpose of Johnson's secking

155

H4aMcc

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

610 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

authority to operate over the alternate route between Shreveport

and Baton Rouge, La., is solely to enable Johnson to move its empty

equipment from the northern route to the southern route for use at

southeastern points. Inasmuch as specific authority is not required

to perform this type of operation, however. and because Johnson

has not otherwise shown any reason for a grant of such authority.this

portion of its application will be denied.

Deaton and Baggett admittedly filed defensive applications here in

in an effort to have all of the applications denied. They concede

that their applications represent an attempt to keep pace with any

further realignment of existing motor carrier operational patterns:

and each, in its “conditional” exceptions, contends that the granting

of its application would be a necessary corollary to a grant of any ot

the other applications. On brief. Deaion asserted that all of the ap-

plications should be denied inasmuch as applicants had failed to

show a need by the shipping public for their services. and because

any expressed need could be met by existing carriers. including

those authorized to perform service in the involved territory after

the record herein was closed. Deaton does not take exception to

the examiners denial of its application. along with the other ap-

plications. Thus, it concedes that it has not shown a need for its

proposed service. A grant of authority to this carrier cannot be

justified solely on the basis that, without it. Deaton will not be able

to survive and remain a viable competitve carrier in the area if any of

the other applications are granted. Nor do we believe that Deaton

has shown on this record that the above-described grants to Red Ball.

Bowman. and Johnson will materially adversely affect its operations.

Deaion’s application will therefore be denied. Baggett submits that

although it is still a “defensive” applicant. it became a “serious”

applicant after failing to cause all applicants two withdraw: and it

believes that the record has disclosed a public need for its proposed

service, Baggett’s application will also be denied. While it. unlike

Deaton, is now unwilling to concede that it has failed to show a need

for its proposed service. we think it plain that this is indeed the case

Baggett. by its “conditional” exceptions and weak shipper support

(approximately 50 shippers support its application) has demonstrated

tht it is not interested in the public convenience and necessity but

father only in maintaining the competitive status quo.

Undoubtedly. granting all portions of the eight remaining

applications might have serious adverse consequences on the

existing motor carrier services. It also is true that the above-

described grants of authority will subject some of protestants’ traffic

156

14 M.C.C

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA ot)

to the possibility of diversion. With the exception of one carrier

(Holloway). however, protestants have not shown that they would be

seriously adversely affected’ by such grants, nor does it appear that

the operations of any existing carrier would be impaired to such an

extent that they would be unable to render service to the public in

the future. Liberty Trucking Co. Ext.—Lake Mills, Wis., 111

M.C.C. 423 (1970). Whereas the operations of Holloway (which

transports specified commodities in a limited territory) may be

seriously adversely affected, the gains to be derived by the shipping

public in general far outweigh any adverse effect this carrier or any

other protestant may experience.

Other maiters.—A few other matters require comment. First,

some of the protestants challenge the feasibility of the proposals of

Red Ball. Bowman, and Johnson in light of their present service

over similar distances. Nevertheless, as pointed out in Wes

Brothers Inc., Extension—Baton Rouge, La., 106 M.C.C. 792, 799

(1968). modified on other grounds at 108 M.C.C. 485 (1969):

Evidence that applicant's transit time for existing services over a shorter distance is

more than *** [the proposed transit time) is not conclusive proof that it will not

render *** [the proposed transit time] between the points proposed. The service and

highway conditions between the service points and routes may be so dsflerent that

what happens in one case may bear no relation to what will happen in the other

Additionally, Johnson has revised its operations and effective

March 13. 1966, it commenced using two-man teams which would

be utilized on a direct nonstop basis between Charlotte and the

seven proposed terminal points here under consideration. |

Second. inasmuch as the authority sought by Red Ball partially

duplicates authority presently held by this applicant, the grant of

authority made herein, to the extent of such duplication, shall be

construed as conferring not more than a single right Third,

although Bowman indicated that it intends to render service be-

tween Montgomery and points on its proposed routes, it appears

that in addition to failing to inelude Montgomery in the restrictive

language embodied in its application, this applicant's proposed

route from Montgomery terminates at a point which is not a service

point on its proposed routes south from Tuscaloosa, Ala As

Bowman's intent was clearly specified with respect to the use of

Montgomery as a gateway, and since a need has been shown for the

“In this connection. « noted that protestant United, one of the carriers the casmuners

