at a delivery cost of approximately $4 on a 20,000-pound load, equivalent to 2 cents per 100 pounds. In this estimate, $3 is allocated to driver's wages, and $1 to other operating costs. At present, it pays 8 cents or 15 cents per 100 pounds, depending upon the ultimate destination, to the pick-up and delivery carrier for delivery services at Chicago, and has additional expenses for unloading and reloading at the Chicago terminal. A considerable portion of the present mileage operated in picking up small shipments for consolidation into truckloads at Greensboro will be eliminated, and this will result in further economies and will enable respondents more readily to comply with orders of the Office of Defense Transportation requiring reduction in the mileage of empty or partially loaded vehicles.

Routes actually used by respondents in transporting this traffic are not of record. Except from Durham, Kannapolis, Rockingham, and Salisbury, the shortest highway routes from these origins to Chicago pass through Kentucky and Tennessee, over the highways of which pay loads of 20,000 pounds cannot lawfully be transported in the ordinary motor freight vehicle. The short-line distances, from the 4 points above mentioned, are 805, 782, 827, and 767 miles, respectively. The distances from the 11 other points over routes which bypass Kentucky and Tennessee range from 789 miles to 948 miles, and average 872 miles, as compared with short-line distances which range from 683 miles, to 860 miles, and average 748 miles. The circuitous routes are, on the average, 16.6 percent longer than the shortline routes. The proposed rates, based on loads of 20,000 pounds, would yield truck-mile revenues ranging from 20.1 cents to 24.3 cents and averaging 23 cents, over the short-line distances, and from 19.6 cents to 23.2 cents and averaging 20.7 cents, over the usable routes. Truck-mile earnings on a load consisting of two 10,000-pound shipments would be approximately 7 percent greater but such a movement would involve additional pick-up and delivery expense. The average of the proposed rates, minimum 10,000 pounds, is 94 cents, and the ton-mile earnings, based on an average short-line distance of 761 miles from all points, is 24.7 mills.

Respondents compare the truck-mile revenues which would be produced by the suspended rates with those realized under present rates of respondents and the protesting motor carriers on denims, minima 20,000 and 30,000 pounds, from North Carolina points to Chicago and certain other destinations in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio; on cotton bagging, minima 10,000 and 30,000 pounds, from the origin points under consideration to Chicago; on tire fabrics, minima 10,000 and 30,000 pounds, from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama origins to destinations in Ohio and Michigan; and on

unfinished cotton piece goods, minimum 20,000 pounds, from two North Carolina points to four destinations in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Over short-line routes, the average earnings produced by the compared rates on single shipments of 10,000 pounds, where that minimum applies, and on loads of 20,000 pounds, where a minimum of either 20,000 or 30,000 pounds applies, are not materially different from those which would result from the proposed rates under corresponding minima.

From numerous southern origins to certain eastern points, respondents and the protesting motor carriers maintain rates on unfinished cotton piece goods, minima 20,000 and 30,000 pounds. The rates subject to the latter minimum are the same as the corresponding rail carload rates; and the rates, minimum 20,000 pounds, are differentially 5 cents higher. The same formula was used in establishing motor rates, minimum 20,000 pounds, on related articles between certain other points. Protestants fear that the establishment of 20,000-pound rates on the rail carload level will unduly prefer Chicago receivers and result in demands for similar treatment by receivers at other points. The suspended rates, over short-line routes, would return earnings which appear to be not unfavorably related to those accruing under the compared rates. Respondents and the supporting shippers urge that the proposed rates will remove prejudice to Chicago consignees. There is no substantial evidence of undue preference or prejudice.

Protestants urge that, in meeting the rail carload rates, the respondents should have proposed to establish the rail minimum weight of 30,000 pounds instead of using a minimum weight which is related to the carrying capacity of their motor vehicles. Volume minimum weights in excess of truckload capacity are unlawful in the absence of proof that such quantities can be transported in more than one unit of equipment at a lower cost per 100 pounds than single truckload shipments. Rugs and Matting from East to W. T. L. Territory, 31 M. C. C. 193 and 34 M. C. C. 641.

Average revenues and costs of Turner's Transfer in transporting all commodities in all operations from January 1 to June 30, 1942, were 23.9 and 20.6 cents a truck-mile, respectively. Its operating costs had been increasing steadily for some time prior to the hearing, and such increased costs are reflected in the data submitted. In view of the fact that this traffic will be transported in volume at a substantial saving compared with the usual less-than-truckload movement, the earnings under the proposed rates appear to be reasonable.

We find that the proposed rates are not unjust or unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful. An order will be entered discontinuing the proceeding.

