Page 2
June 25, 1979 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SHNATT Guaing the pred nad the oldesting strat w motor at the true race noulco altogethes. indus. The 100 mon Mben to The At provides that for rutes before manties ato a no January 1, 1. th Cocamion require mod het up and artie. Tret. no more than 15 dan nou afin de land Teplou mu radlonde, ad by , motor anar al property or freight for mush en who hawl ebate tranche la bote verder. Surtbe. It find the Commion dle a true The Common Msuyacretion to redua the 16-day tin dengware covered to 16 anda. reduction would be in the modity amen of trials interest. Motor coatnet care nu Med udgrued by the water med and Lafaty M Anar January 1, 100, 4 rate for not nlngulation rien « property and mechas forwarden Industry. A come afective upos publication atroner truetone Section 110. Merpen: Onder extsunglar, the ICC has authority e dhe foty. to approro mertur ad noquatuon lavaly requiremeu ing curtain motor curions and to amunt such transactions from the waterugt len on prohibt Tecnon & the ICC rotrictine atry pole ructuong tra cla.. Tey carrien har rulled a (a) to mpend vad nationalto the roato na Mate teme N. coat.goence, then we louw ne mulated content today that nghe late inor. The ICC to pre send decretioa la approving berunt: et dou not require . rtgorod analy chance de la rection Mble naticompetitin ducta trucking lodustry mula The Trusting Corporation and fatty Act rantasy har detent, compotur sadmequire the ICC to otgta porable extdoc- pengine to an It w dno poudy podin decus of the propound me na pe latertura Ath trust The ICC may not approvatorta ay ne or lor, merger or noqulation is that to do .petar deg . mortaatial song of cocapottion, cu on edeu for tion of monopoty. «Intrant of an ind and compoud unless the ICC ind that the attoocpot he penalty thered carpettive efects of the traction mouth o prany, vithout under by scaldant trasportation de tuo pertanto renter of the could not bo wtede ben hty mid-ducte a plaan & dergulation i s'hatin hartaas materially want totoro the industry completely returned to conpodnie dosta the transtor. After are your te 100 wortty oner Too Tracting Competition and Cafety Act mergers 1 tel. tad jurisdiction require the secretary of Transporta don in trastened to the TC and the Departament cooperation Vita di iCo and the Depart of Justia. meas e rotta, to report to the Congre by Section 111. Antrate Carriage: Jaatny 4, 113. upon the effects o ate leg campania (much usean who want nislation, ad mothee ICC regulation meth insaport that we foods from the 100 tracking taduatry would continued regation. Although the private cartocciaa 118. nerd-stata solationship: are not directly regulated by the 100. the The Trurung Competies and Safety Act operations ben hun way retrtott: codian court decidons to ma 18 dew thes Onu recently, they were prohibited the federal sau governs material motor with pplying for authority to the last of property and at the states may not me bauls with non-compay commodo ulate in thum Taction doe not They may not haul roots for water con fect the Kated covat authority to regamoto mbocar cop unde lata fattube arrego. circumtapot: 84 tecnon int. Motor Carrien al Property Prieto autta may i det a tocurities: tructs to . rerelated arter only to low Tot notion ould remove the ICC" au. 13 for mtatum of at least on thority are meant for motor carrier af M. realt of the orictios tvate property sad plaas the authority in the de cartier as plagued with a muy big curities and Echanga Cortatonton nuo of ampty buckhaule Section 117. Motor Carrie Brokers: The Troting Competition froty Met Iraton me porno who do not pronta Codity mocent ICC warna lortato age ter trends to those others. The transportation or to the bat . carriers to apply for wthority to my metion uberalist the atry randerd top DOD-complay commodides: Permit private aurten to pronto me brakom by delating the adotne pobila lam stod for oty but rotating the news portatios for corporate rabeldiarius 14 Terralt privato carrten to and able requirat certidanced aion for Sectioa 113. A auto emption: Adating lau tapo trosa ICC motor aan rieinasportation that 10 didental to trasportation by rerut." abaco I, the ICC motricted mech opt beats to areas withia > pula at port and studies receiving service by maman. Leonaty the Commision aliguy cepended the auto Que Tho Trucking cosapeution and Safety Act eliminate the long rutriction togethe ind campus time to and from docente Ms carries that is part of controle rare lace-and-a morenat « frogas to its de pation Section 118. Trucklond transportadea: Trucklond" motor carriers of property. rbo concentrato ou bouling spectanto com Page 3
Rate bureaus are the publishing agents commonly relied upon by regulated interstate truckers for performing functions related to the setting and publishing of trucking rates. Some of the functions per formed by trucking rate bureaus are specifically exempted from the antitrust laws. Rate bureaus, and operating authority issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), are the two major areas of criticism of ICC regulation of trucking. This report provides a background of trucking rate bureau operations, their legal status, and some pro and con considerations associated with their functions. For more recent legislative activity and other information on the subject of trucking rate bureaus, see CRS Issue Brief No. 76019, entitled "Trucking: Economic Regulation." Page 4
since they are not owned or operated by a unit of government.
length from a single page to thick volumes and are commonly referred
to as rate tariffs or, simply, tariffs, even though the rates typi
cally have nothing to do with international transportation.
trucking rate bureaus sometimes are called
state motor common carriers, usually referred to in this report sim
ply as truckers, must file tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Com
mored car service, dump truck operations (such as
whose traffic is comprised of various, usually packaged,
diagram of the geographical territory covered by some rate bureaus
These dozen or so motor carrier rate bureaus provide several
services for trucking firms.
the provision of an institutional framework within which many truck
rates are discussed and set giving consideration to other rates and
services, including rail and private carriage alternatives that are
open to the shippers who will be affected by the rates; the collec
iffs, on that carrier's operating performance; and, the publishing
All general rate increases
filed by general commodities mo
tor common carriers which are estimated will generate $1 million or
more in additional revenues on the affected traffic, must be accom
In order to produce the evidence required by the ICC in these gen
the larger carriers participating in the pro
posed rates send a statistically stratified sample of their freight
for compilation and analysis.
pling process is called the Continuous Traffic Study, or CTS.
a variety of cost studies
diasta ZTO HIS Major Motor Carrier Rate Bureau Territories Una mag askeltats obredo
iw beloop For Internal CRS Use and for Use of Members of Concress in their iegislative Duties
This map is taken from page 54 of source 1 cited at the end
data is used to develop cost data for the traffic on which the rate 1/ increase is sought. None of the detailed CTS data is submitted to
the ICC for economic evaluation by its staff of economists, account
Compliance with the CTS statistical pro
however, is verified by an outside statistics consulting firm
similar to a public accounting firm auditing
a company's books, and the result of the statistical audit 21 cluded as part of the MC-82 justification statement.
1/ Some carriers belong to more than one of these rate bureaus and their cost and revenue data is used by each bureau for each of the rate proceedings that require MC-82 justification statements.
2/ designed by a recognized statistician, Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Originally Dr. Deming himself provided the statistical audit service to rate bureaus.
3/ A longer discussion is contained in source 4, at the end of this report, pp. 8-15, and source 6, pp. 269-270, 319-320, and 325-326.
Motor carrier rate bureau procedures in setting rates are il
lustrated by those of the Eastern Central Motor Carrier Association
Standing Rate Committee, comprised of rate bureau employees having a
background in various facets of motor carrier pricing,
eral Committee comprised of representatives of carriers who partici
pate in the tariffs published by the rate bureau but who do not nec
essarily participate in the traffic being discussed in the rate pro 2/ posal. The procedure generally used in the ECMCA rate bureau is il
lustrated in the center part of the diagram, and is called the "nor
mal procedure." The normal procedure begins with the submission of a
1/ For a longer discussion of how rate bureaus operate, 9, pp. 374-383.
Not all motor carrier rate bureaus committee and a general rate committee. Page 5
Rate Association and You; Partners for Progios, Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association. Your
RECOMMEND REGULAR PROCEDURE
PARTICIPATION Ten days allowed to give carriers opportunity to join or Alagout.
rate proposal by a carrier to the Standing Rate Committee,
ing written comments from interested persons, the Standing Rate Com
mittee can disapprove a docketed proposal, approve it, or approve it
The General Committee, like the Standing Rate Committee,
the regular or emergency procedures, Since the ICC's action in Ex 1/ Parte 297 in 1975, independent actions can no longer be protested
or before the ICC by the rate bureau itself,
although motor carriers and shippers can protest independent 1/ tions before the rate bureau and before the ICC.
in June, 1975, but, in response to appeals, reconsidered and issued
another decision in January, 1976.
The 1976 decision generally re
affirmed the 1975 decision, by, for example, continuing to prohibit
rate bureaus from protesting independent actions.
the ICC began Ex Parte 297,
4, to re-examine the antitrust exemption of truck and other rate bu
rail rate bureaus should be extended to truck rate bureaus.
Act standards embody for railroads
some of the Ford Administration
such as not allowing carriers to
1/ Shippers can protest whether or not they ship the commodities to which the proposed rate applies, and carriers can protest whether or not they carry, or have ICC authority to carry, the commodities to which the proposed rate applies.
discuss or vote on single-line rates.
on commodities carried by only one carrier and not interchanged with
A February 21, 1979, article in The Journal of Commerce (page
rate bureaus are that they function like a government-approved
tel, resulting in a narrow spectrum of price-service alternatives
proposals, it was argued that shippers would use such information to Page 6
The Carter Administration submitted proposed legislation which would
substantially reduce the functions of trucking rate bureaus while allowing
them to continue to act as publishing agencies for trucking firms.