indicated would be adversely affected. has been merged into s much larger carrier, Cambell,

thereby rendering the wsue as to the vulnerability of the formers operations moot

H4aMcc

157

THIS REPRODUCTION FA ITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

612 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

use of this gateway, these defects will be cured, subject to prior

publication in the Federal Register. by authorizing Bow man to serve

the junction of U.S. Highways |! and 80 and Interstate Highway 59

at or near Toomsuba, Miss., for the purpose of joinder only on its

route between Tuscaloosa and Hattiesburg and by including

Montgomery in the restrictive language. Inasmuch as Moss Point,

Miss., lies within the commercial zone of Pascagoula. Miss., no

specific authority is required to enable Bowman to serve the former

point in light of the findings below. See Commercial Zones and

Terminal Areas, 54 M.C.C. 21, 108 (1952), 49 CFR 1048.10) and

1049.1. Finally. with respect to Bowman, its grant of authority wil!

be modified to conform to current Commission practice. Fourth,

authority in terms of miles about a particular point will not be

granted herein since it is administratively undesirable. See Glennon

Transports, Inc., Extension—New York, N. Y., 78 M.C.C. 157

(1958). |

And last, Johnson indicates that it proposes to offer daily,

scheduled, LTL service between Dallas and Savannah by tacking

regular- and irregular-route authority. Clearly, the separate nature

of the authorities would not be preserved if in fact Johnson

provided such a service. As this represents only a minor aspect of

Johnson's proposal, we think that its application should be granted

with the understanding that the regular-route rights will not be used

in combination with Johnson's existing irregular-route authority for

the performance of an unauthorized regular-route service between

Dallas and Savannah We believe that otherwise the separate nature

of Johnson's irreguiar-route rights can be maintained, but we do

not wish to infer that any conversion of these operations into

regular-route operations in connection with through service to and

from points on the regular routes authorized herein will be

condoned.

FINDINGS

in Nos. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206), MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233), MC-

18088 (Sub-No. 36), MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147), MC-76177 (Sub-No.

304), and MC-111231 (Sub-No. 67), we find that applicants have

failed to establish that the present or future public convenience and

necessity require the proposed operations, and that these

applications should be denied.

In No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132), we find that the present and

future public convenience and necessity require operation by

14 MC.C

158

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 613

applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier

by motor vehicle of general commodities (except household goods

as defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk, and those

requiring special equipment) over the routes. between the points,

and in the manner set forth in part | of appendix H to this report,

(1) restricted against the transportation of traffic moving between

Memphis. Tenn.. and points in its commercial zone, on the one

hand, and, on the other. Greenville, Miss., Birmingham, Ala. or

Atlanta, Ga, and points in their respective commercial zones, (2)

subject to the condition that the authority granted herein, to the

extent it authorizes the transportation of classes A and B explosives,

shall be limited in point of time to a period expiring 5 years after

the effective date of the certificate to be issued herein, and (3)

subject to the condition that to the extent such authority duplicates

the authority presently held by applicant. it shall not be construed

as conferring more than a single operating right.

