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

(1) 49 United States Code Annotated, pre-

ceding €1 pote, §301 note, §901 note,

anc $100! note.

NATIONAD. TRANSPORTATION. POLICY yr

Ye is hereby ceelared to be the national trans-

portation poliey of the Congress to provide for fair

and imnartia? regulation of all modes of transportation

‘oO recomnize ane preserve the inherent advantages of

each; to promote safe, acenuate, economical, and ef-

’

“cient service and foster sound economic conditions in

transnortation and among the several carriers; to en-

courage Th@establishment and maintenance of reason-

able charves for transportation services, without un-

just discriminations, undue oreferences or advantages,

or unfair or Cestructive competitive practices; to co-

operate with the several States and the duly authorized

officials thereof; snd to encourege fair wages and

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

veloping, cnordinating, and preserving a national trans-

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

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

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

of the national defense. All of the provisions of this

Act shall be administered and enforced with a view

to carrying out the above dec'uration of nolicy.

93

a

(2) 4S United States Code Annotated,

Sections 17(4) and (5)

Powers of divisions, boards, etc.; eNect of-ordura, ete.

a. A division, an individua, Commiss.cner, OF & DONG SHALL hove

Suthoraty to near and Getermine, oruer, ceriucy, report, or CogIrwvise

Sct as tO Any Work, vusiness, or ee Sass Lemed OF Celerrea inwre-

to uncer the provisions Of this section, ard With ak ect paetes@ Shas

pee au the jurisdict.on and oowers COniesred OY jaw upon the Com-

mags.on, ANG ve subject to the Same Guties and oofations. Tne

Seca and seal of the Commission shail be tne secretary anG seas

of each aivision, indiv.duas Ce Mmmissioner, or Foard. Lxeent as oih-

enwise psovided in this section, any order, aecision, or requirement

Sa Givssion, an undivicua, Comsaussioner, or a board, with respect to

any Matter so assigned or reierred, sh val have tne same force and

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

Méce oF tanen by the Commission.

Findings, cte., of Comminaivoner or board; acconipanying statement

and recommended order; copicn to paurtieos; exceptions;

recommended order Gs Combiissivn’s order

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

Sioner or board, With respect to any Inatter so assigned or referred

LVoiving the taking of testimony at a pud.ic hearing, shail de ac-

companied by a statement in writin,s of the reasons therefor, io-

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

mission. Copfes thereof shall be served upon interested parties (in-

c:-ting, in proceedings under chap‘er 8 of ue title e, persons spec:-

fed in section 305(e) of this title), who may Ale exceptions there-

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

within sech further period as the Commiss:on or a culy Cesignatec

division thereof may authorize, no exceptions shail have been fied,

sech recommended order shal] hecome the orcer of the Commission

nd become effective uniess within such ve sviod the order shai. save

been stayed or postpened by the Commission or by a Guly cesignated

Givision thereof. The Commission, or a duly cesignated Givisién

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

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

further hearing, and such recommenced order shail thereupen be

stayed or postponed pending final determination thereot.

94

_

Ww

~~

Dh

wo

9 United States Code Annotated,

Sections 307la) and (b),

§ 307. — Issunnee of certificnte—Fssuance nuthorlzed to quall-

fied applicants for regular routes and between fixec

termini

(a) Subsect to section 310 of this title, a certificate shall de fs

sue@ to any qualifed apniicant therefor, authorizing the Whole or

any part of the operations covered by the spriiention, if it is founs

that the applicant is ft, willing, ane able prorer'’y to perferm the

cervice proposed and to conform to the rrovisions of this chapter

nna he re’ tremercs, mite ound remintions of the Commission

thereunder, and that the pruvosed service, to the extent to de au:

thorized by the certifie:te, is or will be renttired by the present or

future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such apnlica-

‘lon shall be denied: Provided, however, That no such certificate

shall be issued to any common carrier of rassengers by motor Vv:

an

hicle for onerctions over other than a regular route or routes, ar?

a

between fixed termini, except as such carricrs may be authorizec

to engage in special or clarter operations.

Certificate not to confer proprietary or property rights ia highway

(b) No certificate issued under this chanter shat! confer any pro-

prictary or property rights in the use of the public highways. Feb.

A, 1867, ¢, 194, Pt. TY, $ 207, as added Ane, & 1985, ¢. 498, $9 Stat.

O51.

99

Wig hseriiome not

(4) 5 United States Code Annotated,

Sections 556, 557 and 766.

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

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

cision

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

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

in accordance with this section.

{(b) There shail preside at the taking of evidence—

(1) the agency; :

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

agency; or

(3) one or more hearing examiners appointed under section

3105 of this title

This subchapter does not supersede the conduct of specified c!asses 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 accorcance 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 persona! bias er ether

disqualification of a presiding or participa ting employee, the agency

sill determine the matter cs a part of the record and decisien in the

case.

(c) 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

igsues by comsent of the parties;

96

(7) dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;

(3) make or recommend decisions in accordance with section

557 of this title; and

(9) take other action authorized by agency rule consistent with

this subcnayter.

(d, Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent ofa

rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary évi-

-conce May be received, but the agency as 4 matter of policy shall

r ovide for the exciusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repeti-

gus evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order

icged except on consideration of the whole record or those parts

Wo reuf eited by a party and supported Ly and in accordance with the

rile, probative, and substantial evidence. A party is entitled

tiesciet his Case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to

cain trebuttal evidence, and to conduct such c:oss-examination as

~ ay be required for a ful! and true disclosure of the facts. In rule

maxing or determining claims for moncy or benefits or applications

‘orinitia! licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced

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

Qvicence In written form.

(c) The transcript of testimony anc exhibits, together with all

rapers and requests filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive

record for decision in accordance with section 557 of this title and, on

paynient of lawfully prescribed costs, shali de made available to the

parties. When an agency decision rests on official notice of a

~ terial facet not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is

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

Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1906, 80 Stat. 336.

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

submissions by parties; contents of decisions; rec.

ord

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

a hearing {a required to be conducted in accordance with section

556 of this title.

(>) When the agency did not preside at the reception of the evi-

dence, the presiding employee or, in cases not subject to section 554

(ad) of this title, an employee qualified to preside at hearings pursu-

ant to section 556 of this title, shall initially decide the case unless

the agency rcquires, either in snecific cases or by gencra! rule, the

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

ts ee LE

a -_

s

é

é

J

employee makes an initial decision, that decision then becomes the

decision of the agency without further proceedings unless 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 a!! the powers which it wou'd have in making the initial ceci-

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

the agency makes the decision without having presided at the

reception of the evidence, the presiding employee or an employee

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

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

determining applications fer initial iicenses—

(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 im which the

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

functions imperatively and unavoidably so requires. .

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

sion on agency review of the decision of subordinate employees, the

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

sideration of the employees participating in the decisions—

(1) proposed findings anc 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 exceptions or proposed find-

ings or conclusions.

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

exception presented, All decisions, inclucing initia’, recommended,

and tentative decisions, are a part of the record and shall inelude a

tintement of -

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

for, on ntl the material issues of fact, law, or diserction presented

on the records; and

_ (33) the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief, or denial

thereoé,

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

98

§ 706. Scope of review

Jo the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the re-

cen court shall decide al relevant questions of law, interpret

cohetetateOnal ata StlU Ory provisions, and determine the meaning

woisty of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing

1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonibly

delayed: and

9, joid untawful and set aside agency action, findings, and

conclusions ound to Le—

A) arbitrery, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-

Wise not in accordance with law;

‘B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or

immunity;

C) in exeess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limi-

tations, or short of statutory right;

.D) without observance of procedure required by law;

LE) unsupcorted by substantial evidcnee in a case subject

lo sect.uns 530 at.d 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on

the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or

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

are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

In making the foicvoing determinations, the court shall review the

whole record or thove parts of it citec by, a party, and due account

all be taken of the rule of prejudicia! error. Pub.L. 89-554, Sept.