Hearings on economic conditions in the trucking industry and the
need for any changes in the economic regulation of trucking were con
ducted during 1979 by the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Public
Works and Transportation Committee.
1. Davis, Grant M. and Charles S. Sherwood. Rate bureaus and anti trust conflicts in transportation; public policy issues. New York, Praeger Publishers, 116 p. HE 195.5.06D38.1975.
Fellmeth, Robert C. The interstate commerce omission. New York, This is the "Nader
Friedlaender, Ann F. The dilemma of freight transport regula tion. Washington, D.C., Brookings, 1969.
4. Friedman, Jesse J. Collective ratemaking in trucking: the public-interest rationale. Washington, D.C., October 1977. HE 5623.F82.
-5. Glaskowsky, Nicholas A., Jr., Brian F. O'Neil, and Donald R. Hudson, Motor carrier regulation; a review and evaluation of three major current regulatory issues relating to the interstate common carrier trucking industry. Washington, D.C., ATA Foundation, 1976. 90 p. (This monograph is not in the Library of Congress collection, but is available for reading in the Congressional Reading Room, from Stephen Thompson, at telephone number 426-5751.)
6. Locklin, D. Philip. Economics of transportation. Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, 1972. HE 206.16.1972.
7. MacAvoy, Paul W. and John W. Snow (editors). Regulation of entry and pricing in truck regulation; Ford Administration papers on regulatory reform, Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977. HE 5623, R43.
8. Moore, Thomas Gale. Deregulating surface freight transporta tion, pages 55-98. In Almarin Phillips (editor), Promoting competition in regulated markets, Washington, D.C.,
Taff, Charles A. Commercial motor transportation. Cambridge, Maryland, Cornell Maritime Press, Inc., 1975. HE 5623,13.1975.
U.S. Congress, Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Intercity domestic transportation system for passengers and freight. Washington, D.C., GPO, 1977. 95th Congress, 1st session, committee print. 464 p. (There is no committee print number on the document.)
U.S. Congress, Oversight of freight rate competition in the motor carrier industry. Volume contains hearings conducted October 27, 28 (1977) and March 10, 13, 1978. Washington, D.C., GPO, 1978, 709 p. Volume 2 contains hearings conducted March 23, 24, April 26 and May 8, 1978. Washington, D.C., GPO, 1978, pp. 711-1179.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Issues in regulating inter state motor carriers. Washington, D.C., June 20, 1978, GAO report number CED-78–106. Copies are available from the GAO Congressional Liaison Office at telephone number 275-5388.
U.S. Library of Congress. Trucking deregulation: a pro and discussion, by Stephen J Thompson. Washington, D.C., January 30, 1979, 16 p. CRS report number 79-33 E.
Trucking: economic regulation, by Stephen J Thompson,
Statement of Gloria J. Hurdle Before the Antitrust Rules and Procedures
The Reed-Bulwinkle Act, which became Section 5a of the
Interstate Commerce Act, permits motor carriers to form an
agreement to collectively propose rates, classifications, and
Both the agreement and the rates, rules and classifi
cations must be approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Since passage of the Act in 1948, more than 60 1/ agreements have been approved by the Icc.
Rate bureaus can be divided into two major categories
which correspond to the two major types of motor common carriers: specialized carriers and general commodities. Examples of Specialized Rate Bureaus include:
1/ There are 63 5a agreements. being considered by the ICC in
New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc.
Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc.
Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau, Inc.
There are ten major regional general commodities rate bureaus.
In addition, there are smaller bureaus which overlap these.
Because carriers are required to have a rate on file over
every route for every type of freight they handle, most general
commodities carriers use a system of rates called class rates,
which are based on mileage and commodity classification.
National Motor Freight Traffic Association is a rate bureau
which publishes a tariff, the National Motor Freight Classification, that assigns a classification to every commodity.
There are over 4,000 motor carrier members of this bureau.
These classifications are used nationwide except in New England,
where the New England Motor Freight Bureau publishes its own
While there are differences in the operation and organi
zation of the bureaus, they typically perform the following
(1) They process proposals for changes in motor freight rates, charges, and classifications,
(2) They publish the rates and charges in the form required by the ICC,
They justify and defend those rates before Page 7
Rate bureaus are non-profit organizations operating on
revenues collected from dues of member carriers and from
the sale of tariffs and other services. A rate bureau is
organized into several parts, some of which are staffed by
professional, full-time employees of the bureau, and others which are staffed by carrier representatives. In order to
understand the organization of a typical rate bureau, I will
briefly describe the steps required to publish a rate from
the initial proposal of that rate until it is submitted in
First, I will describe regular rate
bureau procedures, and second I will describe the procedure for independent action.
Changes in rates, classifications or rules may be pro
posed by carriers, shippers, or the staff of the rate bureau.
Proposals are submitted in writing to the bureau, and usually contain supporting justification. Most bureaus have a "Docket Service" which publishes a weekly or bimonthly Bulletin. The Docket Bulletin lists all proposals, announces the scheduled time of hearings, and describes the disposition of past
Following its announcement in the Docket Bulletin, the
proposal is considered by the bureau's Standing Rate Committee. The Standing Rate Committee consists of three to seven bureau
employees, experienced in traffic and ratemaking. Their function
is to keep records of responses to the proposals, examine the
proposal and supporting justification, and make an initial
decision on each proposal.
The Standing Rate Committee holds
a hearing on the proposals, and any interested party may parti
cipate in that hearing, either in person, in writing, or via
speaker-phone which most rate bureaus provide. If there are no protests to the proposal and it is approved by the Standing
Rate Committee, then it is submitted to the Bureau's tariff
publishing staff for preparation in correct form to be sub
When a proposal before the Standing Rate Committee is
protested, or when the Standing Rate Committee determines that the rate should be rejected or amended, or when it is appealed,
it is redocketed for consideration by the General Rate Committee.
The General Rate Committee is composed of a group of 15 to 100
carrier officials elected by the bureau members to represent
Most bureaus have restrictions governing the composition
of the General Rate Committee to ensure representation of all
types of member carriers.
For example, some bureaus require
that some of the members represent small carriers, and others
require that some members represent each state served by the
The General Rate Committee holds a hearing in a manner
similar to that of the Standing Rate Committee.
hearing, the Committee holds a meeting which is closed to the
In that meeting, the carriers discuss the proposals
and vote on them by secret ballot.
Proposals which are approved
by a majority vote are then published by the bureau's publishing
At any stage in the ratemaking procedure, a carrier may publish a rate through independent action. The procedure for
independent action is as follows:
Notice of independent action is announced in the Docket
14 days before publication.
other carriers to join the independent action if they so
desire. There are several methods which rate bureaus use to
determine which carriers have elected to join the independent
In some bureaus, all independent actions are made effec
tive for all member carriers unless they "flag out" which means they elect not to participate.
In other bureaus, carriers may join the independent action during the 7 14 day advance notice period, and if
they fail to respond, they do not participate.
In still other bureaus, both methods are used, and the
bureau staff determines which method will be used for each
proposal. In general, the staff attempts to reduce the amount of paperwork by predicting which of the two above methods will result in the fewest exceptions.
After the period of advance notice, independent actions
are published for the carrier and others participating.
Interested parties wishing to protest an independent action
do so through the ICC. All tariffs or tariff changes, whether approved by the Standing Rate Committee, the General Rate Committee, or filed through independent action, are submitted to the ICC and are effective 30 days after publication unless protested to the ICC and suspended by the ICC's Investigation and Suspension
In addition to proposing rates, there are several other
functions of rate bureaus.
Most bureaus have a section of rate analysts who prepare background information for the committees. They examine exist
ing tariffs to compare existing rates with those proposed, and
collect statistical data on costs and revenues.
The bureaus also have a staff capable of assisting
carriers in justifying rates before the Icc. For example, the ICC requires substantial justification for general rate
The information required to justify a general
rate increase was established by the ICC in MC-82, New Proce
dures in Motor Carrier Revenue Proceeding.
to il general commodities rate bureaus.
justification, rate bureaus are required to conduct a Contin
uous Traffic Study. The Continuous Traffic Study is based on a sample of carriers and their freight bills and is used to
determine the current revenues of the carriers, by size of
The Traffic Study is used in con
junction with estimates of the cost of providing service in
order to measure profitability by weight class and geographic territory. The study is also used to estimate the projected revenues and costs which would occur if the proposed general rate increase were adopted.
The bureaus also maintain a legal staff to assist carriers
in defending proposals at the ICC.
In addition, many bureaus
provide a tariff watching service to notify carriers of rates
published outside the bureau which might affect member carriers. Finally, the bureaus are continually engaged in analyzing changes in tariff publishing. For example, several bureaus
have suggested methods for simplification and many bureaus are in the process of computerizing some of their tariffs.
The Interstate Commerce Commission must not only approve
the tariffs of the rate bureaus, they must also approve their
As part of its review process under
Section 5a, the Interstate Commerce Commission has undertaken
several proceedings to review the antitrust immunity.
review of rate bureaus took place between June 15, 1973 and
January 23, 1976, called Ex Parte 297, Rate Bureau Investigation.
In that investigation, the Commission posed 28 questions and
accepted responses from shippers, carriers, and government
The Commission published 26 conclusions and findings
which required carriers to make some changes in some of their
Following Ex Parte 297, the Commission has held
three more proceedings concerning rate bureaus: Ex Parte 297 (Sub-No. 2) concerns the notification of
rate proposals to make changes in rates, rules or classifica
tion which were originally filed through independent action.
