INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. M-2267 1 STOPPING IN TRANSIT, MICHIGAN MOTOR FREIGHT LINES Submitted February 10, 1944. Decided May 5, 1944 Proposed cancelation of rules permitting stop-offs for partial unloading or to complete loading of truckload shipments on joint-line movements in connection with Michigan Motor Freight Lines, Inc., between eastern-territory points, on the one hand, and points in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, on the other, and between points in Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Vir ginia found just and reasonable. Proceedings discontinued. Harry M. Slater for a respondent and Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc. W. M. Carney, Harvey P. Schneiber, Joe H. Simpson, Richard H. Field, David F. Cavers, Warren Price, Jr., Bernard M. Fitzgerald, and M. D. Miller for the Director of Economic Stabilization and Price Administrator. Allen Dean for Detroit Board of Commerce. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MILLER, ROGERS, AND ALLDREDGE BY DIVISION 3: Exceptions to the recommended order of the examiner were filed by the Price Administrator and the Director of Economic Stabilization. At the hearing in the subtitle proceeding, the parties stipulated that the issues therein be determined upon the record made in the title proceeding. These two proceedings present related issues and will be considered in a single report. In the title proceeding, by schedules filed to become effective July 29, 1943, respondent motor common carriers proposed to cancel a rule under which truckload shipments may be stopped in transit partially to unload or to complete loading on joint-line movements in connection with Michigan Motor Freight Lines, Inc., hereinafter called respondent, between points in eastern territory, on the one hand, and points in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, on the other; and in Investigation and This report also embraces I. and 8. Docket No. M-2289, Stopping in Transit in Central States. Suspension Docket No. M-2289, by schedules filed to become effective September 1, 1943, respondent motor common carriers proposed to cancel a similar rule applicable on joint-line movements in connection with respondent between points in Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Upon protests of the Price Administrator and the Director of Economic Stabilization, operation of the schedules proposed in the title proceeding was suspended until February 29, 1944, and in the subtitle proceeding, until April 1, 1944, and respondents have postponed the effective dates of the schedules until May 29, 1944, and later. The stop-off rules considered in these proceedings are in two tariffs of the Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc., hereinafter called the bureau, containing class and commodity rates applicable over the lines of respondent and several hundred other participating motor common carriers. Both tariffs apply on local and joint-line traffic. The suspended schedules, however, would discontinue the stop-off arrangements only on joint-line traffic in which respondent participates. The stop-off rules here considered provide that truckload shipments may be stopped in transit at not more than two intermediate points partially to unload or to complete loading, but not both, at the truckload rate, on the aggregate weight, from the primary point of origin to the final destination, or at the rate to the intermediate point if it is higher, plus an additional charge generally of $5.83 for each stop. At Chicago, Ill., because of a lack of equipment, respondent's connections do not accept promptly joint-line traffic offered them for transportation to points on their lines. There appears to be some disinclination by the connecting carriers to accept such traffic when it requires stop-offs partially to unload or to complete loading at points intermediate to the final destination. Respondent has more traffic offered to it for transportation than it has facilities to accommodate. The delays resulting from the inability or failure of the connecting lines promptly to accept joint-line traffic, particularly when stop-offs are required, restricts the use of respondent's equipment in the transportation of other traffic. These circumstances, in part at least, led to the filing of the proposed schedules. It is the purpose of respondent to discontinue its participation in all stop-off rules on joint-line traffic published by the bureau. Approximately 95 percent of respondent's traffic from Chicago is destined to points on its lines and about 5 percent to points on connecting lines. On traffic moving through respondent's Chicago terminal, about 25 truckloads a month require stop-offs in transit, for the most part at points on the lines of its connections. Examples of joint-line hauls on which stop-offs were required on connecting lines are shipments of wheels from Detroit, Mich., to St. Louis, Mo.; of batteries from Muncie, Ind., to Joplin, Mo.; and of paint from Detroit to Kansas City, Mo. None of these hauls was within the territory embraced in the suspended schedules. Except that one witness recalled a shipment of paper from Detroit to Minneapolis, Minn., partially unloaded at Chicago, which is within the territory embraced in the title proceeding, there is no showing that any shippers avail themselves of the stop-off arrangements here in issue. The Detroit Board of Commerce, which appeared only in the title proceeding, is opposed to the discontinuance of the stop-off arrangements, because it is apprehensive that it is the beginning of an attempt by motor common carriers to withdraw stop-off arrangements generally. It contends that stop-offs have assisted the small shipper who does not have sufficient volume to ship in truckloads to one destination, by according it the truckload rate, plus the stop-off charge, instead of the higher less-than-truckload rate; and that stopoffs also are an aid to the rapid movement of war materials, which in the absence of such arrangements, would be delayed until the shipper accumulated a sufficient quantity to ship a truckload to a single destination. These contentions relate to stop-off services generally. The witness for this protestant knew of no traffic which requires stopoff arrangements between the points embraced in the title proceeding. The position of the Price Administrator is that common carriers should not be permitted to increase any rates above the level in effect on September 15, 1942, unless the increase is necessary to permit the continued operation of the carriers in an essential war activity or to correct a gross inequity. Generally speaking, rules permitting stop-offs partially to unload or to complete loading need not be established or maintained by common carriers except to remove unlawful prejudice and discrimination. Lambert Truck Line, Greases, Oklahoma City to Nebraska, 30 M. C. C. 361, 365; Paper Stopped to Partially Unload at W. T. L. Points, 196 I. C. C. 499. 