0, 1960, $0 Stat. 393.

99

(5) 28 United States Code Annotated,

Sections 2284 (1) and (5)

.

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

~JIn 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 otherwire provided by

law, shall be as follows:

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

other relief is presented sha!l 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 shall be a circuit judge. Such judges shal! serve as

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

ceeding.

(6) Any one of the three judges of the court mny perform a!!

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

ders required or permitted by the rules of civi! procedure, A single

Judyve shall not appoint a master or order a reference, or hear and

determine any application for an interlocutory injunction or motion

to vacate the same, or dismiss the action, or enter a summary or final

judgement. The action of a single judyve shall be reviewable by the

full court ut any time before final hearing.

A district court of three judyes shal!, before fina! 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 starved pro

ceedings under such statute or order pending the determination in

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

che 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.

100

SAAS LAE LLANE LETS

a

%

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

'

OM IP | EDIE LIE CAD

Vie PAA Bie ERLE LE AALIYAH LF A: LL, A aE ALE PBL AI AA LALA BME ie

Served January $4, 1972

— $$$ ———————————___________—__—__ — *

M-12267

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

No. MC-1124 (SuB-No 206)

HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION-—

ATLANTA, GA.’

——

Decided December 30 1971

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

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

commodities. with exceptions, over a 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:

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

by applicant with certain conditions. and application in all other respects denied

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 gener

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

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

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

US. Highways 1) and 80 and Interstate Highway 59, (4) between Tuscaioosa,

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

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

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

(9) between Houston. Tex., and Dallas. Tex and (10) between Little Rock. Ark,

and Texarkana. Tex., subject to a condition and certain restrictions. Issuance of a

certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain condiions. and

application in all other respects denied

3. In No. MC-106401 (Sub-No 18). public convenience and necess ty tound to

require operation 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. L3., and

Houston. Tex. and (3) between Montgomery Ala. aid the junction of US

Highways 11 and 80 near Cuba Ala. subject in parts +) and (2) to certain

restrictions Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with

certain conditions. and application in all other respects denied

This report also embraces the exght applications deniified in appencis Vi “his report In the

absence of exceptions. the recommended wrces with respect to tne applicution of Roadway

Express [nc in No MC-2202 (Sub-No. 279), became effective hy operaion of law By order

entered Decemme: |. (969. McLean Trucking Company «as substitued as appicant ¢ No MC

1124 (Sub-No 26) in heu cf Herrin Transportation Company

Retitled McLean Trucking Compars Extension-Atlanta, Ga

N4MCcc

Sty BRERA ee |

=

S72 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

4. In Nos. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206), MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233). MC-IS988 (Sub-No

36), MC-S9680 (Sub-No. 147). MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304). and MC-11!231 (Sub-

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

operations proposed Applications denied

Maurice F. Bishop, James B. Blair, WW. T. Brunson, John P.

Carleton, William A. Chestnutt, R. W. Collinsworth, David

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

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

Livingstone 111. Donald B. Lockridge. Emmet McCatferyv. Kim D.

Mann, Charles D. Matthews, Carl L. Phinney. Jerry C. Prestridge,

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

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

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

applications.

<

3

x

o>

es

rH

A

ik

¥

Se

_

=

x

me

8

z

Lie he

M. Ward Bailey, Richard A. Bishop, iennox O. Bdvies. Homer S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henderson, Clifford E. Hillerty, Rollo E. Kidweil. B. W.

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

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

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

- R. J. Reynolds Ill, 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.

protestants.

Winston M. Haythe, Courts Oulahan, and Charles §. Rhyne for

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

No. 18).

yi eplgee ihgae

, Eugene K. Walburn, and Ed White for

.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

Division 1, Coumeens MURPHY. DEASON. AND GRESHAM

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

be demed. Although this applicant did not take exceptions to this recommendation. it was

Presented from becoming effective by operation of law since the exceptions of other partes

nominally embraced this proceeding. This application will be disposed ot in our findings and

order herein. but without further discussion

192 | Name

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION ATLANTA. GA S73

Di vson Commiystoner

These proceedings involve eight applications by the same number

ot 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, Fla. and

east of Houston. Dallas. 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 Kj —tty V1 O.-

Kansas City. Kans. The authority sought in eacpApplication ts fully

described in appendix A to this report With the exception of

Deaton. Inc. (which requests irregujar-royte authority), each

applicant has applied for regular-route authority which tt 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 Birmingham and

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

Bowman, and Johnson) would extend their authorized services to

the Southwest. The numerous motor carriers described in appendix

B oppose the applications. .

These applications were heard on a consolidated 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 Floyd &

Beasley Transfer Company, Inc. Exceptions were also filee by a

number of shippers’ intervening in support of the applicsrion 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 TAnsports, 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

By order entered March 30. 1970, 41 named petitioners were permitted to intervene iF No

MC-10641 (Sub-Ne 1&8) Johnson Motor Lines. Inc. Eversion—Dallas. Tex aith the right to

appear and participate i ail further proceedings therein and thew jointly fled tendered

exceptions were accepted .or fing

As noted inappend.r’ tre reply Dy ETA WAC Transportation Company to the exceptions of

appheants in Nos MO7*! >> (Sul-No 308) and MC-93201 (Sub-No $6! was tendercd late

HAM?

a ae |

PRET

S74 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION 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 tinal decision. Another

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

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 :9 footnote | in appendix A. Herrin has been merged into McLean Trucking

Company Although the latter has been substituted as applicant herein. the former's name will be

used for the sake of continuity of discussion.

Its nored inat Red Ball Indicates a willingness to have “Performance Report’ conditions

imposed or any grant of authority to it

H4anMecc

124

HEKRIN TRANSP CQO BNXTENSION -ATL SNTA GA Sus

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

Johnson. In their yointly filed “conditional” exceptions Campbell

and Gordons represent that the appheations of Bowman, Baggett,

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

oinder of regular- and irregular-route sery ice, and that the proposal

ot Bowman 1s administratively undesirable Pecause of contusing

restrictive amendments.

Protestants. replying to appheants and interseners) excephons.

maintain generally that the tindings and recommendations of the

evaminers are fully supported by the evidence and should be

alfirmed. In separate replies to the jointly filed “conditional”

exceptions of Campbeil and Gordons. Johnson asserts that these

carners: contentions regarding joinder problems are without merit,

and Bowman submits that its propused restactions are acceptable

and that. inasmuch as it has applied for appropriate authority to

convert its edistiog irregular-route authority, the issue ot joinder

problems 1s moot as to ie

The evidence, the recommendations of the hearing examincrs,

and the pleadings have been considered. Inasmuch as no exceprnion

1. taken to the examiners summary of the evidence presc ated by the

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

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

appendix G to this report

PRELIMINARY MATLIERS

Johnson and the shippers intervening in support of its ar. leation

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

importance in terms of public interest as reasons. In rep’) to these

requests, certain protestants’ submit’ that the issues ore not

complicated and relate principally toa question of fact. ns that the

request for oral arguinent should therefore be demed [no .much as

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

required or thet aw would be beneficial in reaching our

determination in these proceedings. this request 1s heret y tenied.

