pounds of similar freight had been shipped a total trailer revenue of $640.59 would have been experienced as compared to an actual $622.63 imposed with the vehicles moving under the 6,000-pound minimum or $505.47 if the vehicle had moved subject to the class 150 rate without a minimum weight provision. Further specifics concerning these three shipments are set forth in appendix A. Both defendants and complainant present detailed cost analyses purporting to show the cost levels discussed in their arguments. In each case they make use of the standard cost-finding procedures and factors published by the Commission's Bureau of Accounts. Neither study observes these procedures entirely satisfactorily, and it has been found necessary to restate the costs for the threee shipments as set forth in appendix B. Defendants, in particular, computed the density adjustment in an improper manner and incorrectly assumed that the pertinent Bureau of Accounts cost statement provides no density adjustment for line-haul costs of LTL shipments. As shown in appendix B the defendants' revenue need level for the three shipments totals $460.36 as compared to the exceptions rate basis of $1,144.80 actually imposed and the classifications rate basis of $515.41. It is not in itself unreasonable for a carrier to earn a substantial excess of revenue over its revenue need level. However, the fact that, when calculated by the customary cost procedures, the lesser revenue which would be realized under the pertinent classifications basis would be more than the revenue need constitutes a failure on defendants' part to meet their necessary burden of proof. Although defendants claim that the cost of loading, platform handling, and claims experience incident to the handling of automotive vehicles are much higher than usual, they have provided no statistical specificity to back up that claim. With respect to their claim that the high cube of these vehicles deprives them of revenue which they might otherwise enjoy, defendants provide limited statistical evidence respecting one segment of one of the considered movements, but that evidence is not sufficiently representative to warrant any conclusion thereon. In the circumstances, defendants have failed to demonstrate any special justification which would warrant disregarding the established classifications ratings for this traffic. Upon the record herein, the examiner finds that charges assessed by defendant for the three shipments of automotive vehicles described in the complaint, which charges were paid and borne by complainant, were unjust and unreasonable to the extent such charges exceeded those which would have been assessed at the classication rating levels. It is ordered, That the charges assessed by defendant on the shipments in issue in this proceeding be, and they are hereby, declared to have been unlawful to the extent discussed in the findings expressed in this report. It is further ordered, That in absence of a stay or postponement by the Commission, or the timely filing of exceptions, the effective date of this order shall be 30 days from the date of service hereof. 344 I.C.C. Defendant's basis: Actual or minimum weight Rate per hundredweight- Amount paid Tariff authority- Highland Park, Gainsville, Fla. Passenger automobile N. Charleston, S.C. Miami, Fla. Passenger automobile Passenger automobile 2,375 as 6,000 pounds 2,660 as 6,000 pounds 3,000 as 6,000 pounds Charleston, S.C. Miami, Fla. 2,375 2,660 3,000 'Central-Southern Class Tariff 100-E, MF-I.C.C. 357, item 120. 'SMCRC Tariff 501 C, MF-I.C.C. 1484, item 610-10, rate base 578. 'Central-Southern Class Tariff 100-E, MF-I.C.C. 357, rate base 1078; item 190210, NMFC A-9, MF-I.C.C. 9. 'SMCRC Tariff 501-C, MF-I.C.C. 1484, rate base 578; item 190210, NMFC A-10, MF-1.C.C. 11. APPENDIX B Comparison of the restated costs at total revenue need level with revenues for the movement of the involved motor vehicle shipments.' Comparison of the restated costs at total revenue need level with revenues for the movement of the involved motor vehicle shipments-Continued 'The costs are based on the cited tables 7 and 9 of ICC Statement No. 7-69, Cost of Transporting Freight by Class I and Class II Motor Common Carrier of General Commodities, ICC, Bureau of Accounts, Washington, D.C., 1969. The tables for south-central territory costs were used for shipment I and those for southern (intra) region are used for shipments 2 and 3. Totals |