established before the effective date of the order in Midwestern Motor Carrier Rates, 27 M. C. C. 297. Certain of them to points in Iowa have been canceled. The protestant contends that the proposed rates are unlawful and unreasonably low in that they are generally lower than the rates prescribed as reasonable minima in that proceeding. Only a small part of the respondent's operations, those between Beatrice and Kansas City, certain eastern Kansas points, and Iowa points, are within the territorial scope of that proceeding. The effectiveness of the minimum rate orders entered therein have been suspended until November 1, 1943.

Between points where the heaviest movement appears, the group B distance rates, minimum 18,000 pounds, would yield truck-mile revenues ranging from 24 cents, under a rate of 63 cents from Beatrice to Aberdeen, S. Dak., 467 miles, to 35.6 cents, under a rate of 41 cents from Beatrice to Norton, Kans., 207 miles. From and to the same points the section 1 rates, minimum 12,000 pounds, would yield truckmile revenues ranging from 18 to 24 cents. For the distance just shown to Aberdeen, the rate of $1.05, minimum 3,000 pounds, would yield 4.4 cents a ton-mile, and, for the distance of 207 miles to Norton, the rate of 68 cents, applicable on the same minimum, would yield 6.6 cents a ton-mile. While there appears to be little need for the maintenance of rates subject to minima of 3,000, 5,000, and 8,000 pounds, similar rates subject to the same minima are maintained by competing motor common carriers from Peoria to points in Colorado, and there is no good reason why respondent may not maintain rates subject to those minima.

Although the special commodity rates on agricultural implements in section 2 reflect some regard for distance, their level shows no fixed relation to the distance rates. To some points they are higher than the corresponding distance rates, to others lower, and in some instances they are the same. To Oklahoma points, the commodity section would apparently never provide the applicable basis, since the rates it carries to points in that State are consistently in excess of the distance rates. The Kansas City rate of 15.5 cents is on a lower level than any of the other special commodity rates. It will be further considered in connection with the rates on other commodities from that point. For the shorter hauls into Iowa and Kansas, the special commodity rates, ranging from 20 cents for 34 miles to 48 cents for 245 miles, would yield minimum truck-mile earnings in excess of 20 cents, some of them over 50 cents. To the rest of the territory, the minimum earnings would be 17 cents or more for all but the longest hauls, for which earnings would result in some instances as low as 14.8 cents, under rates of 56 to 81 cents for

hauls up to 600 miles. For an average haul, such as that to Sioux Falls, S. Dak., 254 miles, the commodity rate of 38.5 cents, which is one of the relatively low rates in the adjustment, would yield truck-mile earnings of 18.2 cents at the minimum weight of 12,000 pounds, and, if consideration is given to the average loading, and the usual percentage of empty return movement, 85 percent, earnings of 13.7 cents a truck-mile would result, as compared with the average truck-mile cost of 12.7 cents.

The proposed special commodity rate on agricultural implements between Beatrice and Kansas City is 15.5 cents, minimum 12,000 pounds. On less than truckloads, the proposed rate is 28 cents, and rates of 24, 25, and 27 cents are proposed subject to minima of 8,000, 5,000, and 3,000 pounds, respectively.

The proposed new commodity rate on iron and steel products, and on spelter and zinc, in straight or mixed truckloads, minimum 12,000 pounds, from Kansas City to Beatrice, is 15.5 cents.

The highway distance from Kansas City to Beatrice is 203 miles. For that distance, the proposed rate of 15.5 cents, minimum 12,000 pounds, on iron and steel products, spelter and zinc, and agricultural implements, based on the minimum, would yield revenue of only 9.1 cents a truck-mile, which, in relation to respondent's cost of operation, appears unduly low. The proposed rate of 24 cents, minimum 8,000 pounds, between these points on agricultural implements would yield comparable revenue, based on the minimum. The rates, minima 3,000 and 5,000 pounds, of 27 and 25 cents, respectively, proposed for application between the same points on agricultural implements, appear unreasonably related to the proposed rate of 24 cents. The proposed less-than-truckload rate of 28 cents on agricultural implements, between Beatrice and Kansas City, appears unreasonably low in relation to the proposed volume rates just considered, and also in relation to the comparable proposed section 1 less-than-truckload rates for the same distance. For example, the proposed group A less-thantruckload rate for 203 miles is 68 cents. No competitive rates are shown between these points on agricultural implements as low as those proposed. Spelter and zinc move in lots of 1 or 2 tons and sometimes in mixed shipments with iron and steel products. In establishing rates on these articles pursuant to our findings herein, the respondent also should give consideration to the quantities in which the articles generally are tendered for transportation. "Iron and steel products" is a generic description, and the tariff containing the rates thereon should list the articles included in that description.

The proposed new distance commodity rates, minimum 16,000 pounds, on broomcorn, from points in Kansas and Oklahoma to

Lincoln, approximate the proposed distance rates, minimum 18,000 pounds, on agricultural implements and parts between Beatrice and points in Iowa. For some time prior to the hearing, the respondent had not transported broomcorn, and these rates are proposed for any shipments that may be offered to him in the future. The respondent has experienced no difficulty in loading 16,000 pounds of broomcorn in his vehicles. These rates would yield revenues averaging 21.5 cents a truck-mile for hauls of 259 to 551 miles and do not appear to be less than reasonable.

Despite the revenue yield under most of the proposed rates in excess of the average cost, the protestant contends that the rates are unreasonably low and would not be compensatory, if consideration is given to the fact that respondent has an approximately 85-percent empty return movement to Beatrice from points other than Kansas City. It appears, however, that the respondent's past operations have been reasonably profitable. Although the respondent does not object to the proposed finding of our examiner that the section 2 specialcommodity rates are unreasonable, we are unable to conclude on this record that they are less than reasonable minima, except to and from Kansas City.

We find that the proposed rate of 15.5 cents on iron and steel products and on spelter and zinc, in straight or mixed truckloads, minimum 12,000 pounds, from Kansas City to Beatrice is unjust and unreasonable; that the proposed rates, less than truckload and minima 3,000, 5,000, 8,000, and 12,000 pounds, on agricultural implements between Beatrice and Kansas City, are unjust and unreasonable; and that otherwise the proposed rates are just and reasonable and otherwise lawful.

On August 6, 1943, the respondent filed application for special permission to cancel the rates which were under suspension to and from Kansas City and to publish higher rates instead. In lieu of the suspended rate of 15.5 cents, minimum 12,000 pounds, the respondent now proposes 48 cents on agricultural implements, subject to the same minimum, and 42 cents, minimum 18,000 pounds. It is also proposed to increase the rate on iron and steel products to 34 cents and that on spelter and zinc to 40 cents, with an increase in the minimum to 18,000 pounds. The proposal appears to contemplate the cancelation of all less-than-truckload rates on agricultural implements between Beatrice and Kansas City, Mo., which may not have been intended. It is assumed that the revised rates on agricultural implements would be established also to and from Kansas City, Kans., since the suspended rates are the same, although carried in separate items.

In view of the respondent's revised proposal to establish rates which are clearly in excess of reasonable minima, we will not prescribe minimum rates at this time. The discontinuance of the proceeding leaves the respondent free to establish the rates now proposed in the usual manner, but on not less than 30 days' notice, and subject to protest and suspension.

An order will be entered requiring the cancelation of the suspended schedules to the extent found unlawful herein, and discontinuing this proceeding.

42 M. C. C.

APPENDIX