‘In a report andr commend. * ordes in Ne MO 4320) (Sub-No RAy served 8 coh 29 197%

which became etter cc Ss. peratose ot Naw om NG nh a Bowness appa sccaang he

conversion of ts urp gulae route sarmore sy rts serait ees No MO Gad ane ME S200 (Sud

Nos US ands?) aaspr med Acer: ate authoring oe Sorresp. ating os vt ve rations

was sued . ¥7 > Rowmans icad decker cumbPce

Mercury act bast Tesas heir ont reply to tre exceptions eh appucsas A *e

scuppers. and Akt yrasweth Camphei Gordons, Roadways TEM EE Trooss ace Ww

therm youn? reply te ces ee epheanm et Jenne. a

maMcc

105

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

The joint reply filed by certain protestants to Bowmans

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 tinding that

the challenged appendixes constitute proper rebutta! to information

and transit time studies presented 5s) protestani Wilh 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 1s 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 entitled 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 carner 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 maternally upon the issues under immediate consideration.

West Brothers, Inc., Extension—Baton Rouge, La.. \Q2 ICC 488,

489 (1969). and Avers Extension—Chevenne, Wvo.. 99 M.C.C. 798,

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 tull and caretul

consideration in our present determinations

The tnierveners 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 suppiemental

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

and request an opportunity to reply to the supplemental exceptions

should they be accepted for filing. Petitioners seek the acceptance

Roadway West Transcon Hollowas TIME. Consolidated. Akers. Yellow Freight. and

Braswell

Bei! Transier Company. Inc. Interstate Motor Freight Svstem. Bestway Fapress ing Dean

Truck Line. Inc. England Transpertatnion Company. Inc. Sara Motor Frengh: Lies tn. and

Terminal Transpors Co. Inc :

Rephes to the pertion in No MC i0MdG, Sub No Ds were tied jointly hy Mercury ant t ost

Texas. separately by Ryder jointly bs Akers Braswes! Camprelii Gordons Ro scwuy bapress

mn

Inc . Roadway Express of Mississippi Ing TIME and Transcon A repis te Roth pet trons eas

filed by Jack Coie -Dixsee Highway Company while Mgrgury Preigh: Cices dnc and Bas: Texas

filed a joint cepiy to Bowmanys pention 9 No M Sub Nov. se

tet oor =~

HERRIN TKANSP CO ENTENSION ATE ANTA Gt

tor tiling of their supplemental exceptions on the grounds that

certain economic pronouncements have urged that regulatory

agencies should consider competition as 4 “critical factor” when

performing their adjudicative functions. and that certain recent

court and Commission decisions should be considered in

determining the issues here invo'sed. General’. protestants reply

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

tiling of supplemental exceptions: that the economic pronunce-

nrents 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 denied on the

grounds that the examiners would take official notice of any

Commussion action and ‘hat no usetul purpose would be served by

adding these pleadings to tis already voluminous record. Whereas

we catll take official notice ot all pertinent evidence and

Commission decisions. we see no reason fo prolong the disposition

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

the tendered supplemental eaceprons will be rejected.

APPLICANTS EXNIDENCE

Herrin holds regular- and irregular-reute motor common —arrier

authority to transport general commodities in an area bounded

generally on the north by Little Rock. Ark.. Memphis. Te.-n.. and

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

Pensacola and Jacksenville. Fla, on the west by Fort Wort? Jallas.

and Waco. Tex.. and on the east by Savannah. Ga. Its auinorzed

routes. which include service to numerous intermedi'e points.

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

Tex. £2) Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth: (3) Houston anc Waco,

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

La. (8) Dallas and Monroe, La. through Shreveport La. 16;

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

Orleans and Baton Rouge. La.. (8) ShreVepori and Memphis through

El Dorado. Ark. (9) Et Dorade and Liuile Rock. and (iQ) New

Orleans and Jacksonville. through Crestview. Marianna.

Taliahassee. Pensacota. and Lake City. Fla. and numerous points in

south Georgia. including Macon. Savannah. Valdosta, Thomasy tite.

and Wavcross.

ria Mc

10°7

ee

>A SRE AAA NTRS as eS NS a

St.

Lae eee ae

ey

FN a

Sekt)

ripe

4 2 healt Wels a le iin

Be

S78 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Herrin’s routes into Macon and Savannah extend along US.

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 nroving 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 20 and US.

Highway 78 to and from Atlanta which eliminates the necessity of

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 ccints.

Herrin maintains terminals at Houston. Beaumon:. Dallas. and

Waco, Tex.. Shreveport. Lake Charles, Lafayette, New Orleans,

Baton Rouge, and Alexandria, La; El Dorado; Memphis: and

Jacksonville. Commission agency stations are maintained at Houma,

Abbeyville, and Monroe, La.; Macon, Savannah, and Waycross, Ga;

and Pensacola If 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 cermiicate No MC-31389 (Sub No 119) issued March 19. 1970

e 108 H4uMCC

SAA LOLS ROE IOI

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA GA S79

Herrin 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,

Mobile. Montgomery, Jackson, and Pensacola. The schedules are

based on a41-mile per hour average running time. To illustrate, be-

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

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

afternoon service on volume traific and second- morning delivery on

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

hours and SS minutes. and 19 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; tirst-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 first-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,

ang, on the other, Dallas 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-morning 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 Herria and not specitically named would receive !|-day later serv-

ice Han Movements to er 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

N4MCC

40aa yor coe

a

<

*

e

g

ue

|

4

zi

ae Satiatee ime ties

othe eA

RAV RI AT Gel

PASTORS

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 City.

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

Rouge, Lake Charles, and Beaumont. Approximately 1.450 puints in

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

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

Ball. The points jnclude 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. 17 in Louisiana. 8 in each of

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

Oklahoma. and | each in Missourt. Tennessee. and Alabama. It the

application ts granted. Red Ball proposes to establish terminals at

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

‘Red Ball is. noweser. autherized to transport explosives

110 avec

HERRIN TR ANSP CO UN TENSION=ATLANTA. GA SK]

.

2 ER MT ME PIT a es 4

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

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

necessary. :

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

and Greensille. Birmingham. and Atlanta. (2) between Jackson and |

Adianta. and (3) between Mendian. Miss.. and Tuscaloosa. Ala.. for

the purpeses of joinder only. restricted against transportation be- ;

iween Memphis and its commercial Zone, on the one hand. and. on

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

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

racked $0 that applicant would be able to provide service between

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

other. its authorized points (except. between Greenville and

Memphis).

On LTL traffic. Red Ball proposes next-morning 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 Little Rock. on the one hand. and,

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

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

and between Atlanta and Birmingham. Second-morning service 1S

proposed trom Denver to Greenville: between Texarkana and

Amarillo. 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 Or’eans. on the one hand. and,

on the other. Atlanta and Birmingham between Baton Rouge and

Atiania. 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 proposed schedules 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. 18 eastbound. | northbound (from New Orleans and Baton

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

Siva, Maas

oe eere Sere aN ree toe

OAL LS ETS OREO AE

S82 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 within 65 miles of Birmingham. restricted

against the transportation of traffic between Atlanta and

Birmingham. Its genezal-commodity authority has been converted

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

authority it transports specified commodities generally between

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

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

Carolina, Ohio, Okiahoma. South Carolina, Tennessee. Texas, and

Virginia. Applicant maintains terminals at Atlanta. Birmingham.

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

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 Houston and Beaumont to

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 trom Altanta to Monroe. Dallas, and Fort Worth

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

and Houston areas.

Srrickiand holds regular-route motor commen carrier authority to

transport general commodities over a network of routes extending

112 - " MCC

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATIANTA. GA S&3

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. IIb. Detroit. Mich.;

Cleveland. Ohio: Philade|phia. 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 458 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 a$ an intermediate point and Monroe as a point of joinder.