502; and Fort Smith & W. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & 8. F. Ry. Co., 216 I. C. C. 411, 434. We may require common carriers to establish or maintain stop-off arrangements, even in the absence of unlawful prejudice or discrimination, when the circumstances show that such services should be established or maintained as just and reasonable regulations and practices. Thus, in Stop-Off to Unload Grain on Missouri Pacific, 241 I. C. C. 291. 294, the proposed cancelation by a railroad of a stop-off arrangement permitting partial unloading of carloads of grain and grain products was found unlawful because the service met an economic need and was a recognized part of the grain rate structure. In Wool Rates Investigation, 1923, 91 I. C. C. 235, 281, the Commission found that stop-offs to complete 581984-45-vol. 43- -23 loading or arrangements for the concentration of wool in transit were a commercial necessity and that the failure of the railroad respondents to maintain either one or the other of these services was unjust and unreasonable. In Fort Smith & W. Ry. Co. v. Atchinson, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., supra, at page 434, division 4 said: Where the Commission has found unreasonable the failure of defendants to provide for stopping cars in transit to complete loading, or has found such failure not unreasonable, its conclusions were based on the ground that commercial necessity for such a privilege had, or had not, been shown. See Wool Rates Investigation, 1923, 91 I. C. C. 235. Ohio Farm Bureau Federation v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 136 I. C. C. 602. In the instant proceedings, the stop-off rules have application on nearly all articles subject to the class rates and certain commodity rates. The record fails to establish that there is a commercial necessity or economic need for the stop-off services generally or on any particular articles between any or all of the points here considered; nor is there any showing that the discontinuance of the arrangements would result in undue prejudice or unjust discrimination. In their exceptions, protestants urge that the burden on respondent of showing the proposed changed provisions to be just and reasonable, as required by section 216 (g) of the Interstate Commerce Act, has not been sustained. The evidence adduced by respondent, which is hereinbefore set forth, constituted a prima facie showing that the proposed cancelation of the rules is just and reasonable. Respondent's evidence was not rebutted. Facts which would support a finding that the stop-off arrangements should be continued ordinarily are peculiarly within the knowledge of shippers using the arrangements, but no users thereof appeared at the hearings. The effect of the proposed schedules would be to establish the normal less-than-truckload rates on shipments, which, except for the stop-off rules, are in fact, less than truckloads. The lawfulness of the less-than-truckload rates as such is not in issue. We find that the suspended schedules are just and reasonable. An order will be entered discontinuing these proceedings. 43 M. C. C. No. MC-C-335 SCHAEFER, INC., FORMERLY HAROLD L. SCHAEFER, INC., v. C. A. CONKLIN TRUCK LINE, INC., ET AL. Submitted October 31, 1942. Decided May 9, 1944 Rates charged by motor common carriers on truckload shipments of refrigerating machinery from Tecumseh, Mich., to Minneapolis, Minn., found inapplicable. Applicable rates determined, and complaint dismissed. A. R. Morgan for complainant. K.P. Clardy and Franklin R. Overmeyer for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, SPLAWN, AND ALLDREDGE BY DIVISION 2: Exceptions were filed by defendant C. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc., to the order recommended by the examiner. By complaint filed February 19, 1942, the complainant corporation alleges that the joint rates charged by the defendant motor common carriers, C. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc., of Adrian, Mich., hereinafter called Conklin, and Fred B. Wines, of Minneapolis, Minn., doing business as United Shipping Company, on a number of truckload shipments of refrigerating machinery consisting of condensing units and compressors shipped between February and June 1938, inclusive, from Tecumseh, Mich., to Minneapolis, were inapplicable, unjust, and unreasonable. We are asked to determine the applicable and lawful rates. The Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc., interrened in support of the defendants. The evidence submitted related only to the applicability of the rates charged, and our consideration will be confined to that issue. An informal complaint was filed on July 31, 1939, covering certain of these shipments. Rates will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds. Defendants moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that we are without jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of rates 1The complaint names "T. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc.," as a defendant, but service was properly made upon C. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc., which filed an answer and entered a general appearance. The complaint will be amended to show the correct name of this defendant. |