further conclude that the application should be denied. This application, particularly part (2), relates largely to applicant's desire to improve its own intrastate operations; however, such an improvement should not take place at the expense of carriers already authorized to and capable of providing the proposed interstate service. FINDINGS We find that applicant has failed to establish that the present or future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operation; that this decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and that the application should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER O'NEAL, dissenting: I would affirm, with minor modifications, the initial decision of the joint board and grant the sought authority. The majority finds that shipper complaints concerning lengthy transit time are mostly general and that the enumerated complaints are minimal in comparison to the volume of traffic handled by protestants. But while the supporting shippers may not have conducted extensive traffic studies, the evidence presented shows that they have experienced considerable delays in the use of protestants' services. For example, shipper Gerald Lumber Company has described a shipment interlined with SKX at Kansas City on November 17, 1972, which was not delivered until November 30, 1972. The shippers which applicant proposes to serve are small, with limited inventories. They depend on efficient, overnight service which is not being provided by existing carriers. Any minor detrimental impact on the operations of these existing carriers would, I believe, be more than outweighed by the concomitant benefits to the localities served. See Bowman Transp. v. Ark-Best Freight System, 419 U.S. 281, 293 (1974). As the expanded services of applicant would provide the reliable and expeditious transportation so necessary for the success of a small business venture, I would grant the authority. 125 M.C.C. EX PARTE No. MC-19 (SUB-NO. 23) PRACTICES OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF (EXPERIMENT FOR IMPROVING ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES- Decided August 6, 1976 1. Final report submitted by North American Van Lines, Inc., upon completion of estimating experiment previously approved in this proceeding found deficient and not probative of assertions contained therein. 2. Proceeding held open to institute investigation into estimating practices of motor common carriers of household goods in interstate or foreign commerce. Martin A. Weissert for petitioner. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION BY THE COMMISSION: By petition filed September 19, 1974, North American Van Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner or NAVL), a motor common carrier of household goods, requested authorization to deviate, for a stated period, from the application of certain provisions of this Commission's regulations governing the practices of household goods carriers. In particular, petitioner sought permission to deviate, for a period of 1 year beginning January 1, 1975, from provisions of the regulations set forth in paragraph 1056.8(a), of part 1056, of Chapter X, of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in order to conduct an experiment intended to improve the accurary of estimating costs for moving services required by those regulations. In its petition NAVL requested permission to substitute temporarily its own "Appraisal and Inventory" sheet, and its "Inventory Supplement" for the forms the Commission now requires to be used by motor common carriers of household goods for estimating and shipment inventory purposes.' 'These forms are described and discussed in Ex Parte No. MC-19 (Sub-No. 8), Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 111 M.C.C. 427, 539-540 (1970); and in Ex Parte No. MC 19 (Sub-No. 19), Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 118 M.C.C. 178 (1973). After discussing the history of this Commission's estimating regulations and the nature of petitioner's proposed experiment (more fully described below), we noted in our prior report herein that there exists a need for improved methods of estimating the costs to consumers of household goods shipments and that approval of petitioner's experiment would be consonant with our responsibilities under the national transportation policy (49 U.S.C., preceding section 1). We, therefore, approved the experiment, attaching certain conditions thereto. Our prior report in this proceeding was printed at 121 M.C.C. 388 (1974). The form prescribed by this Commission for use in estimating the total weight of a particular household goods shipment (Table of Measurements, set out in 111 M.C.C. at 540) is divided into the following categories: family room, dining room, bedroom, nursery, kitchen, appliances (large), porch, outdoor furniture and equipment, miscellaneous, containers (packed by shipper), and containers (packed by carrier). Specific volumes, expressed in cubic feet, are assigned to each item within a given category. In order to estimate the weight of a given shipment of household goods, the estimator is required by this Commission's regulations at 49 CFR 1056.8(a) to multiply the total volume of a shipment by a conversion factor of not less than 7 pounds per cubic foot. Our requirement that a carrier use the prescribed estimating forms was imposed in order to eliminate some of the problems arising by reasons of the diversity of estimating methods formerly employed by household goods carriers. Uniform estimating documents, we believed, offered the most effective means of assuring that competing carriers were estimating shipments on the same basis, see Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 95 M.C.C. 138, 156 (1964). We adopted the minimum conversion factor for similar reasons, see Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 118 M.C.C. 178, 194 (1973). It was our opinion that the minimum conversion factor would eliminate many underestimates. The combined forms proposed by NAVL made no reference to the required weight conversion factor and petitioner did not use that conversion factor in assessing shipments of household goods during the experiment. Petitioner's appraisal and inventory sheet eliminated most of the categories contained in our prescribed Table of Measurements, substituting in lieu of those categories the following classifications: furniture, appliances, outdoor equipment, miscellaneous, carrier-packed carton, and PBO ("packed by owner") cartons. Each classification contained generic descriptions of various articles to be estimated. Each article within a given classification was assigned a weight value. In some instances articles were assigned more than one weight value (“weight stratification"). The estimator was required to choose the most appropriate weight for the particular item being estimated. Cartons were stratified both by size (in cubic feet) and weight. Changes were also made in the "estimated cost of services" form presently required by the Commission. Petitioner reentitled its form "Appraisal of Moving Expenses" and in addition to the notices now required to be included on the Commission-prescribed form, included a notice that changes occurring which would affect weight, distance, storage, packing, or other moving expense would necessarily require an adjustment in the projected cost of the move in question. Petitioner was also authorized to institute use of a form called the "inventory supplement." This form required the estimator to assign an item number to each article being shipped and to indicate on that form any defects in the article. The driver handling the shipment of household goods in question would complete the form by indicating the condition of the article at point of origin and at destination, noting any changes that had occurred during shipment. NAVL stated that it intended to apply the proposed estimating methods to its entire system and to provide instruction in the use of those methods for agents, drivers, estimators, and other employees who would be affected by the program. Petitioner began use of its experimental estimating system on January 1, 1975. By petition filed May 9, 1975, NAVL requested that it be permitted to make certain changes in the experimental appraisal and inventory form. That request was granted and the approved changes (which clarified certain items included in the experimental appraisal and inventory form, and added or deleted other items) became effective July 1, 1975. In accordance with the requirements of our prior report and order, petitioner filed a formal report with the Commission after completion of the first 6 months of the project; NAVL also filed a supplement to that report. This Commission, after considering the report and its supplement, by order dated October 8, 1975, found that petitioner's report lacked sufficient underlying documentation and that it contained figures which were inconsistent with data presented in its 1974 annual performance report and its 1974 and 1975 quarterly reports of overand underestimates, as required under the provisions of 49 CFR 1056.7(b) and 1056.8(a), respectively. This Commission further found that material submitted in connection with NAVL's 6-month report was inadequate to support any conclusions with respect to the success of this experiment. In the same order we required NAVL to provide in its final report to this Commission a list of every estimate included in the experiment in which the actual charges were either more than 10 percent above or more than 10 percent below the amount of the estimate of such charges, with a reason for the inaccurate estimate to be selected from a list of possible reasons contained in that order. By petition filed September 5, 1975, NAVL requested permission to extend the above-described experiment for a period of 1 additional year commencing January 1, 1976. Petitioner's request for such an extension was denied, as was its subsequent request that it be permitted to continue the experiment until after our final evaluation had been completed. NAVL filed its final report on March 31, 1976. PETITIONER'S FINAL REPORT Petitioner's report begins by offering a brief summary of the problems encountered in estimating household goods shipments, the approach it took in attempting to resolve those problems, and the operation of the estimating experiment. NAVL claims that by week 48 of the experiment the number of appraisals made by its estimators which were within 10 percent of actual cost of moving had risen to 65.2 percent. Petitioner asserts that during the final 3 weeks of this experiment those estimates which were within 10 percent of actual cost of moving accounted for between 65.1 and 66.5 percent of all estimates. NAVL's report includes a chart (labeled figure "A") which plots the percentage of its estimates which were within 10 percent of actual cost against the time frame of the experiment. Petitioner argues that this graph demonstrates the success of the experiment and that continuation of the experiment would lead to further improvement. In its report NAVL asserts that there was no significant difference in performance when shipments were grouped according to geographical location, type of account, size of shipment, or any combination of these factors. Petitioner claims that its experience with respect to the accuracy of the estimates it performed was representative of the experience of the moving industry as a whole. Three major variables were said to affect the accuracy of an estimate: (1) customer decisions and beliefs with respect to movement of household goods or the use of certain services offered by carrier, (2) the individual skills and performance of the estimator, and (3) the tools (including the Commission's 7 |