« PreviousContinue »
Page T.V. 9, Inc. Federal Communication Comm., 495 F. 2d 929--
330 T. 1. McCormack Trucking Co., Inc.-Investigation, 110 M.C.C. 499
291,434 v. United States, 251 F. Supp. 526; 298 F. Supp. 39
434,438 Tanksley Trucking, Inc., Ext.-Louisville, Ky., 120 M.C.C. 793.
379 Tauck Tours, Inc., Ext.-New York, N.Y., 54 M.C.C. 291; 63 M.C.C. 493
19,22,725 Terminal Transport Co., Inc., Ext.-Michigan Points,
111 M.C.C. 343--
542 Texas-Oklahoma Exp., Inc., Ext.-Oklahoma Points, 110 M.C.C. 769-.
472 Theatres Service Co. Ext.-Duluth, Ga., 113 M.C.C. 744.
691,822 Thompson Contract Carrier Application, 72 M.C.C. 179-
56 Thompson Van Lines, Inc.
United States, 399 F. Supp. 1131; 96 S. Ct. 763
396 Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.-Charlotte Gateway, 105 M.C.C. 586 --
762 T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.-Investigation and Revocation of Certifs., 123 M.C.C. 274--
472 T.I.M.E., Freight, Inc.-Merger, 97 M.C.C. 310
67 Tose, Inc. v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 894
818 Trans West. Exp., Inc., Ext.-Seattle-Portland, 118 M.C.C. 1 ---
102,752 Tri-State Motor Transit Co., Ext.-Radioactive Mats., 108 M.C.C. 228
350 Tri-State Trucking Co. Ext.-Arco, Idaho, 83 M.C.C. 247
351 Turner Expediting Service Extension, 110 M.C.C. 342
375 U. S. Van Lines, Inc.-Ext.-Gateway Elimination, 115 M.C.C. 582
395 v. United States, 367 F. Supp. 1048----
395 Umthun Trucking Co. Ext.-Phosphatic Feed Supplements, 91 M.C.C. 691
4,241,296 United Parcel Service of New York, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 79 79 M.C.C. 629
545 United States-v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., 350 U.S. 409
241 v. E. Brooke Matlack, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 814 v. Illinois Central R. Co., 303 U.S. 239
45,564 Von Der Ahe Van Lines, Inc., Ext.-St. Louis Gateway, 83 M.C.C. 821
395 W. T. Mayfield Sons Trucking Co.-Interpretations, 92 M.C.C. 167 ----
191 Removal of Restriction, 106 M.C.CC. 892
380 Warren Transport, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.C. 241
471 Washington, D.C., Commercial Zone, 3 M.C.C. 243; 48 M.C.C. 460;
54 M.C.C. 797; 83 M.C.C. 471; 95 M.C.C. 305; 98 M.C.C. 106; 103 M.C.C. 256 --
276 Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Ext.-Canned Goods-lowa, 74 M.C.C. 787
Page Western Mass. Bus Lines, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 118 M.C.C.
717 Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., Ext.-Continental U.S., Dando 8/19/71
395 White Rose Motor Club Broker Application, 95 M.C.C. 101 -
229 White Truck Line, Inc., Ext.-Atlanta, Ga., 120 M.C.C. 824
305,468,600 Whitfield Tank Lines, Inc. v. Springer Transfer Co., 96 M.C.C. 285
587 Wiley and Sons, Inc.-Investigation and Revocation, 106 M.C.C. 686 - 787 Wong Yango Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33
818 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Vol. 8, Sec. 20001
815 Yale Transp Corp. v. United States, 185 F. Supp. 96; 365 U.S. 566 --
545 Younger Bros., Inc., Ext.—Bishop and Port Arthur, Tex., 79 M.C.C. 469
72 125 M.C.C.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
No. MC-126276 (SUB-No. 104)'
FAST MOTOR SERVICE, INC., EXTENSION-METAL
CONTAINERS AND METAL CONTAINER ENDS
Decided June 7, 1976
Operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of
metal containers and metal container ends (except refuse containers) from Perrysburg, Ohio, to points in 11 States found to be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Issuance of a permit approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions.
Albert A. Andrin for applicant.
Robert E. Michelson and William P. Sullivan for Contract Carrier Conference of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., intervener in support of the application.
Edward G. Villalon for Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., intervener in opposition to the application.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
Division I, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GRESHAM, AND CHRISTIAN
BY THE DIVISION:
Exceptions to the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge were filed by applicant and the Contract Carrier Conference of the American Trucking Associations, Inc. The Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., by a petition filed January 22, 1975, seeks leave to intervene in the proceeding, accompanying its request with a tendered reply to the exception of the Contract Carrier Conference. Our conclusions differ from those recommended.
'This proceeding was formerly embraced in No. MC-118989 (Sub-No. 116), Container Transit, Inc., Extension-Metal Container und Metal Contuiner Ends. No exceptions were filed in such proceeding and the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge became effective by operation of law.
By order of December 23, 1975, the Contracı Carrier Conference of the American Trucking Associations. Inc., was permitted to intervene in the instant proceeding.
By application filed October 1, 1974, Fast Motor Service, Inc., of Brookfield, Ill., seeks a permit authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of metal containers and metal container ends (except refuse containers) from Perrysburg, Ohio, to points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, under a continuing contract or contracts with Owens-Illinois, Inc., of Toledo, Ohio. The application is unopposed.
The Administrative Law Judge in his initial decision recommended a denial of the application insofar as it seeks contract carrier authority. He found that the proposed permit, if granted, would place applicant in a position in which it was no longer serving a “limited number of persons" upon which its continuing status as a contract carrier depends by virtue of section 203(a)(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act. He further found that the present and future public convenience and necessity require applicant's proposed operation as a common carrier. However, the Administrative Law Judge determined that, with respect to applicant's authority in its Sub-No. 96 permit, dual operations in violation of section 210 of the act would result from a grant of certificated authority in the instant proceeding. Ultimately, he made the conversion of all of applicant's outstanding contract carrier permits into certificates a condition precedent to the certificated authorization of the proposed operations.
On exceptions, applicant asserts that in the instant proceeding, where it seeks to serve its eighth contracting shipper,' to which it proposes to provide equipment which is unusual and highly specialized, the proposed operation is that of contract carriage within the meaning of section 203(a)(15) of the act. It contends that inasmuch as it generally serves the container industry, to which it provides a specialized service, the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that it does not possess such a high degree of specialization that it may escape scrutiny with respect to its contract carrier status. The Contract Carrier Conference asserts that applicant serves essentially one industry and that its primary service
'Applicant presently holds permanent authority to serve the following seven shippers: Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc.; Ball Corporation; National Can Corporation; Continental Can Company, Inc.; American Can Company; Kolmar Products Corporation; and Kraftco Corporation.