regulations, (c) that carriers may collect only the amount of the estimate plus an additional percent of that estimate, and (d) that carriers shall be fined for estimates which do not accurately reflect the actual moving charges. Should such a system be adopted by this Commission? Are other State regulatory systems available which might if adopted, alleviate the estimating problems presently being encountered? If other systems are available, what problems have been encountered in administration of those estimating requirements?

(g) Should estimates be limited in their duration to a period of 30 days, after which time an estimate would become invalid.

(h) If a weight-based estimating system were adopted, would a variation of the forms utilized by North American Van Lines, Inc., during its recently completed estimating experiment, be useful? (These forms are shown without modification in Ex Parte No. MC-19 (Sub-No. 23), Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 121 M.C.C. 388, 405-407 (1974).) If those forms are not adequate, what forms should be prescribed?

(i) If a weight-based estimating system were not adopted, are existing Commission estimating forms described in Ex Parte No. MC-19 (Sub-No. 8), Practices of Motor Common Carrier of Household Goods, 111 M.C.C. 427, 539-540 (1970), adequate to inform the customer of the nature of the cost he is about to incur and the basis for those charges? If not, what changes should be made in those forms?

(j) Is the range of accuracy presently required of carriers prior to the extension of credit and the reporting of inaccurate estimates an appropriate reflection of the capabilities of the carrier's estimating processes?

(k) Should potential customers be given a separate, written warning, which declares that estimates are not binding and that carriers are required to collect all charges incurred, regardless of whether those charges were in fact estimated?

(1) Should minimum printing specifications be set for estimating forms?

(m) Carriers frequently complain that shippers do not show the estimator all those goods which are to be shipped. How often do shippers withhold such information? What actions should be taken, if any, to encourage shippers to be more forthright with carriers?

Although we have outlined those areas which we expect to be the major focus of this investigation, we invite the public and respondents to comment on any other aspects of the estimating process which should properly be examined in this investigation.

No oral hearings will be scheduled for the receipt of testimony at this time. Persons and parties interested in filing representations as to the matters referred to above are hereby invited to comment by the submission of written data, views, statements, or argument. Submissions should be filed on or before December 1, 1976, and should be forwarded to the Office of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Commission, 12th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20423. When possible, an original and 15 copies of such data, views, statements, or argument should be filed. All submissions become part of the record in this proceeding, and interested persons or parties may view these submissions at the Commission's office in Washington, D.C., during normal business hours.

This investigation is being commenced under the authority of part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, and particularly, 49 U.S.C. §§301, 304(a)(1), 304(a)(6), 308(a), 316, 317, 320, 322, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§553 and 559).

ORDER

At a General Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 6th day of August 1976.

EX PARTE No. MC-19 (SUB-NO. 23)

PRACTICES OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF
HOUSEHOLD GOODS

(EXPERIMENT FOR IMPROVING ACCURACY OF EStimates-Reentitled— INVESTIGATIOn Into Estimating PractiCES)

It appearing, That by petition filed September 19, 1974, North American Van Lines, Inc. (NAVL), sought permission to deviate temporarily from certain provisions of this Commission's regulations in order to conduct an experiment to improve the accuracy of estimating the cost of moving household goods shipments; that after conducting the proposed experiment, NAVL filed its final report; and that our own report herein, which contains the Commission's findings of fact and conclusions with respect to NAVL's report, is hereby referred to and made a part of this order;

It is ordered, That in accordance with our report in this proceeding, and good cause appearing therefor, an investigation be, and it is hereby, instituted (1) to investigate the estimating practices of motor common carriers of household goods in interstate or foreign commerce and the application of our regulations to those practices, (2) to determine whether the facts and circumstances warrant the adoption of any regulation or regulations modifying or eliminating the practice of estimating the costs of household goods shipments, and (3) for the purpose of taking such other and further actions as the facts and circumstances may justify or require.

It is further ordered, That all motor common carriers of household goods operating in interstate or foreign commerce subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission be, and they are hereby, made respondents in this proceeding.

It is further ordered, That the Bureau of Enforcement, Interstate Commerce Commission, be, and it is hereby, directed to participate in this proceeding.

It is further ordered, That the President's Office of Consumer Affairs and the California Public Utilities Commission be, and they are hereby, requested to participate in this proceeding.

And it is further ordered, That notice of the institution of this proceeding be given to the general public by depositing a copy of this order in the Office of the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C., for public inspection and by delivering a copy of the attached notice to the Director of the Federal Register for publication in the Federal Register as notice to all interested persons. (49 U.S.C. §301, 304(a)(1), 304(a)(6), 308(a), 316, 317, 320, 322, and 323, 5 U.S.C. §553 and 559).

125 M.C.C.

No. MC-111424 (SUB-NO.

SHIPPERS TRUCK SERVICE, INC. EXTENSION-
19 STATES

Decided August 11, 1976

1. Public convenience and necessity found not shown to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of commodities sold in, used by, or distributed from wholesale or retail business houses or places of manufacture, distribution or processing thereof, between New York, N.Y., points in 3 New York counties, and points in 12 New Jersey counties, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in a described portion of the United States.

2. Applicant found not shown to be fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed operations.

3. Application denied.

Frank B. Hand, Jr. for applicant.