The proposed reutes 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 Monroc. Shreveport. and Texarkana.

Numerous schedules to and from the involved major points are

proposed by Strickland. All of the schedules propose either 1- of 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 3&8 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 1S minutes. and arrive in

Dallas-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 it

in interline service during March 1965. 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 (mostly 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 other than Strickland and

¥ M4 MCC. , + sashes SEANCES LDL LLY CELE wien al ly ae

\

—_—

. a

cow

at BRA Se ed ie ak,

ee Dut

x WL SY

Bites. Lente Ae abe gak ATM rice!

4

Se4 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, Missicsippi.

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

Memphis (approximately 1,850 of the shipments). Little Rock (34), or.

New Orleans (58). and were 4ransported by applicant to points ih

*\ 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 common 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

explosives between, from, 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, Florida,

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., Atlartta, 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, Ill., and points within 35 miles of Columbus

Circle, N.Y.. on. the north; Miami and Pensacola. Fla.. and Mobile.

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

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

114 _ i4amec

HERRIN IR ANSP CO EXTESSION= ATLANTA GA sas

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

North Carolina. Tennessee. Maryland. Illinois. 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. Manygomery- and -Mobule. bp ed

“Bowman maintains 25 terminals. most of which are located in the

Southeast. including those located at Atlanta) 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.. El! 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.

jincluding 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 ang are received by applicant at points east 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 teams with sleeper cabs on all movements between

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

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

See toctn te § supra Mise. in August 19@- oaman acquired 6 Portion et the ope raring rights

P Atahaoro Hanus Express whieh on tuded: an *- neh ay omty the trarspertan 4 f genens!

Comanadines (sib excepronst Petwees Birrunehan& ant peo a Alabarme welt eS pules .t

Brouagham en che one pand. and onthe thes Louissiile. Ke. and ports in Indies Tennessee

gad portions of Florida. Miners. and Ohne Ne MC --992). Bowman Transportation, Inc —Purchase

(Portion|—Alapuma Highwas crpress fac. (ren princi) decnted July %. Iynn

ee a ol all ; GRE AD @4ae-

——

oe

eae

pee

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, points 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 1.9

days; that on the 321 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 1-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, $.C.. on the one

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

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

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

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York is also

held by applicant.

Applicant maintains about 35 terminals at principal poin’s 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 break-bulk

"Review Board Number 5. by order entered December 1s. 1970. in Noo MC-F-11 006. Johnson

Méror Lines, Inc —Merger—Johnson Motor Lines Corp.. authorized the merger of the ops roting

rgats ane the property of Johnson Motor Lines Corp. into Johnson Motor Lines. Ing The me gcd

operating rights are set forth in certificate No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 31), issued July 19. 1971

416

He MCC.

a

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 5&7

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 vehicles; and it will add 50

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-commogity, 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-described irregular-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 northern 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.

Presently. traffic moving to and from Texas, Louisiana, and

Mississippi and points beyond ts 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,

fron, and to points in North Carolina, Wallace. S.C.. and points

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

HIMCC 44

588 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 and 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-

plicant proposes dispatched movements, which are not set up as

daily schedules, to 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 41

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

“On March 13. 1966. the change in Johnsons operations to include two-man operations became

effective Applicant introduced a summary of a survey of two-man operations between Charlotte. on

the ‘one hand. and. on the other. Pensacola. Mobile. Pascagoula. Gulfport. and New Orleans Be-

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

above-described points ina total of 4.491 hours over 176.118 miles tor an overall average of 39 21

miles per hour

118 WMC.

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANA A. GA SKY

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

Atlanta. | eastbound 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 Orleans). To illustrate

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

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

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

ing day. At 33.3 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 exténd 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 trav crses a

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

Texarkana, from Winona over U.S. Highway 82 to Texarkzna: be-

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

to Dallas: and between Texarkana and Sherman, over US. Fighway

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

portation of general commodities within portions of this same area.

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 1 each at Chicago and Memphis Additional

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

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

trucks. and 636 trailers, including 111 equipped with mechanical

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

will be added tc Jones fleet.

N4aMcc 1419

ct eee

week

ety

BER

VRAD PRES

net Lie D GS CERES

Miaiee

ep Ba BGS SGN ENE DES

S90) INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

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

specified route. serving the intermediate points of Birmingham.

Greenville. and those on U.S. Highway 82 in 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 from Memphis and tts

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

the Mississippi River.

Applicant would render overnight service 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 U.S.

Highway 82 as far west as El] Dorado. The remaining territory Jones

serves would receive second-morning service on 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. and. on the other, St.

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

shipments would receive overnight service.

Jones proposes one schedule initially from Atlanta 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 terminals of Springsfield and Joplin.

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

shipments will move from those points at 10 a.m. 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'.2-man and be-

tween Memphis and other major terminals. Although Jones

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

120 HMAMCC.

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION ATLANTA. GA $91

cab operations prove 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 would 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 traftic Jones

cannet 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.

St PPORTING EXNIDENCE

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,

handled in this manner, the supporting evidence did not receive

adequate consideration and treatment in relation to the territories

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

supporting witnesses needs in these proceedings. in view of their

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

supporting evidence on a georgraphic basis. We have accaidingly

restated the supporting evidence in appendix E to this repert. Those

shippers which support only Roadway 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 supportec 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

114 M.C.C - 421

eee ne cn RY,

Set RNA

oe

SNR IW ss BILE

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORIS

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

supporting witnesses is summarized in appendix E and below.

Generally, the involved traffic moves (1) 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 Mississipi.

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, metab 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 facilities 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 Department of Transportation, University of Houston. The study

develops the 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 set torth in appendix F, that on

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

the applications. It is noted that sometimes more than one witness eppeared tor the same

shipper. that the same witness may have appeared and been counted more than once, and that

some of the witnesses do not represent shippers in the strict sense of the word ,

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

Mexico. 32 in Oklahoma. and 278 in Texas

Eighty-four shippers have tacilities in Aiahama.iS in Florida. i) 4 sn Georgia. | in Kentucks

S43 in Mississippi. 25 in North C aroinna. 26 2 South Carolina. 17 in Tennessee. and Sin \ irginia

‘Four shippers have facilines in Conmmecucur 1 in Delaware. 3 in Maryland. & on

Massachusetts. | in New Hampshire. ¥ 12 New Jersey. Sin New York. 9 in Pennssivamia. and 4 in

Rhode Isiand

‘Fifteen shippers have tacitities in Kansas and 27 have tacilities in Missourt

114 M.C.C,

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXNTENSION-ATLANT GA S93

the whole the population in the States in which supporting shippers

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

tween 1960 and 1970.

Southwest —The 84 Arkansas shippers collectively have facilities

4! $3 points in this State. with the greatest concentration of shippers

at Fort Smith (9), El Dorado (8). Fayetteville (8), Little 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 Loutsiana-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, at has a warehouse at

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

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

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

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

in Oklahoma. The 275 supporting Texas shippers collectively have

facilities 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 tc the remaining Arkansas points. one shipper 1s located at Ashdown, three at

Bentonville. one <. Biiic-ille. one at Cabot. three at Camden. five at Conway (including one

motor carrier). three at Crossett. two at Gravette. three at Hamburg one at Hiwassee. two at

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

one at Pine Bluff. one at Rector. two at Rogers. two at Russellville. three at Searcy (including one

motor carrier). one at Sheridan. six at Siloam Springs three at Texarkana (including the chamber

of commerce thereof), and one at Van Buren Two Arkansas shippers [11.(240) and 25 (452)}

indicate that they have a number of stores in this State Considering Arkansas shipper | 1.240), it

should be noted. as 1s described in footnote | of appendix E. that the number 11 indicates that

this as the I} ith witness. in order of appearance. which has faciliues in Arkansas. and that the

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

The number «! shippers located at Shreseport and Monroe inciudes one motor common

carrier which wishes to interline at both of these points The remaiming Louisiana shippers are

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

Golden Meadow (1). Haynesville (1). Houma (1). Kenner (1), Lafayette (5). Lake Charles (3).