In No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56), we find that the present and

future public convenience and necessity require operaion by

applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier

by motor vehicle of general commodities (except those of un’ sual

value, classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by

the Commission, commodities in bulk, and commodities requiring

special equipment) over the routes, between the points, and in the

manner set forth in part II of appendix H to this report (1) restricted

to the transportation of traffic moving from, to, or through

Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile. Ala, Pensacola, Fla, or

Memphis, Tenn. (2) with service at New Orleans restricted to

traffic originating at or destined to points in Tennessee and those

points in Alabama on and north of U.S. Highway 78; and (3)

restricted against the transportation of (a) traffic origiviating at or

received from connecting carriers at Memphis, Tenn., and points in

its Commercial zone and destined to points west of a line beginning

at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and extending along the

Mississippi River to its junction with the western boundary of Itasca

County, Minn, thence northward along the western boundaries of

Itasca and Louchiching Counties, Minn. to the international

boundary line between the United States and Canada: or (b) traffic

originating at points west of the line described in (3a) above and

destined to or delivered to connecting carriers at Memphis. Tenn.,

and points in its commercial zone; and subject to prior publication

in the Federal Register of notice of the authority granted herein.

b4aMCC

159

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

oi4 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

in No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18), we find that the present and

future public convenience and necessity require eperatios by

applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common —

by motor vehicle of general commodities (except those of unusua

value. classes A and B explosives. household goods as defined 6)

the Commission. commodities in bulk, and those requiring special

equipment, over the routes, between the points, and in the manner

set forth in part Ill of appendix H to this report, subject to 4

restriction in part (1) of the grant to traffic moving from. to, ,

through Atlanta, Ga, and subject to a restriction in part (2) of (he

grant to traffic moving from, to, or through Gulfport. Miss

We further find that the applicants in Nos. MC-2229 (Sub-No

132), MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56), and MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18) are !

willing, and able properly to perform such services and to contors

to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our fu es

and regulations thereunder, that an appropriate semen

authorizing the above-described operations should be grantec |

each of the three above-described applicants, and that the

applications in all other respects should be denied. aa

Upon compliance by each of the three applicants wit -

requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act and wit

our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate wil

be issued that applicant

An appropriate order will be entered.

14MCC

160

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLA! TA. GA 615

APPENDIX A

Authority sought

No MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206). filed June 18. 1965. as amended

HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION—ATLANTA Ga *

(REENTITLED)

M.LEASN TRL CAIN©G COMPANY EX TENSION—ATLANTA GA

General commodities including classes A and B explosives (but excepting

commodities of unusual value. household goods as defined by the Commission.

commodities in bulk. and those requiring special equipment)

(1) Serving the points of Birmingham, Mobile. and Montgomery. Ala.. C olumbus,

Ga.. Jackson. Miss. and Pensacola. Fila. as intermediate poimts on applicant's

presently authorized regular routes

(2) Serving as points of joinder only. the points of Atmore. intersection of US

Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee. Flomaton. Woodstock and Selma, Ala. and

Poplarville. Miss

(3) Between Jackson. Miss.. and Atlanta. Ga

From Jackson over U.S Highway 80 to Macon. Ga. thence over Georgia Highway

87 to Jackson. Ga.. thence over U. S. Highway 23 to Atlanta, and return over the same

route. serving the intermediate points of Montgomery. Ala. and Columbus. Ga. and

serving Seima. Ala, and the junction of U. S. Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee.

Ala. as pomts of joinder only

(4) Between Jackson. Miss. and Atlanta. Ga

From Jackson over U SS. Highway 80 to junction U. S. Highway |!. thence over

L. S& Highway |! to Birmingham, Ala. thence over U. S. Highway 78 to Atlanta. and

return over the same route. serving the intermediate point of Birmingham Ala

(5) Between New Orteans. La. and Birmingham. Ala

From New Orleans over U.S. Highway |! to Birmingham. and return over the same

route. serving no intermediate points. and serving Woodstock. Ala. and Poplarville.