Steven J. Brown, Arnold L. Burke, Herbert Burstein, John P. Carleton, Frederick J. Coffman, David Dembe, William C. Evans, David L. Harfeld, E. Stephen Heisley, Larry N. Kennedy, Rodman Kober, Arthur Liberstein, Harry C. Maxwell, J. S. McCallie, John P. McMahon, W. C. Mitchell, Edward L. Nehez, John F. O'Donnell, Keith Y. Sharpe, Milton Stoll, Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., Richard M. Tettlebaum, and William H. Towle for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

BY THE COMMISSION:

Exceptions to the initial decision and recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge were filed by certain protestants' and applicant replied. Our conclusion differs from that recommended.

'Exceptions were filed separately by Curtis, Inc., Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, and St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., and jointly by (a) Bowman Transportation, Inc., Hennis Fight Line, Inc., and Mercury Motor Express, Inc., (b) P. Callahan, Inc., Drake Motor Lines, Inc., Eastern Freight Ways, Inc., Fox Transport System, Inc., Hall's Motor Transit Company, Alleghany Corporation, doing business as Jones Motor, Langer Transport Corp., Motor Freight Express, Inc., Mushroom Transportation (Footnote continued on next page)

By application filed July 5, 1972, Shippers Truck Service, Inc., of South Kearny, N.J., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of commodities sold in, used by, or distributed from wholesale or retail business houses, including shipments moving to or from such business houses or places of manufacture, distribution, or processing thereof, between New York, N.Y., points in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, N.Y., and Sussex, Bergen, Morris, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Passaic, Middlesex, Monmouth, Mercer, Hunterdon, and Union Counties, N.J., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States on and east of a line extending from Lake Superior along the west boundary of Wisconsin to the Mississippi River and thence along the east bank of the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. Exceptants and other carriers' introduced evidence in opposition to the application.

In his initial decision the Administrative Law Judge concluded (1) that applicant's authority to transport manikins and display figures, uncrated, and supplies to be used in connection with store displays, does not encompass the commodities it seeks to transport in this proceeding, (2) that applicant's past unlawful operations transporting a wide variety of commodities were performed under a color of right and should be given weight in determining whether there is a need for the proposed service, and (3) that the Commission should consider the race of applicant's owner as one of the many factors relevant to a finding of public convenience and necessity. In his findings, the Administrative Law Judge limited the territorial scope of the authority granted to New York, N.Y., (footnote 1 continued)

Company, Inc., National Transport, New Penn Motor Express, Inc., Preston Trucking Co., Inc., A. Duie Pyle, Inc., Tose, Inc., and Tredways Express, Inc., (c) Carolina Freight Carriers, Corporation, Coldway Food Express, Inc., Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc., Fredonia Express, Inc., Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., Subler Transfer, Inc., and Truck Transport, Inc., (d) Midwest Emery Freight System, Inc., Belford Trucking Co., Inc., Schneider Tank Lines, and Schneider Transport, Inc., and (e) Smith and Solomon Trucking Company and East Coast Freight Lines, Inc.

2R. P. Thomas Trucking Company, Roy Stone Transfer Corporation, Tri-State Motor Transit Co., Parkhill Truck Company, Perkins Trucking Co., Inc., Bellvue Trucking Company, Interocean Service Corp., Wm. McCullough Transportation Co., Inc., Andrew McDermott, Inc., Miller Transfer and Rigging Co., Needham's Motor Service, Inc., Spector Freight System, Inc., Midwest Emery Freight System, Inc., Operator of Laskas Motor Lines, Inc., Matlack, Inc., P. B. Mutrie Motor Transportation, Inc., Quality Carriers, Inc., The Davidson Transfer & Storage Co., Colt's Express, Inc., Ohio Eastern Express, Inc., Lott Motor Lines, Inc., and Akers Motor Lines, Incorporated.

excepted those commodities normally excluded in grants of generalcommodity authority, and recommended that a 3-year term. certificate be issued.

On exceptions, protestants generally argue that applicant did not perform its past operations under good faith color of right and that such operations do not bear on the question of public need; that the evidence otherwise fails to establish that there is a public demand for applicant's service which existing carriers cannot meet; and that it was improper for the Administrative Law Judge to base a grant of authority on the race of applicant's president and owner. In reply, applicant contends that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is substantially correct and should be affirmed.

The evidence, the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge, the exceptions, and the reply have been considered. We find the Administrative Law Judge's statement of facts to be correct in all material respects and, as modified and supplemented herein, we adopt that statement as our own. The pertinent facts will be restated to the extent necessary for clarity of discussion.

FACTS

Applicant is a motor common carrier holding authority to transport manikins and display figures, uncrated, and supplies to be used in connection with store displays, between New York, N.Y. on the one hand, and on the other, points in a described portion of the United States generally east of the Mississippi River. Applicant purchased this authority in 1969 and at that time came to the conclusion that the second portion of the authority, "supplies to be used in connection with store displays," allowed applicant to transport any commodity as long as it is displayed for sale. Applicant now argues that it is authorized to provide the service proposed herein and that the application should be dismissed. Applicant's president reached this conclusion based on conversations with an unspecified professor of English. He did not read the Commission's decision in which the purchased authority was granted, nor did he make any further attempt to discover the scope of the authority. Applicant introduced evidence at the hearing of numerous shipments it transported in 1971, 1972, and 1973. The commodities it transported are very diverse including, for example, gravel, cleaning compounds, salad oil, tin cans, and toys and games. Many Shelinsky Common Carrier Application, 52 M.C.C. 349 (1951).