The Commission initially decided to require such notice but is
reconsidering its decision in that matter. Page 8
Ex Parte 297 Sub-No. 3 concerns modified terms and condi
tions for approval of collective ratemaking agreements under
Section 5a of the Interstate Commerce Act.
considering applying the restrictions of the Railroad Revital
ization and Regulatory Reform Act to motor carrier rate bureaus. If adopted, the ruling would prohibit participation and voting on single-line rates or on any interline rate where a carrier
cannot practicably participate in the movement.
The Commission has required all
of the rate bureaus to resubmit evidence to determine whether
their agreements meet the standards of $5a and Ex Parte 297.
In particular, carriers must submit evidence on:
Whether the agreement enhances one or national transportation policy goals,
Whether the agreement will harm interests
whether the benefits the agreement con-
The Icc is currently in the process of collecting this evidence.
I will be happy to answer questions concerning operations
PREPARED STATEMENTS OF SAMUEL G. HEROLD I am Samuel G. Herold, executive vice president of Middle Atlantic Conference (MAC), a rate and tariff bureau for about 1,000 trucking companies operating in the Middle Atlantic region." I appreciate this opportunity to explain some of the many ways MAC helps its member carriers, the shipping public and consumers. Many of the services we provide are little known and often misunderstood. After today, I hope they will be better known, and less misunderstood. There is an old saying that a lie will go around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. That seems to be the case with some of the statements I've read and heard about the trucking industry and rate bureaus. I believe the facts presented in this statement will serve to clarify and to correct a number of the representations that have made before this Committee, other forums and in various publications. The subcommittee has a perfect right to examine the operations of the rate bureaus. But the examination should be completely openminded and objective, as I know it will be. If the subcommittee finds, as I think it should, that our activities do benefit the carriers, shipping public and consumers, I think you have an obligation—to help the truth put on its shoes quicker, by assisting us in stamping out some of the misrepresentations being made about the rate bureaus and the motor carrier industry. Before one can understand the importance of rate bureaus to the regulated trucking industry, it is necessary to understand what that industry does from a service standpoint.
The thousands of regulated motor carriers can be broken into three service categories : 1. Truckload specialists.—They haul truckload (TL) movements of packaged or bulk commodities. Except for Riteway Express, the three motor carriers that previously testified before this Committee fall into this category. 2. Express package carriers.—They haul small package shipments. UPS is a well-known example. 3. Full-service carriers. They haul less-than-truckload (LTL),' and Truckload (TL) shipments of general commodities. Most of their shipments are LTL. Typical examples of the full-service carriers are Hall's Motor Transit and Preston Trucking. Let's take the first category. Truckload specialists constitute the majority of all regulated motor carriers. In size, they range from one tractor-trailer up to hundreds of such units. Generally, they transport truckload shipments that fully load a trailer from a capacity or weight limit standpoint. For the most part they do not travel over fixed routes. They load a trailer at the consignor's premises and move it directly to the consignee's premises over the shortest available route. The truckload specialists often offer and perform only very special services for selected customers, or for narrow types of commercial industry, such as iron and steel manufacturers. Or a singular type of service for those who need it, such as new car carriers. Naturally, such carriers will have more empty miles, as shown in the ICC's recent empty mileage study. For example, flour cannot be carried in an automobile-hauling rig, nor can milk be hauled in a sulfuric acid tanktruck. So the more specialized the equipment used the greater will be a carrier's empty mileage. Eliminating empty-mileage completely is no different than trying to figure out how to make the Metro buses run full going out of the city in the morning, and coming into the city in the afternoon; it is an impossible dream. For many truckload specialists, their principal capital assets are tractortrailer units, with a smaller investment in office and vehicle-servicing and repair facilities, unless they purchase vehicle maintenance from outside sources. If
1 Middle Atlantic region embraces the Middle Atlantic States of Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. traffic between those States and the New England States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, traffic between the Middle Atlantic and New England states on the one hand, and Eastern Canada on the other, and traffic within the New York short-haul area. 2 For MAC carrier members LTL shipments represent about 97 percent of their total shipments handled and produce about 73 percent of their total revenues.
such carriers depend on owner-operators that furnish and maintain some or all of the tractor-trailer units, as is often the case, their investment is even less. In contrast with full service carriers, the truckload specialists can easily make capital adjustments very quickly, unless they use more expensive specialized equipment, such as required for handling liquid bulk commodities, automobiles, etc. It is important to remember that these truckload specialists are not asked to render, are not equipped to render, and in fact do not render the wide range of services—in terms of equipment or facilities—as do the Full-Service Carriers, that are called upon, and in fact do haul commodities of all kinds, regardless of the shipment weight. At the other end of the spectrum are the express package carriers. They are few in number and specialize in the handling of small packages, each of which moves as an individual shipment. They do not offer a full range of services. Their liability for loss or damage is limited. They will not accept shipments on which freight charges are to be collected from the consignee. They will not accept shipments moving on order-notify bills of lading. They will not accept c.o.d. shipments, that is shipments on which the price of the merchandise is to be collected by the carrier from the consignee. Because of their limited service and the relatively uniform size and weight of their shipments these carriers can minimize their personnel requirements by automating their terminal operations, including the loading and unloading of their vehicles, to a far greater extent than can the full service carriers. They can also standardize their vehicles to a greater extent than can full service carriers. The result of all of these operational advantages is that they can perform their highly specialized service at lower costs than the full service carriers incur. The third category of carriers comprises some 5,000 full service carriers of general commodities, who for the most part participate in the tariffs of the major rate bureaus like MAC. Unlike the truckload specialists, the full service carriers have tremendous investments in equipment, terminals, break bulk facilities and computer and communications systems devoted to the daily handling of millions of less-than-truckload shipments moving in both single and joint-line service to and from every one of 117,000 points in the United States, some 55,000 of which are hamlets of less than 1,000 inhabitants. Unlike the package express specialists, the full service carriers are common carriers in the classic sense of that term. They transport in single and joint-line service all of the freight tendered to them, whatever the nature of the commodity, whatever the size of the shipment, wherever the destination. They accept shipments whether charges are prepaid by the consignor or to be collected from the consignee. They accept shipments moving on order bills of lading. With a few limited exceptions, they assume full liability for loss and damage to shipments in the course of transportation. They perform a variety of accessorial services to meet the wide range of needs of the different businesses they serve. SOME ERRONEOUS ECONOMIC NOTIONS
Mr. Shenefield testified before this subcommittee in October. Among the erroneous statements he made was that there are "virtually no scale economies” in the trucking industry, and that without regulation “the industry would not become overly concentrated.” He, like some others, says that it doesn't take huge sums of money to enter the industry as it would to enter such industries as automobile manufacturing. The notion seems to be that all one needs is a truck and a driver's license. In the first place, I am unaware of any adequate or complete economy of scale studies conducted on this industry. The few that have been made fail to take into account the multiple structure of the industry and what is necessary for the carriers to perform a complete transportation service. Obviously, a carrier cannot establish an efficient system for the handling of less-than-truckload shipments over a wide area without having platform and terminal facilities to sort, store and route such shipments. To be cost effective and efficient, the full-service type of operation requires a large volume of freight, many vehicles, many employees, and much investment. Full service transportation cannot be performed without substantial fixed in
3 The full service carriers don't usually handle articles of extraordinary value such as money, household goods, certain dangerous articles or articles requiring special equipment.. such as tank trucks.
vestment which is associated with economies of scale. Mr. West, in his testimony the other day, provided some concrete illustrations of such scale economies. Without regulation, I believe one could anticipate the following scenario: 1. a reduction in existing common carrier terminal facilities and a resulting deterioration or withdrawal of service to isolated and sparsely populated communities, 2. increases in the number of specialists seeking to serve only selected profitable markets, 3. a decrease in interlining and resulting spinoff effects which will decrease capacity and utilization, 4. a shift of service to the most profitable traffic lanes to the exclusion of others, and 5. predatory pricing which will eliminate the smaller and weaker carriers, resulting in a high degree of concentration. Mr. Shenefield is of the view that regulation as an economic, administrative or legislative concept should encompass only "natural monopolies.” The fact is, regulation may be necessary not only under conditions of natural monopolies, but in situations where : 1. imperfections in the market exist, 2. wide differences in the market exist, and public policy requires that service be rendered to those widely different markets. Two examples illustrate the type of service that the shipping public can expect should federal regulation of the motor carriers be eliminated. In the States of New Jersey and Delaware intrastate motor carrier transportation is entirely exempt from economic regulation. One result is that there is no nonregulated motor carrier in either of those two states which is a full service carrier, i.e., one which holds itself out to the general public as a common carrier to handle all types and sizes of shipments from or to all points in those states. Such common carrier service is available on intrastate traffic only from those carriers that hold interstate certificates from the ICC and which have established systems of operations throughout those states to serve all places and shippers at reasonable rates, without discrimination, and which make available the same common carrier system on intrastate shipments as on interstate shipments. Without Federal regulation of their interstate operations, the common carrier system on both interstate and intrastate shipments would disappear. The carriers would be compelled by the usual economic forces to become selective in providing transportation services because it would be economically impossible to continue as full service carriers. Similar problems now exist in another unregulated segment of transportation. A recent statement from the Department of Agriculture indicates that it is studying plans to become the "regulator" of food shipments by motor carriers as a result of the Department's Agricultural Marketing Service concern with the present instability among independent owner-operators. A spokesman for the Agricultural Marketing Service has said that tremendous increases in operating costs and equipment have forced many owner-operators into other hauling jobs or into bankruptcy to the detriment of effective food distribution. Particularly needed, says the Agricultural Marketing Service, is an antitrust exemption for these carriers that would enable the publication of guideline rates and charges, setting minimums that would be paid for transportation services. It was further said that granting an antitrust exemption would not solve all of the problems now encountered in moving farm products to market and that in the long term a nationwide registration procedure for brokers, with licensing and bonding requirements included, and sanctions available for violators, would be needed to take care of most problems. It is thus apparent that the effective marketing of agricultural products is being hampered by the absence of regulation of the transportation of those products. I believe that the same type of instability would result from the deregulation of, and removal of the present antitrust exemption available to, the motor carrier industry.