Miss.. as pots of joinder

(6) Between Pensacola. Fia. and Flomaton. Ala

From Pensacola over L S Highway 29 to Flomaton. and return over the same

route. serving no intermediate points. and serving Flomaton. Ala. as a point of joinder

only

(7) Between Woodstock. Ala. and Mobile. Ala

From Woodstock over Alabama Highway * to junction L S$ Highway 43 near

Thomasville. Ala. thence over U. S. Highway 43 to Mobile. and return over the same

route. serving no intermediate points. and serving Woodstock. Ala. as a point of

joinder

(8) Between Montgomery. Ala. and Atianta. Ga

From Montgomery over L. S. Highway 80 to Tuskegee. Ala. thence over U §

Highway 29 to Atlanta (also from Montgomery over Interstate Highway 85 to Atlanta)

“Herrin Transportation Company was merged inte McLean Trucking Company. effectre

October |, 1969. as authorucd in No MC-F-10121. MfcLean Trucsine C ompany—C onire! and

Merger—Herrin Transportation Compon) Cs a decided Augus: 5, 1969

H4MCC

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL COPY WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

616 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

and return ove; the same route, serving no intermediate points. and serving the junc

tion of U. S. Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee. Ala. as 4 point of joinder only

(9) Between Atlanta, Ga, and Columbus, Ga

From Atlanta over Georgia Highway 85 to Woodbury, Ga. thence over Georgye

Highway 85E to Manchester, Ga. thence over Georgia Highway 85 and alternate S

Highway 27 to Columbus and return over the same route. serving no intermediate

points

(10) Between Birmingham, Ala, and Mobile. Ala.

From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 3! (also over Interstate Highway 65) to

Mobile and return over the same route. serving the imiermediate point of

Montgomery. Ala, and serving the point of Flomaton. Ala. as a point of joinder only

(11) Between Selma. Ala, and Montgomery. Ala

From Selma over Alabama Highway |4 to Prattville, Ala. thence over L. S

Highway 82 to Montgomery and return over the same route. serving no intermediate

points, and serving Seima as a point of joinder only

(12) Between Mobile, Ala. and Baton Rouge. La:

From Mobile over U. S. Highway 98 to Lucedale, Miss. thence over Mississipp:

Highway 26 to the Mississippi- Louisiana State line, thence over L outsiana Highway ¢

to Covington, La. thence over U. S. Highway 190 to Baton Rouge and return over the

same route, serving no intermediate points. and serving Poplarville. Miss.. as a porn!

of joinder only.

(13) Between Birmingham, Ala, and Columbus, Ga

From Birmingham, Ala, over U. S. Highway 280 to Columbus and return over the

same route, serving fo intermediate points

RESTRICTION: Service proposed at the points and over the routes specified im

paragraphs | through 13 above is restricted to traffic moving to, from or through

Memphis, Tenn.. or Monroe, New Orleans or Baton Rouge, La

No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132), filed May 17. 1965, as amended

RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT INC EX TENSION, ATLANTA. GA

General commodities inctuding classes A and B explosives (but excepting

household goods as defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and those

requiring special equipment)

(1) Between Atianw, Ga. and Texarkana, Ark.

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham. Ala. thence over U S$

Highway |! to junction U. S. Highway 82. thence over U. S. Highway 82 to

Texarkana, and return over the same route, serving the intermediate points of

Birmingham. Ala. Greenville. Miss, and those on U. S. Highway 82 in Arkansas

(2) Between Jackson, Miss. and Atlanta, Ga.

From Jackson over U. S. Highway 80 to junction U. S. Highway 29. thence over

U. S. Highway 29 to Atlanta. and return over the same route. serving no intermediate

points.

(3) Between Meridian, Miss.. and Tuscaloosa. Ala. for purposes of joinder only

From Meridian over U. S. Highway |! to Tuscallosa. and return over the same

route, serving no intermediate points.

RESTRICTION: Restricted against the transportation of property moving between

Memphis, Tenn. and its commercial zone. on the one hand. and. on the other.

