Page images
PDF
EPUB

authorized by the portions of its certificates specified in the protest to provide a complete service on traffic moving through the Nashville gateway to shipper's facilities at Scottsville." The review board further found that protestant Bowling Green possesses authority which is "circuitous when compared with applicant's direct service proposal ***."

Petitioners argue, generally, that they hold appropriate authority to render the proposed service. Along with its petition for reconsideration of the review board's order, Manning filed a petition for modification of its pertinent certificates accompanied by a motion to dismiss should modification be found unnecessary subsequent to a determination by the Commission of Manning's authority. Bowling Green largely bases its petition upon the grounds that the review board erred in finding the authority of Bowling Green to be circuitous. Since the ultimate determination of this application depends to a great extent upon a proper understanding of the authorities of the two protestants, Manning and Bowling Green, such authorities will be discussed in detail later in this report.

Upon consideration of the record, of the petitions for reconsideration filed by Manning and Bowling Green, of applicant's replies thereto, and for good cause shown, the proceeding was reopened by order entered January 7, 1976, for further consideration upon final determination in the Manning petition for modification proceeding.

The evidence, the review board's report and order, and the pleadings have been considered. Although we disagree with the review board's ultimate conclusions, we find the statement of facts in its report to be substantially correct; and, as modified and supplemented herein, we adopt that statement as our own. Only those facts necessary for clarity of discussion will be set forth in this report.

THE FACTS

Applicant is authorized to transport general and specified commodities, over a network of regular and irregular routes, which extends between Nashville, Tenn., and Lansing, Mich., through western Kentucky and Indiana. Applicant's present routes pass through Scottsville and extend over U.S. Highway 31E to Nashville but the routes are subject to restrictions precluding the transportation of traffic from or to Nashville which has an origin or destination at Scottsville. Applicant operates a substantial fleet of

equipment suitable for the transportation of the involved commodities and maintains 16 terminals throughout its area of operations, including one at Nashville which would be the principal terminal involved so far as service between Nashville and Scottsville is concerned, and one at Bowling Green, Ky., also of importance in relation to this application. Applicant indicates that it is presently providing an extensive transportation service for the supporting shipper at Scottsville both in direct service and in interline service using its various interchange gateways. An examination of the traffic abstract documenting this service indicates that the origins of such shipments have been diverse. Although applicant has handled a small amount of this traffic directly, most of it has moved through interline gateways in Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan.

The supporting shipper, Dolge ncorp, Inc., operates retail stores in 26 States, and its merchandising program is directed at low income. groups. The type of merchandise which it handles consists of irregulars, tailouts, leftovers, and recycled merchandise received at shipper's Scottsville warehouse from various origins, and it is shipped to the warehouse when it becomes available. A large portion of the traffic originates in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Shipper indicates that the logical gateway for all its traffic from points in the above States destined to Scottsville is Nashville, since utilizing the Evansville, Ind., or Louisville, Ky., gateways is too circuitous and in many instances results in the creation of a combination of rates. Shipper indicates that it is presently utilizing the Evansville and Louisville gateways in order to use the services of applicant and to bring two dependable carriers into Scottsville.

In 1973, shipper moved approximately $55 million of goods (wholesale value) through its Scottsville warehouse. In 1969, shipper served less than 300 stores while in 1973, it served more than 600 stores, and its projected rate of growth over the next 5 years is at the same percentage rate. Shipper's planned routing program for 1974 was to reduce its rail piggyback movement [trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC)] by approximately 70 percent, diverting this traffic to motor common carriers. More than 50 percent of shipper's traffic has moved TOFC. Shipper's traffic is evenly split between less-thantruckload (LTL) and truckload, and the LTL traffic has moved in TOFC service through a consolidation point to either Glasgow or Bowling Green, Ky., where shipper picks it up with its own equipment. Shipper believes that another motor common carrier in

addition to protestant Manning is needed to serve it at Scottsville, despite the fact that Manning has rendered satisfactory service to it in the past. Shipper believes that the combination of the traffic diverted from TOFC and anticipated minimum growth of 20 percent a year establish the need for an additional motor common carrier. Shipper asserts that protestant Bowling Green has never served it, its authority is quite circuitous and the roads over which it operates are not suitable for the type of equipment necessary. It further charges that the common control situation between Manning and Bowling Green precludes them from providing the competitive service which shipper desires.

MANNING'S AUTHORITY

The review board found that Manning proposed to tack two separate grants of authority at the common service point of Westmoreland, Tenn., and that with respect to the route extending between Nashville and Westmoreland, service at Westmoreland was subject to a restriction which precluded protestant from providing a complete service to shipper's Scottsville facilities on traffic moving through the Nashville gateway. The review board's interpretation of Manning's certificates was correct, but as Manning has pointed out by the filing of a petition for modification of its pertinent authorities, the certificates did not correctly reflect the intention of the Commission to grant the unrestricted authority for which a need had been demonstrated. When we reopened this proceeding, we also reopened the pertinent Manning application proceedings to modify the certificates so that they correctly reflect the Commission's intention in granting authority to Manning. The Manning modification order is set forth in its entirety in the appendix to this report. The modification proceeding is now administratively final, and we will take official notice of the fact that Manning is now entitled to a certificate authorizing a regular-route, generalcommodities service between Nashville, Tenn., and Glasgow, Ky., serving all intermediate points in Kentucky, subject to a restriction limiting service to the transportation of shipments originating at or destined to points on the described route, which is U.S. Highway 31E. Scottsville is an authorized service point on this route, and the review board's finding in this proceeding that the restrictions at the common service point of Westmoreland precluded a complete service on traffic moving through the Nashville gateway to shipper's facility is no longer applicable.