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

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

(1). Thibodeaux (1). West Monroe (3). and Zachary (1) Three Loursiana shippers, viz. 7.(240),

22.4452). and 83.(917) indicate that they have stores located at numerous points in Loutsiana

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

warehouse at Oklahoma City. Okla

“Additionally. seven shippers have facuines at Texarkana (which includes the chamber of

commerce thereof). six at both San Antonio and Tyler, five at both Amariito and Wichita Falts.

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

each at Bonham, Jasper. Nacogdoches, Paris, and Sulpher Springs. and one at each of the points

of Ausun, Baytown, Beaumont. Breckenridge, Bryan, Clarksville, Cleburne, Corpus Christ,

Denison. Electra. Everman. Ferris. Floresville, Hearne. Irving Itasca, Jacksonville, Kamay.

(footnote continued on next page)

N4 MCC. ann

ae

pees GiGi AR ia ae haere OAL

Bint

Bescaics as

S94 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

+

Southeast.—Oft 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 1 at each of the points ot Boaz. Brent. Centre.

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

Union Springs, Uniontown, and West Gate. The 1S 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), Gritfin (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 (1). Port Gibson

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

facilities at IS 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, §.C. One

shipper is iocated at each of the remaining specified South Carolina

points.” Twelve of the 17 supporting shippers with facilities in

‘footnote 26 continued)

Longview. McGregor. McKinney. Marlin. Nocona. Palestine. Perrston. Pineland. Pittsburg.

Plano. Port Arthur. Seguin. Sherman Smith's Bluff. Taylor. Temple. Wace. Winnsboro. snd

Wolfe City. Some shippers ha-e stores at numerous poinis in Texas. i ¢ . 28 (240) under the Texas

heading

‘Included are shippers located 3: points in the commercial zone of Birmingnam sich as

Irondale. Aia

“Three shippers have facilives at Rome. two at each of the points of Hampton. LaGrange.

Savannah. and Stone Mountain: and one at each of the pots of Cedartown, Chickamauga.

Ciaxton. Conyers. Cordele. Dalton. Hartwell, Milledgeville Sparta. and Tucker. Ga

“Shipper S2 (917) under the Mississippi heading indicates that it has stores located in this

State

“Aiken. Anderson. Bethune Blacksburg. Charleston. Chester. Clearwater. Easley Eas:

Greenwood Georgetown. Lyman. Mauldin. Orangeburg. Rock Hull Spartanburg. Startes. and

Westminister Also shipper 1 (13) under the South Carolina heading inc cates that .t receswes

traffic at its 29 piants located at numerous points in South Carolina Another shipper, 18 (574).

under South Ceroima. indicates thar it has facilities in this State

424 14 wee

eae Pg

4

ey

Kipp A te. 4

‘ * > * .

Bader . " . orth Ss GO 0b BOE Pe alae es

HERRIN FRANSP CO ENTENSION—-ATLANTA. GA S98

Tenaessee are located at Chattanooga. while 5 have facilities at

Memphis and | at each of Murfreesboro and Nashville. Two of the

five Virginia shippers have facilities at Richmond. Va. The remainder

are located at Petersburg. Va.

Middle Atlantic und New England States.—The four supporting

Connecticut shippers have facilities at six points: one shipper is

located at each of the points of Jewett City, Rockville, Waterbury,

West Hartford. and the shipper located at Waterbury also has

facvaities at Wallingtord and Bridgeport. The sole supporting shipper

with facilities in Delaware is located at Rockford. Three shippers

have facilities at Baltimore. Md. 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. Dodge ville.

Foxboro. New Bedford. 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

Jerses: two are located at Elizabeth, and one shipper ts located at

each of the remaining named New Jersey points. The five

supporting New York shippers collectively have facilities at six

points: one shipper is located at each of the points of Broklyn. New

York City. Orangeburg. Pear! River. and Pleasant Walley. The New

York City shipper also has facilities in Buchanan. N.Y. Of the eight

supporting shippers wiih 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 interi:ne at

Harrisburg, Pa. One of the tour Rhode Island shippers has facilities

at Warren and Kenyon: while the remaining three have fac slities.

respectively, at Lincoln, Pawtucket, Warren, and Woonsecket

Midwest.—Ot the 15 Kansas shippers, 10 have facilities 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 carriers 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.”'

Bourd Brook, East Rutherford, Hillc:de. Linden. Moorestown, Morris Plains. Orange.

Plainticld. Princeton and Wharton

Shipper 24452) under the Kansas heading indicates that it has stores located in Kansas.

Car! Junction, Marshfi id, Noel. St Louts. Stockton. and Webb City Shipper 4 (452) under

the Missour: heading indicates that 1 has stores located in a portion of Missourt

li4MCC 125

MO

é

C4

E

re

@

z

4

bs

4

Pd

7]

Wea Gres 9 ig ie,

Peay ME ahhy oT

Pe RA he

Sey abbas soeecalekediehieviata tain Pas) rare WENT:

spore Ca ¥ LMG ante) er bt

596 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

The supporting shippers generally express dissatisfaction with the

existing transportation services, with the major complaint directed

against excessive and erratic 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 unde pendable

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, 1- 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 1!- 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

“Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi. Missouri. New

Hampshire. New Jersey. New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma. South Carolina. Tennessee, and

~ 126. itamere

Lae roe Te ome 4 oe = . —

Se a a aa? . - * ee Me oe ee ee eee

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA $97

to a number of Mississippi points during 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 Louisiana 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

carrier's 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 about 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 direct correlation betwcen

the number of times a shipment is interchanged, and the

expeditiousness of the service, the possibility of loss or damage. and

the difficulty of tracing Thus, as a general rule, the fewer times a

shipment is interchanged, the greater the chance that the shipment

will be handled expeditiously, the lesser the chance of less 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. Loursiana. Marviaad. Massachusetts.

Mississippi. Missours. New Jersey. North Carolina, Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolina.

Tennessee, Texas. and Virginia.

14MCC 127

PERO SAE PAGES MRC j

" 7 te ct ft SG GOR GEA IEA, FT a a aie Rp AEG

598 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 England 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 are 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 substantial 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 single-line and a

number of feasible joint-line services. While the shippers may not

have utilized every possible combination of joint-line service

available, they have collectively tried most, if not all. of the

available combinations” and found them inadequate. Admittedly.

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 when 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

complained about lost business and customers.

“None of the protestants opposed only the application of Floyd & Beasley.

PR Ag PORE ILE ELIA AE: wo) ) Re ta a veh AML .