162 N4aMecc

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION-—ATLANTA. GA 617

Greenville, Miss. Birmingham, Ala. or Atianta. Ga. and thei respective commercial

zones

No. MC.11207 (Sub-No 233). filed May 28. 1965. as amended

DEATON TRUECK LINE INC RE ENTITLED DEATON INC EXTENSION

DALLAS TER

General commodities (except those of unusual valuc. classes A and B explosives.

livestock, household goods as defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and

those requiring special equipment), over irregular routes

(1) Between Atlanta, Ga. on the one hand. and. on the other. Monroe and

Shreveport, La. Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex. and points within 10 miles of Dallas and

Fort Worth

(2) Between New Orleans, La. on the one hand, and. on the other. Baton Rouge

La, Orange. Beaumont. Texas City. and Houston, Tex, and points within 10 miles of

Houston

RESTRICTION Restricted against local service between New Orleans and the

points specified

No. MC-18088 (Sub-No 36). filed May 18. 1965. as amended

FLOVD & BEASLEY TRANSFER COMPANY INC EX TENSION

DALLAS. TEA

General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explosives,

livestock, household goods as defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and

those requiring special equipment)

(1) Between Atlanta, Ga, and Fort Worth Tex

From Atlanta over U S. Highway 78 to Birmingham, Ala. thence over U. §

Highway |! to junction U. S. Highway 80. thence over U S Highway 80 to Monroe.

La. thence over Interstate Highway 20 to Shreveport, La. thence over U S Highway

80 to Fort Worth, and return over the same route

Intermediate and off-rowte points Monroe and Shreveport. La, Dallas, Tex. and

points within 10 miles of Dallas and those within 10 miles of Fort Worth

(2) Between Atlanta. Ga. and Houston, Tex

From Atlanta over U.S Highway 29 to Opelika Ala. thence over Interstate

Highway 85 to Montgomery. Ala (also from Opelika over U S$. Highway 29 10

junction US. Highway 80. thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Montgomery). thence

over U S Highway 3! to Mobile. Ala. thence over U S Highway 9 to junction

US. Highway 190. thence over U.S Highway 190 to junction U. S Highway 105 at

Kinder. La. thence over U S Highway 165 to junction U. S$. Highway 90 at lowa L

thence over U S. Highway 90 to Houston, and return over the same route

Intermediate and off-route pots Baton Rouge and Lake Charies. La Orange.

Beaumont and Texas City. Tex. and those within 10 miles of Houston

(3) Between Montgomery. Ala. and junction U.S. Highways |i and 80 acar Cuba

Ala. over S Highway 80. for purpose of joinder only serving No imtermediate

pots

I4aMCceC 163

THIS REPRODUCTION FAITHFULLY

PROJECTS ORIGINAL Copy WHICH

WAS ITSELF UNREADABLE.

618 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

(4) Between junction of U. S. Highways 7! and 190 west of Baton Rouge La. and

Shreveport. La. over U. S. Highway 71. tor purpose of jomnder only. serving ™

intermediate pomts : |

(5) Between junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama Highway 2! near Anniston

Ala. and the junction of U. S. Highways 23! and 80 near Monigomers Ala. for

, . ations

r of joinder with applicant's irreguiar-route oper .

"i junction U.S. Highway 78 and Alabama Highway 2! over Alabama Highway

21 to gunction U. S. Highway 231. thence over US. Highway 25! to junction . §

’ of

Highway 80, and return over the same route. serving the imtermediate pom

Sycamore

RESTRICTION: Restricted to traffic moving between ports east of the Mississipp

River except Baton Rouge. La. on the one hand. and. on the other. ports west of the

Mississipp: River and Bator Rouge

No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147). filed June 16, 1965

STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION CO IC) EXTENSION

ATLANTA GA

General commodies (except those of unusual value. classes A and B explosives

household goods as defined by the Commussion. commodities in bulk. and those

requiring special equipment)

(1) Between Atlanta, Ga. and Texarkana, Ark

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham. Ala. thence over UL 5

Highway |! to junction U.S. Highway 82. thence over U.S. Highway 82 to Texarkana

and return over the same route

intermediate points Birmingham. Ala. Greenville. Miss

Highway 82 in Arkansas.