BOWLING GREEN'S AUTHORITY

In considering Bowling Green's opposition, the review board set forth certain authority at page 9 of its report. In its Discussion and Conclusions, the review board stated that "[p]rotestant Bowling Green's proposal is circuitous when compared with applicant's direct service proposal and it has never participated in the traffic." It should be noted that the verified statement of Bowling Green made no specific reference to the authority it relied upon and that the review board looked to the original protest to ascertain such authorities. A joint protest was filed on behalf of Manning and Bowling Green indicating Bowling Green proposed to tack its SubNo. 4 and Sub-No. 7 certificates, which authority the review board correctly determined as more circuitous than applicant's proposed service. Subsequent to the order setting the proceeding for modified procedure a separate verified statement was filed on behalf of Bowling Green in which no specific tacking proposals were submitted but protestant merely referred to its authorities held in its Sub-Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8 certificates. In its petition for reconsideration Bowling Green contends: (1) that its verified statements clearly explained that it has a route from Nashville to Scottsville through Bowling Green, Ky.; (2) that the route is only about 20 miles longer than the U.S. Highway 31E route; and (3) that the Bowling Green route utilizes better highways. While the verified statement did in fact refer to this route, the statement did not refer to the specific portions of authority relied upon. It is now apparent, based upon the evidence and the detailed explanation of its authorities relied upon as presented in its petition, that Bowling Green is authorized to operate over the relatively direct route from Nashville through Bowling Green to Scottsville, utilizing Interstate 'The board's statement concerning protestant Bowling Green's service proposal, included the following concerning Bowling Green's authority:

Protestant Bowling Green is authorized to transport general commodities (with exceptions) over a network of regular routes extending between Nashville and Louisville. Its proposal to serve shipper involves utilizing a route extending north from Nashville to Morgantown, Ky.. which authorizes service at intermediate points in Butler County, Ky., but service at Morgantown and points in its commercial zone is restricted against tacking. Protestant asserts the ability to tack such authority at a Butler County point outside the Morgantown commercial zone with a route extending between Morgantown, Ky., and junction U.S. Highway 231 and Kentucky Highway 1147, serving all intermediate points, and U.S. Highway 231 extending southeast from Morgantown through Scottsville. Protestant indicates that the junction of Kentucky Highway 1147 with U.S. Highway 231 is south of Scottsville and it serves Scottsville pursuant to such authority.

Highway 65 and U.S. Highway 231, and need not operate in the more circuitous manner indicated by the board.2

DISCUSSION AND CONCLSUONS

Pursuant to section 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act, an applicant for motor common carrier authority must establish that the operation it proposes is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. In ascertaining the extent, if any, to which this statutory requirement has been met, we must determine whether the new operation will serve a useful purpose responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing lines or carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant without endangering the operation of existing carriers contrary to the public interest. Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190, 203 (1936). From our review of the evidence submitted in this proceeding, we are of the opinion that applicant has failed to sustain its statutory burden.

While it is clear that shipper has a need for a transportation service between Nashville and its facilities at Scottsville, it is equally apparent that there are already two authorized carriers holding appropriate authority and sufficient ability to meet such required service. It is well established that existing motor carriers should normally have the right to transport all the traffic they can handle adequately, efficiently, and economically in the territories they serve without the added competition of a new operation. Cloud Common Carrier Application, 115 M.C.C. 77, 79 (1972). Applicant and shipper have failed to establish that the existing services of Manning and Bowling Green are not adequate, nor have they demonstrated other cogent reasons for establishment of a new and

In its Sub-No. 8 certificate. protestant Bowling Green holds alternate-route authority to operate from Nashville over Interstate Highway 65 to junction U.S. Highway 231, thence over U.S. Highway 231 to Bowling Green. Service at Bowling Green is for purposes of joinder only. Its SubNo. 4 certificate authorizes service over a specified portion of U.S. Highway 231, serving all intermediate points. Bowling Green and Scottsville are authorized intermediate points on the specified portion of U.S. Highway 231. In its reply to Bowling Green's petition, applicant argues that there is no common service point on the two routes, since in the alternate route "Bowling Green, Kentucky [is] being utilized for purposes of joinder only and not as a service point to permit tacking of two certificates." A ruling on protestant Bowling Green's motion to strike this portion of applicant's reply was deferred in our order reopening this proceeding. Although applicant's argument is not well founded, since in the present context "tacking" and "joinder" can be used interchangeably (see Fox-Smythe Transp. Co. Extension-Oklahoma, 106 M.C.C. 1, 55 (1967)), we see no reason to strike any portion of applicant's reply, and the motion will be overruled.

« PreviousContinue »