APPENDIX A Comparisons of short-line and short tariff route rail distances from Billings, Mont., and Casper, Wyo., to certain destinations, and the present rates Symbols: (SN), short northern route; (SS), short southern route; (A), asphalt, and (R), other residual products. APPENDIX B Comparison of average distances and average rates from certain Wyoming and Montana producing origins with group distances and rates from midcontinent field to destinations in western trunkline territory APPENDIX C Comparison of present and proposed rates on asphalt from certain WyomingMontana origins, and rates reflecting the July 30, 1944, relations with Tulsa, Okla. From Tulsa, From Casper, From Ther- From Zube, From Cody, Wyo. From Billings, Mont. Wyo. mopolis, To Dis- Group Dis- Rate Dis- Rate Dis- Rate tance tance Dis- Rate tance Dis- Rate tance Miles Cents Miles Cents Miles Cents Miles Cents Miles Cents Miles Cents The rate that would reflect the relation of July 30, 1944, between Tulsa and Wyoming-Montana. Complainants' proposed rate. 305 I.C.C. No. 32389 LIME-ECOFF TRUCKING, INC. Decided November 26, 1958 Motor contract carrier minimum rates on tank-truck loads of lime from Carey, Ohio, to Gas City, Marion, Muncie, and Winchester, Ind., found just and reasonable. Proceeding discontinued. Robert C. Smith for respondent. Benson T. Buck, Hewitt Biaett, and John W. Hanifin for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, MCPHERSON, AND GOFF BY DIVISION 2: Exceptions to the recommended report and order of the examiner were filed by the protestants, to which the respondent replied. Exceptions and requested findings not discussed in this report nor reflected in our findings or conclusions have been considered and found not justified. 2 On April 11, 1958, the respondent motor contract carrier, Ecoff Trucking, Inc., was granted an interim permit1 in docket No. MC109451 (Sub-No. 66) to transport lime, among other things, from certain Ohio points to points in Indiana. Prior thereto, and in anticipation of the issuance of such a permit, the respondent published in its tariff, MF-I. C. C. No. 80, truckload minimum rates to become effective on February 5, 1958, subject to a minimum weight of 46,000 pounds, on lime from Carey, Ohio, to Gas City, Marion, and Muncie, Ind., of 24 cents, and to Winchester, Ind., of 23 cents. Investigation and Suspension Docket No. M-10802 was assigned to the case upon receipt of protests from interested railroads against the establishment of such rates, and the schedules were suspended on January 30, 1958. Subsequently, the respondent was granted special permission by the Commission to establish minimum rates 2 cents per 100 pounds higher than those suspended, and thereupon the aforesaid schedules were withdrawn and canceled with the publication in supplement No. 1 to tariff MF-I. C. C. No. 80 of a new proposal, subject to the same minimum weight of 46,000 pounds, of 26 cents to Gas City, Marion, and 1 An interim permit was issued pending a determination in docket No. MC-109451 (SubNo. 82) as to whether the respondent is operating as a common or contract carrier, which has not been decided. Rates are stated per 100 pounds. Muncie, and 25 cents to Winchester from Carey. These latter schedules, which are the subject of this investigation, were also protested by the rail carriers, but were not suspended and became effective on March 5, 1958. However, on February 28, 1958, prior to their effective date, the Commission ordered an investigation of their lawfulness, and a hearing was held on May 20, 1958. Central-territory railroads. appeared in opposition. For the round-trip distances from Carey of 308 miles to Gas City, 300 miles to Marion, and 298 miles to Muncie, the 26-cent rate yields a minimum of 39, 40, and 40 cents a truck-mile, respectively, and to Winchester, 278 miles, the 25-cent rate produces 41 cents a truck-mile. By way of comparison, the respondent's average full costs for the first quarter of 1958 were 35.8 cents a truck-mile. This would indicate profits under the above rates ranging from 3.2 to 5.2 cents. At the time of the hearing, the respondent had been engaged in its new operation for only a short time, and thus the aforementioned costs cover only the hauling of liquid commodities in bulk, which was its sole previous operation. The protestants urge that the costs for transporting liquids do not accurately represent those for handling dry lime, which necessitated the purchase of special equipment. The respondent points out, however, that there is a definite similarity, as special equipment is necessary to haul liquids as well as lime; that drivers' wages are the same; that the unit cost for hauling lime may be lower than for liquids because of the probable year-round operation, which is not the case with liquid commodities; and that it takes 3 hours to unload some of the latter but only 1 hour for lime. The respondent compares the rates under investigation with certain other contract-carrier minimum rates to the same destinations from the Ohio points of Martin, Genoa, Woodville, Gibsonburg, and Marblehead, all within a 50-mile radius of Carey. In each instance the compared rates are 0.5 cent lower than the instant rates for distances generally about 20 miles greater than those here concerned from Carey. Prior to April 11, 1958, the respondent transported only liquid chemicals in bulk in tank vehicles as a contract carrier. On that date it was granted authority to haul lime and other dry commodities in bulk in hopper-type vehicles. Soon thereafter the respondent acquired its first unit of specially designed equipment for this operation, with another on order, and began moving some of the traffic. At the time of hearing, the respondent had been thus engaged about 20 days and had moved only 5 truckloads of dry lime. It anticipated, however, that as soon as its receivers installed the necessary unloading facilities, it would operate two round trips a day with each unit. The respondent states that its sole consideration in establishing these rates was to attract traffic and return a profit. 305 1.C.C. |