_

GE SWAG 9 AEE LY AAEM LEOPO PRD: ALP! OF 8

HEKRIN TRANSP CO. ENTENSION—ATLANTA. GA SsYY

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 | day to |

. year. with most covering 1-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

1-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, N.J.) 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 cn-

time performance of all the traffic jisted 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 to 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 available

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 elapsed time

“The examiners’ treatment of the various protestants transit time (elapsed time) studies 1s

understandably not all-inclusive It 1s sufficient for our purposes. however. and we see no need to

expand on it inasmuth as any expansion would not affect our discussion of the studies

themselves

“This study was introduced by Consolidated 9

0 MME ELA LP LES ALOR 5

SRR SEEN hy er een ered

Ce seat Sonia tas

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 Ball,

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 southwestem carrier might be questioned

in hight of the fact that McLean. of Winston-Salem. N.C.. has been substituted as applicant in No

MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206). It is noted. however. that (as will be discussed hereinafter) although Herrin

seeks authority to serve southeastern points. with only some exceptions (20 shippers located at

Aulanta. 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

important is the fact that even though Herrin holds authority to serve southeastern points. by this

application it is seeking toextend its operations (except with respect to Memphis) between points in

the Southwest it can presently serve and points in the Southeast which it either cannot serve or to

which it can render only limited service. Thus. the status of this carrier as a southwestern applicant.

insofar as this proceeding ts concerned. has not been altered by the substitution of McLean as

applicant 4 30

H4Mcc.

HERRIN TRANSP CO. EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 601

not only in their specifics (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.

6S1. at page 657 (1969). it was stated that:

the Commission favors the existence of sufficient carrier capacity to encourage

competition and provide mncenuves for real innovation and improvement to the

public. however. uo wall not approve the creation of excessive capacity and needless

dupricgeinen of services which would tend to adversely affect the continuance of

etheient operation by exsting carners. M. Ro & R. Trucking Co.. Ext.—Birmingham,

IOS MCC 69% at page &0

It has also been pointed out, in Motor Freight Corp.

Ext.—Pottawattamie County, lowa, 106 M.C.C. 654, 657 (1968), that:

“Muluple-application proceedings require care not only to avoid the

prolifterauon of operattyg authorities not needed by the shipping

public, but also *** [to %elect those] carriers with the ability to

perform the proposed service.” We must decide which of the

applicants here betore us should receive authority inasmuch 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 not sustain the added

services and operations proposed by all eight applicants and that the

authorization of all such services could lead to unhealthy, if not

cutthroat, compeution 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

H4aMcc.

| 131

- < p = vig Bias x ;

Z fi eh la Aerie, Saale Leet ee ss ais ox a es tes

Pp KS eS hh Bahe RGire Br ial er BR ia ace ie Sh ¢

oe

Rei LESSEN CM AP ICL SE

2

services (principally 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 factors 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 prescrived 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 Bail 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

Ball is in a much better position to serve shippers and receivers

located in the Southwest than Herrin, Strickland, or Jones, that Red

Bal! would have to establish 3 additional terminals in the Southeast

and proposes to add equipment as it becomes necessary, while (a)

432 I4MCC.

a. ee

7

rr,

Pages 133-148 intentionally left blank

ao |

HERRIN TRANSP CQO EXTENSION--APTLANTA. GA 603

Herrin proposes 6 additional southeastern terminals. the reestablish-

ment of a terminal at Litthke 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 (El Dorado and Texarkana): that

Red Bali presented 130 supporting witnesses and an additional 23

witnesses specifically supported its application. whereas (a) Herrin

presented 87 witnesses and an additional 1i supported its applica-

tion. ¢b) Strickland presented 102) shipper witnesses. and an

additional 24 supported its appircation. and (c) Jones presented 90

witnesses and an additional 117 supported its application: and that

Red Ball filed its application on May le 1965. Herrin on June 18.

1968. Strickland on June 16. i968. and Jones on June 14. 1965.

Clearly. of the southwestern applicants. Red Bail has made the

supertor showing with respect to each of the above-described

ertena. and. theretore. it is selected to receive the authority for

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 autherzed 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 territory Red Ball now serves. Ct. Herrin Transp. Co.

Extension—Georgia, 9S MCC. 700. 715 (1964)

Against these factors. Herrin submits that it is the logical choice

because (a) it now has a service and alternate route into Atlanta. (b) it

does not seek to expand its operations inte any new point inasmuch

aS it NOW Conducts operations threugh or to. in the case of Atlanta

and Pensacois. al! the points which it here seeks to serve. and (c) Red

Ball is not now a4 competitive factor in Georgia nor does it conduct

operations even tor operating convenience 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 its application. Albeit 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

U4 MCC, | inane.

%

%

| ae fe RGAE PS 2 ont

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 LTL

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 future

public convenience and necessity require Jones’ proposed regular-

route services. By the same token, Jones has not 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 Fox-Smythe Transp. Co Ex-

tension—Oklahoma, 106 M.C.C. 1, 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 1ts 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 pesmted out in Motor Common Carriers of Property—Routes and Service, 88 MCC. 415.

430 (1961). reguiar-route authority has sometimes been granted to motor common camiers of only a

few commodities, but in recent years 4 a oO” has been uniformly avowed

aot

-

eeorasenrn

AEP DE Nit NP SONATE ie aT ie ty

HERRIN TRANSP CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA AS

Mississippi points. 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

is generally rendered on a substantial amount of their iraffic moving

between Atlanta and major Mississippi points. with transit times

ranging between | and 7 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 either refusals by authorized carriers to handle their traffic. and

of carrier embargoes or restrictions, and about 50 have experienced

pickup and delivery problenf$ 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 it 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 Greggville have

discontinued shipping from Atlanta because of the problems they

have experienced

As pointed out by Bowman. twe 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 10 Mississippi points here sought to be served by

Bowmear. and maintains terminals at onis 2 of these points.“ Gordons

does not actively solicit any traffic between Atlanta and Birmingham.

on the one hand. and. on the other. any point in Mississippi south of

LS. Highway &2. which would include. as here pertinent. Meridian.

Jackson, Vicksburg. Laurel. Hattiesburg. Moss Point. and Pascagoula

(or 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 to handle certain traffic to points in this State. Deaton

holds authority to render single-line service to some of the involved

Mississippi points. but it assertedly interlines this traffic. Since the

hearings in the instant proceedings, Roadway. Braswell. and GFA

have been authorized to serve points in Mississippt. While the single-

“The fall 1971 edition ot the American Motor Carer Directory. of which we take official notice.

shows that Cote Dixie maintains a terminal at and serves only one of the involved Mississippi ports

Jackson 451

NIMC

'

SCOR Raa RIO) te DG A poy

hd

Ny

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 does not hold authority to render regular-route

‘sepvice 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, Laurel, and Meridian, but its 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 complaints. 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, ard

Rome, Ga.: and Charleston and Greenville, S.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,

“It s noted that in 7.4 M.E.-DC, Inc Investigation & Revocation of Cens.. 113 M-CC. 897

(1971). it was found that respondent T.1-M.E. has been in violation of section 216(b) of the

Interstate Commerce Act and has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of ns cerificates

in that « has not been rendering reasonably continuous and adequate sersce in the transportation of

general commodities at numerous points in. among other States. Missouri anu Tennessee That

proceeding ts pending on petition

152

i EEE De: Ee mt, TH os

SCA ABUT ME EME Oh Ot Ml

es

od

ae RARER?

whe

aT RORY

Ae

y ak 72

SiS ea A

eek aL ee Seb Gey

Ee RET SE ¢

Sa

i rt oe

St

ee

4

“4

ten)

a

¥

at

Re |

bs

Eee ee ee eo en ee ee |

PEERED ELIE. ag Sieh. PALES Ny BE ODN IE AAMT BT EE Selle,

HERRIN [TRANSP CO. EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA

and Charleston; and no service from the entire States of North

Carolina and Virginia. .