SOME ERRONEOUS COST NOTIONS
Mr. Shenefield testified that terminal costs are not significant. I do not know what data or studies underlie his statement. The fact is that terminal costs for the full-service carriers must include picking up and delivering the freight, including time spent at the shippers and receivers facilities, the terminal handling at origin, destination and break bulk terminals. The cost of these operations is extremely significant to the full-service carriers when you consider that 97 percent of the shipments they handle require this type of handling. Thus, our studies show that terminal costs for the MAC carriers are about 50 percent of total costs. I must therefore assume that Mr. Shenefield did not use the term terminal costs in the same sense as I do. He may have been speaking of the capital costs of
terminal structures and facilities. If so, he is still wrong. Such assets are significant, especially for the carriers rendering LTL service, being about 20 percent of operating property. The operating property of just 83 MAC carriers had a book value of $1,126,935,000 as of December 31, 1976. Under today's conditions. to establish a full service operation which is efficiently based and competitively significant requires not only trucks, but also terminal faciilties, pickup and delivery equipment, a personnel organization and working capital-all of which require a substantial capital investment. It is simply not true that "entry costs without regulation would be minimal” unless the shipping public is to be required to forego full common carrier servvice and we are prepared to scrap the goals of the National transportation policy, which are to: 1.) Promote adequate, economical, and efficient service; 2.) Foster sound economic conditions in transportation; 3.) Bar unjust discrimination, undue preference or advantage, or unfair or destructive competitive practices, and 4.) Achieve a coordinated transportation system adequate to meet national needs.
I was surprised when the ICC, at your October 28, 1977 hearing, did not make clear to the subcommittee the strong regulatory actions they have been taking over the past several years with respect to the motor carrier industry. For example, in Ex Parte MC-82 the Commission established elaborate evidentiary requirements to be observed in motor carrier revenue proceedings. The requirements are applicable to all general rate increases and general rate adjustment filings by the carrier members of the ten major motor carrier rate bureaus. They establish strict standards for carrier traffic studies, cost studies, and require masses of data respecting the financial condition of carriers and their affiliates. The Commission supplemented the initial Ex Parte MC-82 rules by adding a requirement that the carriers distribute a summary of the rate adjustment to all interested parties and send a news release describing the proposed rate changes to the major news wire services and to the principal newspaper in the capital and four largest cities of each state affected by the proposal. And all of the evidence filed with the Commission must be made available to anyone who requests it. The Commission in recent years has intensified and broadened the scope of its regulations with respect to the motor carriers in numerous other proceedings. It has recently completed a full revision and modernization of the tariff publishing rules. It now requires that all tariffs be mailed to subscribers prior to their filing with the Commission, in order to assure all affected persons ample opportunity to file protests. It has developed procedures to encourage the establishment of joint rates and through routes on international traffic. When fuel costs escalated rapidly in 1974, the Commission responded quickly by adopting emergency regulations permitting certain rate adjustments coupled with assurances that the increased revenue would go to all owner-operators responsible for bearing the cost of fuel. In Ex Parte MC-77 the Commission severely restricted the types of tariff rules and rates which the carriers can publish so as to assure that there is no discrimination against less desirable freight or out-of-the-way locations. In Ex Parte MC-97 the Commission required the cancellation of special handling charges which had been designed to cover the extra costs of serving private residences and camps. In docket 36135 the Commission adopted restrictions on the publication of exceptions to the commodity rating published in the National Motor Freight Classification when such exceptions have the effect of increasing freight charges. In Ex Parte MC-88 the Commission developed new detention rules to control vehicle delays at loading and unloading sites and prescribed those rules for uniform, nationwide application. In Ex Parte MC-98 the Commission is considering revised procedures to be followed in motor carrier rate restructuring proceedings in order to facilitate bringing rates on small shipments more nearly into line with costs. The foregoing are examples of the many actions in recent years where the Commission has greatly increased the impact of its regulations on the motor carrier industry. Its actions, which generated strong support from shippers, receivers, consumers and their various associations, were possible only because of the collective ratemaking process. The Commission addressed its requirements to the carriers through their ratemaking associations and enforces the rules by supervision of the bureau tariffs. Page 9
from Baltimore to Boston. Just under 90 percent of the MAC carrier shipments move at class rates; the balance at commodity rates. This is just the reverse of the truck specialists or the railroads where very few of their shipments, less. than 10 percent, move at class rates. Without the orderly bureau system, through. rates would vanish. Tariff computerization of rates eagerly being sought by shippers, users and carriers, would be impossible. We'd have a nightmare of chaos and discrimination. Nobody knowing from one day to the next what anybody charged. Some rates would go up and some would go down, but eventually general rate levels would surely rise. And the national transportation policy, which serves the country so well today, would not be worth the paper it's written on. BUREAU OPERATIONS Let me briefly explain how a typical bureau like Middle Atlantic Conference operates, and why the bureaus serve a necessary purpose and useful function in the public's best interest. Middle Atlantic Conference (MAC) is a nonprofit corporation with some 1,000. members. They operate as common carriers-interstate and intrastate-within Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia ; and between those States and New England and Eastern Canada. The standing rate committee consists of four MAC staff members, each with over 25 years' transportation experience. Each is admitted to practice before the ICC, and thoroughly familiar with ratemaking principle. The standing rate committee processes and acts on proposed rate and tariff changes. Proposals may be, and are submitted by member carriers, shippers, government agencies and third parties. The committee issues a weekly docket bulletin announcing and describing all proposals: It gives the proponent's reason for proposing it, whether it will result in a change/increase/reduction, and when the proposal will be heard by committee members. The bulletin goes by first-class mail to all members, to many individual shippers, some Government agencies and 12 major shipper leagues. In short, it's not sécret. At the hearing, anyone can attend and make his views known, either in person or using MAC's speakerphone, allowing him to talk to all members of the standing rate committee. While food supermarkets readily advertise sales items, how long has it been since one notified you in advance of a price increase and then asked your opinion on it? When a proposal is first docketed, a rate analyst compares the commodities and movements involved with similar commodities and movements throughout the territory, shows rate relationships, verifies mileage between origins and destinations, and collects information from files on previous proposals that might help the standing rate committee evaluate the proposal. A cost analyst also supplies the committee with current costs : those furnished by the carrier proponent of the proposal, if any, those developed for the carrier proponent, or if the proponent is not an ICC-designated cost study carrier the Commission's regional average variable costs. At this point, I emphasize that, contrary to claims I've heard, we don't use regional average costs of the data necessary to develop the proponent's individual costs are filed with the Commission. So too, in general increase and general rate restructuring cases the costs we use are the weighted average of the carriers as a group, with the costs of each carrier in the group being developed from the individual data of each. The standing rate committee studies this information, plus any submitted by the proponent and interested parties. The Committee's action and reasons for it-are published in the weekly docket bulletin. If the Committee disapproves a proposal, or approves it in modified form, the proponent and all interested parties get a full explanation of the action taken. Nothing arbitrary, secret or cartel-like hère. HIGH APPROVAL RATE Most proposals are recommended as submitted, or with only minor adjustment, and most involve rate reductions. In the 12 months ending May 31, 1977, the standing rate committee acted on 2,859 proposals. It approved in some form 2,641 of them, all but 218, and 92 percent of them were for reductions in rates. Also, to clear up incorrect testimony previously given, the committee's actions Page 10
These analyses enable the carrier rate committees to determine the overall revenue need and how to distribute the burden of meeting it among the above weight brackets. VALUE OF SERVICE
The deregulators contend that rate bureaus make possible "value of service" ratemaking. They claim that if collective ratemaking were eliminated or if we had deregulation, value of service as a basis for making rates would soon disappear and the carriers would adjust their rates to the lowest cost, and thus all rates would become cost-oriented. While admittedly, value of service is a factor in today's rates, I believe this is necessary if the carriers are to continue to discharge their obligations under the National Transportation Policy and the Interstate Commerce Act. To assure that every person in the country has adequate transportation service at reasonable rates that he can afford to pay some traffic and some geographic areas must bear a greater share of the cost of providing that service that other traffic and other areas bear. This is the same principle as that upon which the postal pricing system is based. I am not implying that the Postal Service is a model of success, but no one can deny the need for postal rates that are relatively the same for both cities and villages, even though the costs of service vary between populated and remote areas. In other words, just as social and political, as well as economic factors, must be considered in fixing postal rates, so too they must be considered in fixing freight rates. TRUE TRANSPORTATION COSTS Mr. Chairman, you said in your opening remarks last October 27 that transportation costs account for up to 12 percent of the cost of many products, and one shipper said they can run as high as 20 percent. I don't know what data underlies those statements, but based on my discussions with many shippers over the years, the 12–20 percent range would be the exception rather than the rule. Here's why I question the figures : I chose some items at random that most of us are familiar with and compared the per unit sales price in Washington with the transportation cost to Washington. The results are: Shoes manufactured in Boston or Norwood, Mass., which sell for 720 or more per pair, are normally shipped in LTL lots direct to retail stores in the various shopping