ALLDREDGE, Chairman, dissenting in part:

I can go along with the findings in the report to the extent that they apply to the rates subject to a 20,000-pound minimum, but I would require cancelation of the rates subject to a 10,000-pound minimum. The latter rates are improperly related to the rates subject to the minimum of 20,000 pounds, and there is very little evidence to justify them. Whether they are treated as truckload, less-than-truckload, or any-quantity rates, the earnings thereunder do not seem to me to be reasonably compensatory. They can only become compensatory providing respondents always obtain a pay load of other traffic in addition to the 10,000 pounds of cotton piece goods. That method would result in justifying, on any traffic, less-than-truckload rates the same as truckload rates.

42 M. C. C.

No. MC-3339 1

1

GLOBE CARTAGE COMPANY, INC., COMMON CARRIER

APPLICATION

Decided August 4, 1943

On reconsideration, findings in prior reports, 41 M. C. C. 313 and 41 M. C. C. 303, modified. Applicants found entitled to authority to continue operations as common carriers by motor vehicle of general commodities with certain exceptions, between certain points in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, over regular routes, in the transportation of commodities which are moving on bills of lading of freight forwarders. Issuance of certificates approved upon compliance by applicants with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied.

Appearances as shown in prior reports with addition of Ezra Weiss for applicant and Robert J. McBride and J. Manley Head for intervener in Nos. MC-3339 and MC-3340.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In the prior report in Nos. MC-3339 and MC-3340, 41 M. C. C. 313, division 5 found applicant, hereafter referred to as Globe, entitled to a "grandfather" certificate authorizing continuance of operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce, of general commodities, over specified regular routes, between, or from and to, specified points in the territory extending from St. Louis, Mo., on the west, to Buffalo, N. Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., on the east, and from Louisville, Ky., on the south, to Chicago, Ill., on the north. The applications were in all other respects denied.

In the prior report in Nos. MC-70614 and MC-23458, Barnett Trucking Co. Common Carrier Application, 41 M. C. C. 303, division 5 found applicant, hereafter referred to as Barnett, entitled to a "grandfather" certificate authorizing continuance of operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of general commodities, over a specified route between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, Ohio, serving Columbus and Dayton, Ohio, as intermediate points. The applications were in all other respects denied.

1 This report also embraces No. MC-3340, Globe Cartage Company, Inc., Contract Carrier Application; No. MC-70614, The Barnett Trucking Company Common Carrier Application; and No. MC-23458, The Barnett Trucking Company Contract Carrier Application.

Intervener, The Regular Common Carrier Conference of The American Trucking Associations, Inc., and numerous rail and motor-carrier protestants filed petitions for reconsideration in Nos. MC-3339 and MC-3340. One of the petitions seeks oral argument. Applicant and a number of motor-carrier interveners filed petitions for reconsideration and oral argument in Nos. MC-70614 and MC-23458. All of the protestants and interveners urge that division 5 erred in failing "to restrict the authority" granted to applicants to traffic which is, at the time of transportation by them, in the primary custody of and moving on bills of lading of freight forwarders, as defined in section 402 (a) (5) of part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act. Certain protestants in Nos. MC-3339 and MC-3340 urge that division 5 erred in failing "to restrict and limit" the authority granted to Globe to traffic which is in the primary custody of and moving on bills of lading of Universal Carloading & Distributing Company, and "to truckload movements only." Neither protestants nor intereveners question applicants' rights to authority to continue operations as motor carriers of general commodities between the points and over the routes specified in the prior reports. In its petition, Barnett urges that it is entitled to authority to serve numerous points in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York in addition to those specified by division 5. Upon consideration of the petitions and of the records herein, we have vacated the orders entered by division 5 and reopened the proceedings for reconsideration. The questions raised in the petitions have been fully developed therein and on the records, and we have therefore denied the requests for oral argumnt.

Applicants have been engaged in bona fide operations, without interruption, since prior to June 1, 1935, transporting by motor vehicle for compensation, in interstate or foreign commerce, general commodities, except commodities in bulk and those of unusual length, height, or weight. During this entire period, Globe and Barnett have transported only traffic tendered to them by the Universal Carloading & Distributing Company and the National Carloading Corporation, respectively. Each of the latter is a freight forwarder as defined in part IV of the act. In the prior reports herein, following our decisions in Acme Fast Freight, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 8 M. C. C. 211, and Bleich Common Carrier Application, 27 M. C. C. 9, division 5 found that applicants have been and are common carriers. None of the petitioners question these findings. Part IV of the act was added in 1942. In section 402 (a) (5), it defines freight forwarders as follows:

The term "freight forwarder" means any person which (otherwise than as a carrier subject to part I, II, or III of this Act) holds itself out to the general public to transport or provide transportation of property, or any class or classes