The extent of Roadway'’s opposition to Bowman's application has

been raised in pleadings. In exhibit 1865. at pages 2 and 3, Roadway

indicates that it opposes the Bowman application insofar as authority

is sought (1) between Birmingham. on the one hand, and. on the

other. Houston and Fort Worth, (2) between Houston and Dallas, and

(3) between Memphis and West mphis. on the one hand. and, on

the. other, Oklahoma City. This 1s qualified by the statement on page

S of the exibit that appendix 2 rhereto. which is Roadway’s systems

map. shows the Rdadway 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 specifically taken exception to this omission. While

Roadway technically opposes the Kansas-Missouri portion of

Bowman's application. it is noted that its evidence ts 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 eatension 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 single-line motor carrier service between the broad

southeastern 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 available. Existing

carriers which hold authority to operate between the Arkansas

N4aMicc. 153

bri

ITP LO? ONT AED NNN

astynayee

\

2

Te 8 te

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 Bowman'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 Orleans.

Regarding Texas, it is noted that more witnesses from the Dallas-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 not 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 all 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., !nc.,

+i

ERAS sieve iy ere

tare

a.

eee Secret Py

| evened ee weer nnnese Tr AA ae EA CR Rist SAN FER ERY

CS hy ee ee ae

Le Get eee

Ways

SS ees

BT ABR Gut Pee; fet DONE Rc —_—

HERRIN TRANSP CO ENTENSION—ATLANTA. GA oud

Fx1 —Birmingham, Dallas, Houston, 82 M.C.C. 689 (1960). Thus. we

believe that Bewman has also shown a need for an extension of its

autherits into Arkansas. Louissana. and Texas in the manner

hereimatter set forth im our findings.

Johnson proposes an “overhead” single-line service between a

number of major points in Texas. Louisiana. and Mississippi. on the

one hand. and. on the other. points m serves along the eastern

seaboard and in the gulf territory. Its application is 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 validly complain with

respect to lengthy and undependable transit umes. and their studies.

considered on the whyle. demonstrate that inconsistent and

excessive transi times have been experienced on a substantial —

portion of the involved traffic. Complaints 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 ptoblems can be attributed to the existing joint-line motor |

service. As pointed out by Johnson. of the major eastern seaboard

carriers Which compete wyth it and tender a portion of the involved

joimt-line services. only Akers opposes Johnson's apptication. 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 it 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 1s 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 seeking.

Se

@

f

‘

é

;

;

z

§

SEE

Ann Amey

¥ Fi Seer

POGUE

AMAL

TEI EOE OL OE LOO! ALOR IE SOLES WEIL Sct A LORI

2. * se og SS. be

hig MESON SP RRR

Pere Te a

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

points and points which Bowman presently serves are limited

territorily either with respect to the Arkansas pointsahey 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 Bowman'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 Orleans.

Regarding Texas, it is noted that more witnesses from the Dallas-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 not 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. 513, 535 (1954), “the

national transportation policy does not tolerate the thought that all

shippers and all points are entitled to single-line motor carrier

service.’. Many shippers have nevertheless demonstrated. «n 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.,

H4MCc.

er

ow

P

4

ees

nae

a wed

Sheet |

PIERS 6) She at wal

BAe AS

AS

TSASte ors hg

Ab SER ge

PEAR oh

Se es FS

MAA A eS cle he eal COLLIE EL EEE ADDS TOA ti ramp ema

HERRIS TRANSP CO ENTENSION—ATLANTA GA an

Fxt —Birmingham, Dalias, Houston, 82 MCC. 689 (1960). Thus. we

believe that Bowman has also shown a need for an extension of its

autherits inte Arkansas. Louisiana. and Texas in the manner

hereimatter set forth in our findings.

Johnson proposes an “overhead singie-iine sersice between a saad

number of major points in Texas. Loursiana. and Mississippi. on the

one hand. and. on the other. points m serves along the eastern

seaboard and in the gulf territory. Its application 1s supported by 236

witnesses lucated 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

ivadequate. Many of the supporting witnesses validly complain with

respeci to lengthy and undependable transit times. and their studies.

considered on the whole. demonstrate that inconsistent and

excessive transit times have been experienced on a substantial

pertion of the involved traffic. Comp!aints also were soiced 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 wt 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 it 1s 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 ts 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 Z

extent set forth below The stated purpose of Johnson's seeking

H4MLA, -- ee kh a ee QPL erro 2% , 4 re ~~ ~~ @

w pte a RENT EHO Gea

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

A e ent from the northern route to the southern route for use at

$ southeastern points. Inasmuch as specific authority is not required

s to perform this type of operation, however. and because Johnson

has not otherwise shown any reason for a grant of such aathority.this

¥ portion of, its application will be denied. eae

Deaton and Baggett admittedly filed defensive applications herein

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 of

» the other applications. On briet. Deaton 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 attect its operations.

Deaton’s application will theretore be denied. Baggett submits that

although it is still a “defensive” applicant, it became a “serious”

3 applicant after failing io. cause all applicants to 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

: rather 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

BR Big foie co SATU ete re RSS ARB TERNS MOTD ROM

e

Z e

ve .

:

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 61!

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 wov'd 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 matters.—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 similiar distances. Nevertheless, as pointed out in Wesr

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 different 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 include 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, it is noted that protestant United, one of the carriers the examiners

indicated would be adversely affected. has been merged into a,much larger carrier, Cambell,

thereby rendering the issue as to the vulnerability of the former's operations moot

114 MLL. ‘ 3 ai “ea ee ERS ser een nas PIPL AEE, SE OY er SSORS

612 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

use of this gateway, these defects will be cured, subject to prior

publication in the Federal Register. by authorizing Bowman to serve

the junction of U.S. Highways 11 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 1048.101 and

1049.1. Finally. with respect to Bowman, its grant of authority will

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 dnd necessity require operation by

114 M.C.C.

28 Nata as 2 . idea ROTOR SERIO D TUT NRA RR

;

]

. 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 I 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 operation by

applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a Common carrier

by motor vehicle of general commodities (except those of unusual

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 originating 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.

HmaAMcc

POE EFI LOIS LE EI SIRI ENROLL LEE NS ORE

ee ae ee

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

In No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18), we find that the present and

future public convenience and necessity require operation by

applicant, in interstate or foreign.commerce, as a common carrier

by motor vehicle of general commodities (except those of unusual

value, classes A and B explosives. household goods as defined by

the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those réquiring special

equipment, over the routes, between the points, and in the manner

set forth in part III of appendix H to this report, subject to a

restriction in part (1) of the grant to traffic moving from, to, or

through Atlanta, Ga.; and subject fo a restriction in part (2) of the

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 fit,

willing, and able properly to perform such services and to conform

to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules

and regulations thereunder; that an appropriate certificate

authorizing the above-described operations should be granted to

each of the three above-described applicants; and that the

applications in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by each of the three applicants with the

requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act and with

our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will

be issued that applicant.

An appropriate order will be entered.

a=

H4MCC.

PPE aL.

ah ge SN

3

eg

a, arme ramet

rate ep aaa

a Fi RRS II Nh? SNS RE RDA L: CTR FY ERY AAS

HERRIN TRANSP CO. EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA 615

APPENDIX A

Authority sought

No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206). filed June 18. 1965, as amended.

HEREIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION—ATLANTA GA

‘REENTITLED)

MCLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY EXTENSION—ATLANTA GA

Gereral commodities including classy 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 ot Birmingham, Mobile. and Montgomery. Ala.: Columbus,

Ga.: Jackson. Miss.. and Pensacola. Fla.. as intermediate points on applicant's

presently authorjzed regular routes

(2) Serving as points of joinder only. the points of Atmore. intersection of U.S.

Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee. Flomaton. Woodstock and Selma, Ala. and

Poplarville, Miss.

(3) Between Jackson. Miss.. and Atianta. 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 Selma. Ala, and the junction of U. S. Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee.

Ala. as points of joinder only.

(4) Between Jackson. Miss.. and Atlanta, Ga:

From Jackson over U. S. Highway 80 to junction U. S. Highway 11. thence over

UL. 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 Orleans. La. and Birmingham. Ala:

From New Orleans over U. S. Highway 1! to Birmingham. and return over the same

route. serving no intermediate points. and serving Woodstock. Ala. and Poplarville.

Miss., as points of joinder.

(6) Between Pensacola. Fila. 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 yoinder

only.

(7) Between Woodstock. Ala. and Mobile. Ala

From Woodstagk over Alabama Highway S to junction L S Highway 43 near

Thomasville. Ala, thence over UL. 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 S.

Highway 29 to Atianta (also from Montgomery over Interstate Highway 85 to Atlanta)

“Herrin Transportation Company was merged into McLean Trucking Company. effectne

October |, 1969. as authorized in No MC-F-10121, McLean Tru. dine Compuns—C aniro! and

Mereer—Herrin Transportation Company rynted). decided Augus: 5, 1969

Ww

z A

a

a

3

i

LMS HINER PENT

peer

DR HOLE

TN Aaurboie tact sid Fs ii dint A

4

|

MESIAL ES

—-

616 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

. 7

and return over the same route, serving no intermediate points. and serving the junc-

tion of U. S. Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee. Ala.. as a point of joinder only

(9) Between Atlanta. Ga, and Columbus, Ga:

From Atlanta over Georgia Highway 85 to Woodbury, Ga. thence over Georgia

Highway 85E to Manchester, Ga., thence over Georgia Highway 85 and alternate L. 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 31 (also over Interstate Highway 65) to

Mobile and return over the same route. serving the intermediate 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 LU. S

Highway 82 to Montgomery and return over the same route. serving no intermediate

points, and serving Selma 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 Mississipp1

Highway 26 to the Mississippi-L ouisiana State line, thence over Louisiana Highway 21

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 point

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 no intermediate points.

RESTRICTION: Service proposed at the points and over the routes specified in —

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 EXTENSION ATLANTA. GA

General commodities including classes A and B explosives (but excepting

household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those

requiring special é¢quipment):

(1) Between Atianta, Ga, and Texarkana, Ark..

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham. Ala, thence over US.

Highway !1 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 11] 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.

SaypeTe og

4

2 ge T EP

*) Sa OO a ee ig

iv

Bed

es

z

a

s

x

Shin ie od & sarletee , * BALDY CRS RR AS A Rae RS

ES

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA. GA. 617

Greenville, Miss.. Birmingham, Ala.. or Atlanta, Ga.. and their respective commercial

zones

No. MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233), filed May 28. 1965. as amended.

DEATO™ TRUCK LINE INC. RE ENTITLED DEATON INC EXTENSION

DALLAS. TEX

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), 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.

FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER COMPANY INC . EXTENSION -

DALLAS. TEX

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. S.

Highway |! to junction U.S. Highway 80. thence over U. S Highway 80 t6 Monroe,

La. thence over Interstate Highway 20 to Shreveport, La., thence over US. 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 to

junction U. S. Highway 80. thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Montgomery). thence

over U. S. Highway 3! to Mobile, Ala. thence over U. S. Highway 90 to junction

U.S. Highway 190. thence over U. S Highway 190 to junction U. S. Highway 165 at

Kinder. La. thence over U. S. Highway 165 to junction U. S. Highway 90 at Iowa, La.,

thence over U S. Highway 90 to Houston, and return over the same route.

Intermediate and off-route points: Baton Rouge and Lake Charles, La, Orange,

Beaumont and Texas City. Tex.. and those within 10 miles of Houston.

(3) Between Montgomery. Ala. and junction U. S. Highways 11 and 80 near Cuba.

Ala. over U. 3. Highway 80. for purpose of joinder only, serving no intermediate

points.

l 14M 8 Wi 163

a

REE SOLS OR, OI IE PIL ILA LLY LAE SS LO GEMOLIS EMS ELLER OAS CT CATER =

See)

*

ere a

SA Wer Sw SOUR ratte

abe tray ey Sean

Sek ot A

5

4

a

LENA ENP PELE BDI NS Ob 6

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS

(4) Between junction of U. S. Highways 71 and 190 west of Baton Rouge. La.. and

Shreveport. La, over U. S. Highway 71. for purpose of joinder only. serving no

intermediate points.

* (5) Between junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama Highway 21 near Anniston.

Ala. and the junction of U. S. Highways 23! and 80 near Montgomery. Ala.. for

purpose of joinder with applicant's irregular-route operations:

From junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama Highway 2! over Alabama Highway

21 to junction U. S. Highway 231. thence over |’ S. Highway 231 to junction L. S.

Highway 80, and return over the same route. serving the intermediate point of

Sycamore.

RESTRICTION: Restricted to traffic moving between points east of the Mississippi

River except Baton Rouge, La. on the one hand, and. on the other. points west of the

Mississippi River and Baton Rouge.

No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147). filed June 16, 1965.

STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION CO. INC) EXTENSION -

ATLANTA GA

General commodities (except those of unusual value. classes A and B explosives.

household goods as defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and those

requiring specia) equipment):

(1) Between Atlanta, Ga, and Texarkana, Ark.:

From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham. Ala. thence over U. S.

Highway 11! 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.. and those on U. §

Highway 82 in Arkansas.

(2) Between Atlanta, Ga, and Shreveport. La: a

From Atlanta over US. Highway 78 to Sr mma thence over US

Highway 1! to junction U. S. Highway 80. thence — U. S. Highway 80 to

Shreveport, and return over the same route

Intermediate point: Jackson, Miss.

Joinder point: Monroe, La

No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304). filed July 30. 1965.

BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION

DALLAS TEX

, General commodities (except those of unusual 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 Atlanta over U. S. Highway 29 to junction U.S. Highway 80 (near Tuskegec.

Ala), thence over U. S Highway 80 to Montgomery. Ala. (also from Atlanta over

Interstate Highway 85 to Montgomery), thence over L. S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth.

and return over the same route. z

14 MC.C.

Detar ios

” i

HERRIN TRANSP. CO EXTENSION—ATLANTA, GA. 619

Intermediate and off-route points: Montgomery and Selma, 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.S. Highway |! to junction U. S. 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. S. Highway 3) to Mobile. Ala (also from Montgomery

over Interstate Highway 65 to Mobile). thence over U. S. Highway 90 to junction

U_ S. Highway 190, thence over US. Highway 190 via Baton Rouge to Kinder, La,

thence over U. S. Highway 165 to the junction of U.S. Highway 90 at Iowa, La,

thence over U. S. Highway 90 to Houston. and return over the same route.

Intermediate and off-route points: Mobile. Ala. Beaumont, Port Arthur. Smith's

Bluff, Texas City, and those within 15 miles of Houston.

(4) Between the junction of U S. Highways 190 and 7! west of Baton Rouge. La,

and Shreveport, La, over U. S. Highway 71, serving no intermediate points, for

purpose of joinder only

(5) Between Meridian, Miss., and the junction of U. S. Highways 11 and 190 near

Slidell, La. over U. S. Highway 11, serving no intermediate points, for purpose of

joinder only.

No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56), filed July 12. 1965. as amended.

BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION. INC., EXTENSION - DALLAS. TEX

General commodities (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. commodities

requiring special equip

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.