centers and malls. For a 500 pound shipment the current rate to Washington area stores is $8.53 per 100 pounds, or about 17 cents per pair. Other articles, such as canned foods and household cleaning products are normally shipped in large quantities from the factory to food chain warehouses, with the food chain's own trucks delivering to their local stores. Three cans of Campbell's soup, for example, retail for 89 cents. The shipping cost from the Campbell factory at Camden, NJ to the Landover, MD food warehouses for truckload quantities is only 73 cents per 100 pounds. Based on a gross weight of 1234 ounces per can, the shipping cost is slightly more than 12 cent per can (0.58 cents). A giant size box of "Gain" laundry detergent, shipped by Proctor & Gamble Co. from Port Ivory, N.Y. to the Landover, Md. warehouses in truckload quantities cost only 104 cents per 100 pounds. Based on à gross weight of 56 ounces per box of detergent, the shipping cost is about 342 cents per box, compared to a retail price of $1.49. These examples emphasize that shipping cost is so small in relation to the retail selling price that changes in freight rates, up or down, do not have any significant impact on the level of the retail price. Secondly, it is unlikely that any lowering of the shipping cost would be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower retail prices. The 1976 MAC Continuing traffic study shows that the Middle Atlantic carriers provide full common carrier service to meet the public's needs. This latest study uses samples for 83 carriers that each derive $1 million or more from MAC tariffs, and whose aggregate revenues derived from moving under MAC tariffs were $822 million. The traffic study covered 17 million shipments with a gross weight of 30 billion pounds and an average weight of 1,742 pounds. The fact that 61 percent of all the shipments weighed less than 500 pounds and 18 percent weighed less than 100 pounds confirms that the general commodity carriers—unlike truckload specialists are performing full service work. Although the average length of haul in Middle Atlantic Territory was only 290 miles, the 83 carriers rendered over 82 billion hundredweight miles of service. Page 11
Some 3.8 million shipments moved in joint-line service. The incidence of joint-line service drastically increases as shipment weight decreases. For example: On truckload shipments, only 11 percent involve joint-line service. But on the small minimum charge shipments, 25 percent involve joint hauls. This is but another way of confirming that carriers are providing high-quality single and jointline service on all types of shipments. For the 83 study carriers, joint-line service on all shipments is 21 percent of the total. Of course, on LTL shipments the percentage is greater than 21 percent of the total and on TL shipments much less. In some bureau territories, joint-line shipments run as high as 38 percent. Again: the smaller the shipment, the higher the percentage of joint-line service. Earlier testimony claiming that joint-line service is not a factor in the motor carrier industry is just not so-unless the witnesses were thinking primarily of truckload shipments moving via truckload specialists. This they failed to state-which is not surprising since I find distorted factual statements and phony figures by those seeking to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs have become the order of the day. The full service motor common carriers make up a coordinated transportation system that assures high-quality service to all people—from giant companies to ordinary individuals—at all places, big cities nad tiny villages or hamlets and on all types of traffic, less-than-truckloads, including and especially small shipments, and truckloads—at just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates. Indispensable to such a system is a stable and coherent structure of interrelated rates. Indispensable to such a rate structure is collective ratemaking. As the carriers who testified on March 10 said, without collective ratemaking through rate bureaus, there would be a jumbled mess of endlessly splintered rates, most of them confined to single-line service. The practical result would be this : Large shippers, with highly attractive traffic moving between key areas, would pressure carriers into giving preferentially low rates. Small shippers, as well as small communities—without such leverage would pay discriminatory high rates. If collective ratemaking were eliminated, the shipping public would be hurt in at least three very serious ways: 1. It would be impossible for the bureaus to continue a coherent, simplified agency tariff system if they were required to publish tariffs or individualized rates for each carrier. How could the 1,000 members of Middle Atlantic conference maintain a simplified system of tariffs naming the rates, ratings, and rules which each established individually for the transportation each performs? 2. Reasonable relationships between rates could not be maintained if carriers established their rates independently of each other. There would no longer be any rate structure. The rates per mile on foodstuffs maintained by carriers serving processors at Camden, N.J., would be more or less than the rates per mile maintained by carriers serving competing processors at Roanoke, Va., and Pittsburgh, Pa. Rates to and from the port of New York would be disproportionately higher or lower than rates to and from the ports of Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Norfolk. The result would be unjust discrimination, undue preference and obvious prejudicem the very evils Congress wanted to eradicate when it enacted the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887. 3. There would be no stability in rates if carriers established and changed their rates independently of one another. A shipper would never know from one day to the next what his rates would be. The experience a housewife encountered with a household goods carrier not long ago shows that she wants to know that the freight charges she pays are reasonable. She wants all the service she is entitled to, including insurance and claims benefits, and she wants to know that someone has judged the rates and charges she pays before the fact--not years later. The last thing a business man wants is a surprise. He wants to be able to plan his operations with firm knowledge of what he is and what his competitors are facing. He cannot do it unless he is reasonably sure that his freight rates and his competitors' freight rates are fixed for reasonable periods of time—the way they are now—and that he will have adequate notice of any proposed changes in his or his competitors' rates, the way he does now, and that he will have an Page 12
Ernest R. Olson, Diroshiginal signod by FRIRST OLSOX
LNICA STUDY (INVENTORY OF MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITIES)
Following our discussion of the IMCA study, I reviewed the
subject briefly with staff to provide you with these further thoughts.
First, I confirixed trat no follow-up has been conducted by
anyone in the Commission since the IMCA report of July 1965. I
understand, however, that in the Office of Proceedings, Noreta
licCeo and John Surina have some current interest in developing
a resource soinewhat comparable to the IMCA file. No formal pro
posal has been set forth or any action taken as yet.
The objective of that possible project or any similar project
would appear to be to make kiowledge of the operating rights out
standing (ind to identify the carriers with rights to haul a given com
modity from and to given points) easily accessible. In addition, I would
think it desirable to have knowlelge of the extent to which such authority
is used (volume) and, perhaps, even the quality of service. Many other
elements of knowledge would also be nice to have available--such as,
the cost of service, rates, etc. None of such information is readily
available no:v except by laboriously plowing through the files aided by
some pre-knowledge of some of the data. For example, it was oily
tlırough extensive cooperation of the shipper that the plant site casc
study (see part II, APPLICATION OF COST/DINETIT ANAL315 TO
MOTOR CODON CARRIER OPERATING RIGHTS DECISIONS) 123 ac
complished and, even so, it required an unselievable number of man
In reviewing the basic ITICA study project, Ian advised it was
some 7-8 years in development--with hundreds of thousands of punch
cards, representing the various authorities accumulated in the process.
The results were put on tape (still available) but with the IMCA report, the
project was stopped for a variety of reasong--aşparendy one of the principal
ones hoing budget slashes. My understanding is that the system was never
utilized because, among other factors, (1) it did not prove to be easily
and rciiably accessible irom a practical standpoint due to coding, categoriza
tion, description, and other dificulties, (2) carriers were not. too anxious to
have operating rights service potential identified because of the possible
exposure to such issues as: dormancy, investigation, competitlve relation
ships, or plain mistrust of possible Cominission use, and (3) field staff are
said to have felt such a flle was a redundancy since they believed they were
aware of carrier authorities. As valid or invalid as those rationales might
be, it is my observation that no one really knows what the operating rights
represent in terms of potential or real transport.
Aside froin the fact that the authorities represent a huze file
which yould take a massive amount of time and manpower to convert
to any kind of resource index, 1/ they are described in terra3 that are
almost unmanageable. Codifying the service territory and/or the com
modity descriptions to some simple and really useful access language, 2/
while probably not impossible, poses incredible problems.
1 To gain some impression of the magnitude of the task, I briefly reviewca the descriptions of operating authority contained in tariffs on file with iire Commission. There is no central publication of operating authorities. The closest that comes to this is the 6 volume publication of operating rights published by the National motor Freight Tariff Association that some day is hoped to provide such a central file. Inclusion in that publication is on a voluntary basis and while many carriers participate, many do not. Nevertheless, such a carrier às PIE's operating authority occupies 71 pages of 79 lines each in one of the volumes. Each major tariff bureau also usually' publishes the operating rights of carriers participating in tariffs in the territory. Interestingly, the applicable Central States Motor Freight Eureau tariff (tariff 101-A - ICC CMB 101-A) does not include PE (and others) but, nevertheless, is 800 pages thick not including supplements. The Euk Carrlers Conference which includes less than 100 participating carriers (articipating in whole or part) publishes an operating rights tariff (A1F ICC #1) which is 505 pages thick. The Chemical-Leaman authority alone is 110 pages long. I can recall in my earlier days digging through that tariff to discover ways to move a given chemical in bulk from a given plant to a new destination by cxanlaing the various authorities, seeking ways to 'tack" them together to form a through route. It was not unusual to develop a three way tack through common points under different operating rights commodity descriptions and for the task to occupy several hours even with the aid of maps and with some general familiarity with the carrier's basic authority. 2/ I believe this will essentially mean the capability to ask simple "civilian language" questions like; what carriers can serve a skipper of widgets in truckload quantities from city x to town y. However, the complexities of the task will undoubtedly tempt any programmer to want to use categorization and coding techniques which will undudy complicate the requesting problem and provide only a fuzzy or generalized response. Any compromises along this line simply will not do the job.