(2) Between Atlanta, Ga. and Shreveport La

From Atlanta over U. S Highway 78 to Birmingham, Als. thence over t s

Highway |! to junction U. S. Highway 80. thence over US. Highway 80 &

Shreveport, and return over the same route

Intermediate point Jackson, Miss

Joinder point Monroe, La

and those on UL. $

No MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304). filed July 30. 1965

BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION

DALLAS TEX

General commodities (except those of uausual value, classes A and B explosives

blasting supplies, household goods as defined by the Commission. commodities in

bulk, and those requiring special equipment):

(1!) Between Atlanta. Ga. and Fort Worth Tex

From Acianw over U. S. Highway 29 to junction U S. Highway 80 (near Tuskegee

Ala). thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Montgomery. Ala (also from Atlanta over

imterstate Highway 85 to Montgomery). thence over LS Highway £0 to Fort ¥ orth

and return over the same route saciid

164

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA, GA 619

Intermediate and off-route points: Montgomery and Seima, Ala, Dallas. Tex. those

within 15 miles of Dallas, and Those within 15 miles of Fort Worth

(2) Between Birmingham. Ala. and Fort Worth Tex

From Birmingham over U. $ Highway |! to junction U. §$ Highway 80 (near Cuba

Ala). thence over U.S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth. and return over the same route

Intermediate point Tuscaloosa. Ala

(3) Between Montgomery. Ala. and Houston. Tex

From Montgomery over U § Highway 31 to Mobile. Ala (also from Montgomery

over Interstate Highway 65 to Mobile) thence over U. § Highway 90 to junction

U.S Highway 190. thence over U § Highway 190 via Baron Rouge to Kinder, La,

thence over U.S. Highway 165 to the junction of U S Highway 90 at lowa, La.

thence over U. S. Highway 90 to Houston. and return over the same route

Intermediate and off-royte pomts: Mobile. Ala. Beaumont Port Arthur Smith's

Bluff, Texas City, and those within 15 miles of Houston

(4) Between the junction of U $ Highways 190 and 7! west of Baton Rouge, La.

and Shreveport. La. over U S$ Highway 7!. serving no intermediate points, for

purpose of joinder only

(5) Between Meridian, Miss. and the junction of U. S. Highways 1! and 190 arar

Slidell, La. over U. § Highway 1, serving no intermediate points, for purpose of

joinder oniy

No. MC-9420! (Sub-Nu. 56). filed July 12. 1965. as amended

BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION INC EXTENSION DALLAS. TEX

General commoduies (except those of unusual value. classes A and B explosives.

household goods as defined by the Commission in Practices of Motor Common

Carriers of Household Goods. 17 M.C.C. 467. commodities in bulk. commod nes

requiring special equipmeni and those myurious or contaminaiimg to other lading)

(1) Between Birmingham, Ala.. and Houston. Tex

(a) From Birmingham over US. Highway 3) (also over Interstate Highway 65) to

Aimore. Ala. thence over Alabama Highway 2! to the Alabama-Florida State jine.

thence over Florida Highway 97 wo junction US Highway 29. thence over US

Highway 29 w Pensacola. Fla. thence over US Highway 9 w New Oricans. La.

thence over US. Highway 6! to Baton Rouge. La. thence over US Highwa. 190 to

Kinder. La.. therice over |S Highway 165 to junction US Highway 9 (als. intersiate

Highway 10). thence over US. Highway % (also over Interstate Highway 10) w

Houston and return over the same route. Serving the wmiermediate po nis of Pensacola

Fla. Mobile. Ala. Grand Isic Lockport and Goiden Meadow. La. Pascagoula and

Moss Point, Miss. New Orleans. Baton Rouge and Lake Charles. La. and Orange and

Beaumont, Tex

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.