1112 Commission's eiforts and the development by custom of
seiting forth certain standard cominodity language) represent a hase
for collification. "Ceneral commodities with standard exceptions"
represents shorthand language which is fairly well understood in the
regular route carrier field and is probably manageable. Coding every town
along a regular route cartier's operating authority similarly does not pose
impossible problems (it can be done by SPLC codes) but the tedium of
tracing the routes and identifying cach point seems overwhelming since
regular route cperating authorities are usually expressed in terms of route
nurnler3, also include territory on either side of the route--not to mention
points served through the super highway provisions--and other similar
When you consider that current operating rights "action" has
been focused on irregular route carrier rights and that these are expressed
In all sorts of specific commodity terms, torritorial rather than route
of operations descriptions, and that all sorts of 'tacking' and combination
variations are possible, the problem is, to say the least, messy: moreover,
since irregular route carriers in many instances compete with reguar route
carriers for trailic, knowledge of one carrier seyment without the other
The real difficulty and the major contributor to the general
confusion and uninanageability is the process by which operating rights
descriptions are developed. Esseutially, this is a tosing and bargain
ing process by which the carrier seeking new authority tests out the
opposition. This is commonly one by initially, informally or formally,
seelding the broadest possible operating rights (iu territory and descrip
tion) judged to be reasonably supportable and/or likely to attract the least
amount of carrier opposition. Since there is no easily accessible library
of operating rights from which the carrier can determine the probable
cpposition, his filing often is conducted in the dark or, at least, with
only some light. With opposition comes bargaining with the opposition
carriers, testing of strength and negotiation to eliminate protests.
Typically, this is done by discarding sensitive or competitive geographic
areas, certain portions of the commodity descriptions, leapfrogging
territory, restricting against pickup or delivery at certain points,
specifying as included or exclucled certain towns, plact sites, or in
dustries, and/or certain commodities associated with them, etc. The
bargaining is engaged within descriptions often fitting certain customary
uldelines--but as with every negotiation, the product is largely un
structured or uncodified, being designed to meet the unique deeds and
vievs of the parties at the time.
The Commission has accepted this system even adding to the
exceptions in the decision. Little has been done to requira uniformity.
To the extent uniformity is imposed, exceptions inevitably creep in. Page 13
As solution, the Commission could require a sirict codifica
tion of uniformity but surely that would create one of the biggest
vaciles the Commission 123 sean. The proceeding in Ex Parte
No. NC-37 (Pub-No. 20), Corathercial Zones and Terminal Areas,
which drew 500 participants, represents some measure of the type
of concern :vhich wouid be generated. Change of any sort looking
to the past would be viewed as a threat to the carriers' Investment
in present authority and a disaster to the blood, sweat, and tears
(legal and bargaining effort) which are dearly invested by all in the
In aitempting to devine a solution, we seem to be caught in
something of a circle. If we are to promote change, it would seem
wise to know what we are going to change. But since we do not know
and it would take years (if then) to discover through an DiCA type
study, any solution devised in such darkness could well be highly
counterproductive. I am hard pressed to conjure up a practical and
manageable way to deal with the overall problem in total terms.
Probably, the most logical course would be to discover what
practical usefulness would come of any kind of operating rights authority
retrieval project. I could see that Proceedings could use such a system
in many ways, Operations in many others, the carriers in a third,
and the shipping public in still other ways. Other areas of the Commission, viila loss directly involved, could fird the product of certain aid.
with such ra understarding vf use, a vorcentual design could be
devijail and a pilot project developed to test feasibility and cost.
Such a project might be confined to a practical and potentially
managsa le problem. For example, generaiing knowledge of all
carriers and the authority held by them from a specific point to
a specüic point. Alternately, ore might consider examining only
reguar route carriers and the extent they can haul a selection of
commodities from a stated area to a stated area, etc. Such a pilot
project vould surface the coding and other technical problems but
also might highlight operating rights description difficuties suf
ficiently so that the Commission could go forward with corrective
action relative to granting future operating rights. The plot study
could serve as a sound basis for rulemaking toward that objective.
Another alternative would be to take the data tapes from
the old IMCA study and run them to review their applicability to present
needs and/or dump all that daia out in printed form to see what we
really have and how practical a base it might prove to be today. While
the data is old and much has been added since in the way of operating
rights, the codification approach and the problems that were encountered
by the then experienced staff undoubtedly generated certain useful ways
of attacking basic problems. It does not seem sensible to reject that
knowledge out of land and reinvent the wheel now if we do not
The Bureau would be happy to participate in any such
INICA oriented study. Certainly, assistant Director Rhodes,
who is the only present member of tie Pureau who was involved
in the original project can lend very sound insight. I believe I
could make certain contributions in terms of shipper-tariff
economic interface. However, I believe since the greatest potential
internal payoff would undoubtedly be centered on Proceedings and/or
Operations, these Bureaus sbould be the focal point of managing any
The following is a synopsis of the section 5a/5b collective
ratemaking agreements currently under review in this office.
The sole purpose of this memorandum is to let you know where we stand on our review of the nunerous ratemaking agreements.
RAIL RATEMAKING AGREEMENTS
By Commission order of February 17, 1976, all railroads were
required to file new or amended agreements to comply with the
voting restrictions set out in the 4R Act (49 U.S.C. $10706(a)
Ten such applications were filed.
current status of these applications is as follows:
56 No. 1 Alaska Rail-Water final report of Division 2 (7/27/77) denied the application as not being in furtherance of the NTP; petitions to reopen for purpose of receiving additional evidence were granted 12/27/77; proceeding was set for oral hearing in Seattle, WA 4/4/78; briefs due 6/9/78, final decision being prepared by Proceedings; however, a decision in this proceeding is related to a decision in the major rail agreements, and is being delayed pending final disposition of the major rail agreements. 56 Nos. 2, 3, and 6 (the so-called major rail agreements), Western, Eastern, and Southern Railroads (consolidated record) initial (ALJ) decision served 474777; decision on appeal served 7/21/78, approval withheld, pending resubmission of additional evidence that the agreements furthered the NTP. That evidence has been submitted and analyzed by the staff. A memo was circulated to the Commission on August 6, 1979. This proceeding also raised, for the first time, the issue of Commission jurisdiction over intrastate ratemaking. The USCA, 7 th Circui'., ruled that we have jurisdiction over some intrastate ratemaki!:: and remanded the proceedings to the Comission for consiste:. t.
action. The General Counsel's ofrice has indicated a writ of certiorari will not be filed in the Supreme Court unless the Commission directs otherwise.
56 No. 4, Southern Ports Foreign Freight Committee, initial decision served 9/8/77; decision on appeal served 4/3/78; petition for discretionary review granted (in part), presently under court challenge in 5th Cir. concerning Commission definition of "practicable participation." This was the Commission's first interpretation of the statutory phrases such as "practicable participant, " "single-line rates, " "general increase," and "broad tariff changes." This proceeding is final as far as the Commission is concerned, barring a court remand. 56 No. 5, Railroad Interterritorial Agreement, decision being withheld pending disposition of the major rail agreements. 56 No. 7, Railroads Per Diem, Mileage, Demurrage, and Storage, approved by Commission decision 358 1.C.C. 481; revised agreement filed by railroads.
5b No. 8, Railroads Per Diem and Mileage Rates For Trailers and Containers, approved by Coinmission decision 473/78; revised agreement filed by railroads.
56 No. 9, Lower Lakes Coal Demurrage, approval withheld, agreement terminated 477/78.
56 No. 10, Tidewater Coal Demurrage, approval withheld, agreement terminated, 357 1.C.C. 66 (1978).
of 10 rail applications filed, 2 have
been approved, 2 have been terminated, and 6 are either in court
or awaiting a decision in the major rail ratemaking proceedings.
Unless terminated, the rail bureaus continue to operate under their previous antitrust immunity by interim authority granted by the Commission in its February 19, 1976 order. NON-RAIL RATEMAKING AGREEMENTS The (section 10706(b)) ratemaking agreements are the non-rail agreements. There are two major proceedings going on in this area. The most significant, of course, 15° Ex Parte 2973 Page 14
(Sub-No. 3)! Essentially, this proceeding will make the voting
restrictions imposed on rail collective ratemaking applicable to non-rail collective ratemaking. The Commission hãs announced the votes favoring application of the restrictions] decision October 2, 1979. prepared in accordance with those votes was circulated/ The other proceeding is Ex Parte 297 (Sub-No. 4) which
reopened for reevaluation all of the section 5a agreements.
the start of this proceeding (January 1978),1.50 total motor carrier agreements, 5 water carrier agreements, and 3 freight
forwarder agreements were in existence for review (total non
rail-58). Because there are so many, the staff established 75 {groupings, to facilitate handling. One representative agreement from each grouping was selected for an in-depth analysis which
would serve as the lead analysis.
Household Goods Carriers. - options paper circulated to the Commission 2/2/79, istaff recommended approval within the scope of the cEx Parte 297. (Sub-No. 3) limitations. Commission has voted on the options paper and a decision is being. drafted in accordance with those views.
There are approximately 9* individual agreements which will be considered in this group.
Heavy and Specialized" Carriers options paper circulated to the Commission 4/16/79, i staff recomended disapprovar. Commission has not indicated its direction as of the date of this
There are approximately 15 individual agreements which should be considered in this group.
* There may be some dispute over these figures since assignment of the various agreements is based on an informal analysis of the groupings. The Heavy and Specialized Carriers Group, for example, includes the Wearing Apparel carriers Bureau because member carriers' operations are specialized.
(Bulk Carriers - options paper circulated to the Commission 4/13779, istalt recomiended disapprova). Commission has not indicated its direction as of the date of this memo.
There are approximately 2 individual agreements which should be considered in this group.
(Waterways Carriers - options paper circulated to the Commission 3/15/79, éstaff recommended disapproval. Commission has not indicated its direction as of the date of this inemo.
There are approximately 5 individual agreements to be considered in this group.
(Bus Carriers) - options paper circulated 4/3/79, staff (recommended approval) (Decision is being prepared; in accordance with the Commission's directive.
There is only 1 agreement to be reviewed in this group. General Commodities options paper circulated September 11, 1979. Commission has not indicated its direction as of the date of this memo. There are approximately 22 individual agreements to be reviewed in this group.
{Freight Forwarders) - options paper being prepared by OPA;. staff recommendation unknown There are approximately 3 individual agreements to be reviewed in this group.
As of the date of this memo, inine non-rail ratemaķing agreements have been terminated by Commission order or Voluntarily, through failure to submit evidence) These are as
Section 5a Application No. 15-A, Atlantic Gulf Coastwise Steamship Freight Freight. Bureau) terminated February 14,.1979; Section 5a Application No. 39-A, Western states Movers Conference terminated April 27, 1979; Section 5a Application No. 3 40-8, (Kansas 011 Field and Heavy Machinery, Haulers terminated November 11, 1978; Section 5a Applicaion No. 72-A, Motor Carrera
Inter-Related Ratė Agreeinen E), terminated April 13, 1979; Section 5a Application No. 77-6 Nationwide Household Movers Associations terminated April 27, 1979; Section 5a Application No. 78-A, Mobile Housing Carriers Conference] terminated October 30, 1978; Section 5a Application No. 85-?011 Capital Tariff Bureau) Inca 85-2211 , terminated April 27, 1979; Section 5a Application No. 96, Northwest Towboat Tariff Bureau, Inc}, terminated March 16, 1979; Section 5a Application No. 113-1, L Automotive Carriers Association, denied February 9, 1979. No non-rail agreements have been approved since the start of the Ex Parte No. 297 (Sub-No.4) proceeding (January 1978); unless
terminated, the non-rail bureaus are operating under previously
submitted concerning section 5a agreements between carz:?TS.
The purpose of section Sa of the Interstate Connerce
Act is to accord conueron carriors, subject to the act, relief
from the operation of the antitrust laus vien engaged in
joint of collective ratonaking activities pursuant to an
agreement approved by the Commission.
sanctions the confcrence or bureau method of ratcraakiny.
particular Eozm of agreement is prescribed by the Comai coion.
There is no necessity for such prescriptioi ao cach agreement
is tailored to the needs of the particular party carrier group
The agreement must be between two or saore common
carriers of the same class (node) cubject to the act (cither
rall, or motor, or water carriers, or pipeline companies,
Or freight forwarders). EXCEPT that carriers of different
classes (inténode) may become parties to the same agree
tion of other modes, they may not participate in agrcements
with such other carrier modes.)
The agreement must relate to the joint consideration,
initiation, or estawlishment of rates, farce, classilicacions,
divisions, allowances, or charges, which includes charges
between carriers and compensation paid or received for the
NBC of facilities or equipment (interchange c£ tralls, etceto
(Rules and regulations governing the
filing of applications under section Sa are prescribed.)
The commission is directed to approve an agreement
(unless it falls within certain prohibitions) if it is Eound
1 Railroads, exprece companies, and Elecping-car companies are by stacute carricrs of one class. Page 15
(NTP), relief from the antitrust laws should apply.
granting approval, the commission my prescribe terms and
conditions (standarda) to insure conformity with the NTP.
if a finding cannot be made thał a proposed agreement for
an amendment to an approved agreement) harmonizes with the
NTP and contributes to its effectuation, the agreement or
annendment must be disapproved.
A. Prohibitions Acainct ferova?
(1) between or among carriers of different classen as indicated in l above, or
(2) which concerns a pooling, division, or other maritter or transaction to which section 5 of the act is applicable, or
(3) which does not accord to each party the full FREE and unrestäained right to take indopendent action either before or after any determination arriver at through the collective action procedures of this agreement.
of the carriers, the neods of commerce, and of the national
The most pertinent parts of the policy are:
promotion of "adequate, economical, and efficient service,"
for fostering "bound economic conditions in transportation,"
and cor encouraging the establishment and maintenance of
"reasonable charges for transportation services, without
unjust discrimination, undue preferences or advantages, or
unfair or destructive competitive practices."
Each carrier group (conference, bureau, committee,
etc.) is required to maintain and keep open for Commission
inspection the accounts, records, files, aná nemorandà of
approval, conforms with section 5a standards, and, if not,
to order modification necessary to insure conformity or to
(Usually carrier groups are coopera
tive and voluntarily modify deficiencies nobed in their agree
de competing ace with sa standarda when directed to their
Standards promulgated by Commission pursuant to section 5a
As indicated, there is no prescribed form of agreement.
The standards promulgated by the commission as conditions
of approval depend upon the terms of a
standards are developed on a case
by-cage basis and applied equally in similar situations
including modification of previously approved agreements
when sought to be amended.
The following promulgated section
Sa standards have genoral applications
Agreements generally I Movis Ars Preute Berling)
1. All eligible carriers have a right to become party to an approved agreement upon the same terma as existing member carriers.
2. NO member carrier may be cxpclled from a rate.making group, except for nonpayment of financial obligations with provision for reinstatement. Expulsion for any other reason 18 a restraint on a carrier's freedom of action within the meaning of the prohibition precluding a right of independent action. But, a carrier may voluntarily withdraw, usually upon 60 days notice to permit its tariff participation in agency tariffs to be cancelled on 30-days etatutory notice.
3.. The terms of an agreement must be definite and certain (no open-end provisions) with the procedures for collective action clear. and orderly.
4: Ultimate responsibility and raler with respect to the determination of rate policies and establishincnt of rates must rest with the carrier managements, not the bureau. 'The functions of rate bureaus are to publish tariffs for the account of the member carrier signataves to the agreement, and to carry on other lousekeeping üüties (docketing of proposals, giving notice to carrier members and shippers
and other interested partics of the initiation and disposition of propocals, maintain the records of the bureau, &c.)
5. Carricrs met be free to publish their own individual tariffs if they so desire. 6. Provisions relating to protests for supervision Suspensiça and investigation of rates published through independent action or otheriise is not a subjeci within the scope and purpose of section 5a. have application to tarife notice.)
(The economic regulatdugi provisions of the act
7. f10 one group of carriers ate çived a suonobly at to ratesaking in a given territory.
8. Duties and functions of rate committees should be limited to making studies and recommendations, and mot to maintaining and changing member carrier ratec.
9. Ndequate carrier representation on committees and quoruns foc meetings.
10. Standarâs for Quca assessment correlated to U23 9120 of the carzier. Ratemaking procedure
1. Any interested party may initiate a rate proposal (vember carrier, shipper, bureau, etc.).
2. All collective action proposals for new or changed rates and related matters what be docketed and adequate public notice given (usually through a transportation Journal of national distriiution or by docked bulletin of thic carrier group), with opportunity for any interested party to express vicus thereto for or against a proposal eithor orally or in writing.
3. procedures for collectively processing proposed rate changes must be spelled out in detail with adequate public notico at each stage of the collective process and of final Cisposition, !ca maneno na mrrinn er indenenriks notion Suitst be given the public wiicro utice aliber carriers are
accorded an opportunity to participate thercin.
4. Provision for an appeal procedure to intitial recommended dispositions of proposals prior to final disposition.
5. Provision for an individual carrier's right of Independent action to participate or flag-out of a proposal regardless of the action of a majority of the member carriers, or to request publication of tariff matters for its inäividual account without involving collective actioa.
6. Provision for voting by the carriers on proposals with a majority vote necessary to adopt.
7. Where expedited chortened (cuerency) procedure is necessary, the conditions under which such procedure may be invoked must be specified and public notice must be accorded of final disposition. (Generally limited to tariff: errors and conflicts, moverents in national defenc, plant relaovals, and where no rate in force for proposed movement.)
TYRICAL Si??S IN PROCESSIIH COLLECTIVE ACTTON PROPOSHI.S
Initiation of a proposal.
2. Docketing of the proposal by the bureau.
3. Notice to members and all interested parties with reasonable time (7-10 working days) for filing written representations or announcing the tine and place of public hearing. (Carrier groups ooit also being :icquired where docket bulletins used to maintain lists of interested partice desiring notice.)
4. rate Committee thereafter investigates and recomenda disposition.
5. Public: notice of recommandation of Rate Conmitico in same manner notice of proposal initiation with a Page 16
6. (a) I£ no appeal, voting by members should follow.' In sane large motor rate bureaus, the absence of an appeal to a recommended disposition by a member carrier or shipper constitutes adoption by the member carricrs of the reconuendation. Notice of final dispocition is sent and publication follows.
(b) there an appeal ia taken within the period allowed, the matter is referred to a General Rate Coimittce, corposed of the member carriers, or their elected member representatives, for recommended disposition, which action 10 final under the agruerent procedures. (Shippers still may protest tariff publication of an adopted proposal before the commission.)
7. The General Connittee recoamendation is then submitted to the member carriers for a vote and a majority governs. Som approved agreements provide that failure to return the vote ballot within the stated period (5 to 10 days) constitucos a vote in favor of the recommended disposition.
8. Public notice of the final disposition of a proposal is given at vich time member carriers have an opportunity to flag-out if publication io to be made, or to exercise a right of independent action where disapproved.
9. Tari£f publication made of an adopted proposal.
Administration of approved section Sa Acrccrents
A section 5a proceeding is not discontinued, but renains
an "open" proceeding. subject to further modification ag may
he prescribed by the Commission.
A sukrary of each application received by the Commi osion
seeking approval of an initial agreement, or of amendments to
an agreement previously approved, is published in the Federal
Register, and affords any interested person desiring to
protest and participate in the proceeding an opportunity
to notify the Commission lutins within 20 days regarding
theiz Interest and the position they entend to take.
shipper objections are filed by the National Industrial Traffic
League relating to inadequate procedures, such as, notice, or
2. (a) If objections are flled, the matter is assigned
1 then handled on a "no hearing" basis as though no protest
Otherwise, the matter is handled under modified
(b) If no protests are filed, an examination is made
of the agreement for conformity with section 5a standards as
set forth in the statute and as promulgated by the Commission.
If deficiencies are observed, these matters are informally
directed to the attention of applicants for corrective
amendatory action prior to the issuance of a formal report
(Comment: A section Sa proceeding is not an adversary
proceeding. The object is to approve the agreement et and Applicants and their attorneys are accurled the advice and assistance of the attorney staff of the office of Proceedings
through correspondence and conferences toward overcoming the
various deficiencies in their proposed agrecments (or amendmente)
to conform with section 5a standards.
has been most benoficial to the corniceica as well as appiicants
as it eliminates the time and expense in the preparation and
processing of two or more detailed fornal reports through
Division 2 or a Review Board prior to the granting or denial
If satisfactory amendments are not subaitted, a formal
report is prepared setting forth the terms and conditions for
agreement approval in which the record is held open for a 3-month
period to comply therewith. After which, the proceeding is
discontinued &f compliance is not made. Such handling de rarely
with section Sa standards, approval by order is granted.
Short-form decisions and ordera (dandos) are used whenever
youslbic aa on sapeditious and lecsepensive peen3 cf disposin?
late received notice of the initiation of proposals in order
to make timely representations thereon, or that a carrier group
is not fully onserving its racemaking procedures. (Usually, the
failure to redocket and give public notice of a modification of
a previously adopted and published proposal which w20 suspended, Brat voluntarily cancelled prior to investigation by the Commissi017. (There have been 2 fairly recent complaints of this nature against (1) Central and Southern motor Ereight Tariff Awan, and (2) Nationë
Motor Cassification Committee.)
These latters aro handled by this
Office, either through correspondence or by a request to
the field staff for investigation and report thereon, after In some instances, which an informal opinion 18 expressed. carrier groups have been informally admсaished to refrain
Since approval of the first sa aoreemont in 1949, the
Commission, as indicated, las promulgated certain kitandards,
Ehus, soine agreements presently in force do not mcec current
To overcome this situation, it is the present
practice to reexamine each agreement in its entirety, including
the annual reports, when an amendatory application is filed.
If the agreement is found deficient or inconsistent under
current sa standards, the carrier group Le informally so
advised with the view toward obtaining vażuntary compliance
by bupolcuencary amendatory application to be considerent along
witi thë Evugai amendments.
To dete, all solicited carrier Page 17
groups have fully cooperated in these matters.
There is one problem. Prior to the reorganization
of the Commission's field staff, field investigations were
conducted almost annually into the activitics of ratemaking
carrier groups for compliance with the terms of the agreement
and the rules and regulations prescribed thereto by the
Conrniasion ,ang ruany s.rregularities were uncovered requiring
Por example, failure of the bureau to
publish a requested Independent, action, or failure to keep
Pield reports were forwarded to the Office of
Proceedings pointing out these lrregularitico and action
Since the reorganization, little, if any, ficlc work
has been conducted with respect to 5a matters, unle8s specifically
requested by this office concerning a particular carrier group.
(only one sa field investigation was made in the year 1968, and
One of the problemo Escms to be a lack of
staff, who apparently are active in other areas, such as,
11lcgal trucking. Prior to the field staff reorganization,
there were 13 rate agents in the 112!? (ono cor cach district).
It 18 monto understending there are prezenly c::ly 7 rate agents
(a) One agreement relates to all rail carriers operating generally west of the Ilississippi River .composed of various regional ratemaking groups (Hestern Trudk Line, Southwestern, Pacific southiadi, ctc.);
(b) Three separate agreements relate to railroads serving the East, South, and Illinois Freight Assn. territory:
(c) Onc agreement covers export-import traffic through South Atlantic and Gulf ports from and to points in the Midwest; and
(a) One agreement governs procedures for interterritorial ratonaking between points in the United States, including interimodal movements lvy railroad, by water, and by motor.
(a) Per Diem and Demurrage Charges, and compeneation for use of equipment (carrier and shipper-Owned).
(b) Separate agreements for domurrage on esport coal at ports on the Grcat fakes and at southern tidewater (Norfolk, etc.).
(c) Compensation for use of carrier-owned cars and containers in TOFC service.
As previously indicated, no one carrier group has a monopoly in a given tezritor'. Lice.com's illud: ide li dd jöi raternaking groups with a few hundred members each (iliddle Atlantic, riide?leweet, Eastern Central, etc.). The remaining
13 carrier groups have memberships varying between 20 and 100 members and operate in a more limited territory than the so-called major motor groups with whom they compete traffic and ratewize.
The ngreorients range from the classification of commodities (almost all motor carriers participato) to transportation of specialized commodities, such as, household goods (7 agrcements nationwide and territorial), automobiles, iron and steel articles, madiný apparel, heavy hauling, oilfield equipment, furniture, bulk commodities in tank vehicicu, mobile housing, perishables, and others.
ne information, there are 3 nos motor application for
Initial approval of agreements in various procedural stages
from exception3 filed to recent notice publication of receipt
in the federal Register. These pending applications relate
to an additional group of iron and steel carriers, a Nebraska
doniciled bulk tank vehicle group principally in the Middlewest
and southwest, and a general commodity carrier group in western
Your letter of October 24, 1978, requesting additional information rela-
As indicated in the materials previously furnished your staff, carriers designate any full-time employee to act on their behalf at any given meeting. Membership on the rate committees is also in the name of the carrier.
As shown in the Annual Report Form RBO, which was filed with the Inter-
During that same year the approximately 1400 carriers, for whom those
As you would expect the membership number fluctuates from day to day, Page 18
Appendix A which is attached hereto, shows member carriers who served on the Board of Directors within the designated period 1973–1978 (thru 11/1/78), inclusive. Members are set forth in alphabetical fashion on Page 1. The succeeding pages to Appendix A identify individuals who represented each designated carrier at one or more Board meeting during the described period.
Appendix B (Pages 1 through 2) lists those carriers which have been members of one or more rate committees during the described period. Subsequent pages to Appendix B list the individuals, by designated carrier, who have represented said carrier at one or more rate committee meeting during the described period.
INCLUSIVE LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1973 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 1978
Albuquerque Phoenix Express, Inc. BN Transport, Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Delta Lines, Inc. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. Frozen Food Express
Garrett Freightlines, Inc. IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Jenney Freight Line, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. 0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc.
Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Roadway Express, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company System 99 T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines West Nebraska Express, Inc. Western Gillette, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members At one or more Meetings within the Period Described on Page 1 hereto.
INCLUSIVE LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1973 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 1978
Page 19
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Rate Committee Members At one or more Meetings within the Period Described on Page 1 hereto. Page 20
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1973 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1973
Albuquerque Phoenix Express, Inc. BN Transport, Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Delta Lines, Inc. East Texas Motor Freight Lines,Inc.
Garrett Freightlines, Inc. IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. 0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines West Nebraska Express, Inc. Western Gillette, Inc. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
WEST NEBRASKA EXPRESS, Bill Bottom
YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. R. H. Bens L. E. Tomlinson
GILLETTE, INC. Glen Cantlay Charles Carbonaro
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1974
Albuquerque Phoenix Express, Inc. BN Transport, Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Delta Lines, Inc. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
Garrett Freightlines, Inc. IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. 0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines Western Gillette, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
Page 21
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1975 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1975
Albuquerque Phoenix Express, Inc. BN Transport, Inc. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware Delta Lines, Inc. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
Garrett Freightlines, Inc. IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. 0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company System 99
T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc. Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines Western Gillette, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1976
BN Transport, Inc.
IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. Northwest Transport Service, Inc.
0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc.
Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company System 99 T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines Western Gillette, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1977 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1977
BN Transport, Inc.
IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc. Jenney Freight Line, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwest Transport Service, Inc. 0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Roadway Express, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company
System 99 T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc. Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc. Transcon Lines Page 22
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
LIST OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1978 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1978
BN Transport, Inc.
Frozen Food Express Garrett Freightlines, Inc. IML Freight, Inc. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
Jenney Freight Line, Inc. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. Northwest Transport Service, Inc.
0.N.C. Freight Systems Pacific Intermountain Express Co. Pacific Motor Trucking Company Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. Roadway Express, Inc. Salt Creek Freightways
Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company System 99 T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc. Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc.
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Board of Director Members
LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1973 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1973
Resume of Individuals Representing Designated Rate Committee Members At one or more Meetings within the period Described on Page 1 hereto.
Page 23
LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1974 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1974 Page 24
LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1975 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1975 Page 25
LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1976 Page 26
LIST OF RATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES APPROVED IN SECTION 5(a) NO. 60 DURING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1978 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1978
Magna Garfield Truck Line Midwest Coast Transport, Inc. Midwest Emery Freight System, Inc. Milne Truck Lines, Inc.
West Nebraska Express, Inc. Western Gillette, Inc. Whitfield Transportation, Inc. Whitten, C. I., Transfer Co. |
Which of the following statements best describes the distinction between industry standards set by consumers versus industry standards set collectively by companies?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
