te, - dms.psc.sc.gov
Transcript of te, - dms.psc.sc.gov
BEFORE
THE PUBLIC SERVICE CONNXSSION OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
DOCKET NO. 94-140-.T — ORDER NO. 94-1212
NOVENBER 30„ 1994
XN RE Applicat;ion of Ehmke/Carolina Novers, )
Inc. , 11626-F Wilmar Blvd. , Charlot. . te, )
NC 28273 for a Class E Certif. icate of )
Publ. ic Convenience and Necessity. )
ORDERGRANTINGCERTIFICATE
This matter comes before the Public Servi. ce Commission of
South Carolina (the Commission) on the Applica'tion of
Ehmke/Carolina Novers (Ehmke/Carolina or the Applicant) for a
C.la. ss E Certificate of Publ. ic Convenience and Necessity
authorizing it to transport propert;y as follows:
HOUSEHOLD GOODS, AS DEFINED IN R. 103-211(4): Betweenpoints and places in South Carolina.
This Application was filed pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. &58-23-40
(1976).Subsequent to t;he initiation of thi, s pr. oceeding, the Executive
Director of the Commission instructed t.he Applicant to cause to be
publi. shed a prepared Notice of Filing ;i. n c rtain newspapers of
general ci. rculation in the State of South Carolina. The Noti. ce of
Filing indicated the nature of t:he Appli. cation and advised all
interest:. ed parties desi. ring to parti. c.ipate in the proceeding of the
manner and time in which to fil. e the appropriate pleadings. The
Notice of Filing was duly publish. d in accordance wi th the
instructions of the Execut;ive Director. Petitions to Intervene
BEFORE
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONOF
SOUTHCAROLINA/
DOCKET NO. 94-140--T - ORDER NO. 94-1212/
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
IN RE: Application of Ehmke/Carolina Movers,
Inc., I1626-F Wilmar Blvd., Charlotte,
NC 28273 for a Class E Certificate of
Public: Convenience and Necessity°
ORDER
GRANTING
CERTIFICATE
This matter comes before the Public Service Commission of
South Carolina (the Commission) on the Application of
Ehmke/Carolina Movers (Ehmke/Carolina or the Applicant) for a
Class E Certi:ficate of Public Convenience and Necessity
authorizing it to transport property as follows:
HOUSEHOLD GOODS, AS DEFINED IN R.I03-21!(4): Between
points and places in South Carolina.
This Application was filed pursuant to S_C. Code Ann._58-23-40
(]976).
Subsequent to the initiation of this proceeding, the Executive
Director of the Commission instructed the Applicant to cause to be
published a prepared Notice o:f Filing in certain newspapers of
general circulation in the State of So1_th Carolina. The Notice of
Filing indicated the nature of the Application and advised all
interested parties desiring to partic:ipate in the proceeding o:f the
manner and time in which to file the appropriate pleadings. The
Notice of Filing was duly published in accordance with the
instructions of the Executive Director. Petitions to Intervene
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 2
were filed by Carey Noving a Storage, Inc. , Arrow Noving 6 Storage,
Inc. , Carey Noving 6 Storage of Greenville, Inc. , Smith Dray Line &
Storage Co. , Inc. , Austin Noving a Storage Co. , Inc. , and Smith
Dray 6 Storage, Inc. (hereafter collecti. vely referred to as the
Intervenors).
A public hearing was held at the offices of the Commission on
October 6 and 13, 1994. The Honorable Rudolph Nitchell, Chairman,
and the Honorable Guy Butler, Vice Chairman, presided. The
Applicant was represented by F. Lee Prickett, Jr. , Esquire and
Randall E. NcGee, Esquire; the Intervenors were represented by John
F. Beach, Esquire; and the Commission Staff was represented by
Florence P. Belser, Staff Counsel.
Witnesses presented were William T. Cirone, Carl Pennington,
Charlie Roundtree, and Narvin Davis for the Applicant, and P. A.
Carey, James W. Nullen, Scott Dickerson, George Aiken, and Dr.
William 0. Bearden for the Intervenors.
After full consideration of the Application, the testi. mony
presented, and the applicable law, the Commission makes the
fol lowing findings of fac't and conclusions o f law:
FINDINGS OF PACT
1. South Carol. i. na Code Ann. 558-23-330 (Supp. 1993) provides
as follows:
[a]n applicant applying for a certificate . . . tooperate as motor vehicle common carrier may be approvedupon showing . . . that the appl. icant is fit, willing,and able to perform appropri. ately the proposed service.If an intervenor shows or if the [C]ommissiondetermines that the public conveni. ence and necessity isbeing served already, the [C]ommission may deny theappllca'tlon.
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 2
were filed by Carey Moving & Storage, Inc., Arrow Moving & Storage,
Inc., Carey Moving & Storage of Greenville, Inc., Smith Dray Line &
Storage Co., Inc., Austin Moving & Storage Co., Inco, and Smith
Dray & Storage, Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as the
Intervenors).
A public hearing was held at the offices of the Commission on
October 6 and 13, 1994. The Honorable Rudolph Mitchell, Chairman,
and the Honorable Guy Butler, Vice Chairman, presided. The
Applicant was represented by F. Lee Prickett, Jr., Esquire and
Randall E. McGee, Esquire; the Intervenors were represented by John
F. Beach, Esquire; and the Commission Staff was represented by
Florence P. Belser, Staff Counsel.
Witnesses presented were William T. Cirone, Carl Pennington,
Charlie Roundtree, and Marvin Davis for the Applicant, and P. A.
Carey, James W. Mullen, Scott Dickerson, George Aiken, and Dr.
William O. Bearden for the Intervenors.
After full consideration of the Application, the testimony
presented, and the applicable law, the Commission makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
i. South Carolina Code Ann. _58-23-330 (Supp. 1993) provides
as follows:
[a]n applicant applying for a certificate ... to
operate as motor vehicle common carrier may be approved
upon showing ... that the applicant is fit, willing,
and able to perform appropriately the proposed service.If an intervenor shows or if the [C]ommission
determines that the public convenience and necessity is
being served already, the [C]ommission may deny the
application.
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 3
2. 26 S.C. Regs. 103-134(l)(A)(1) (Supp. 1993) provi. des, in
relevant part, that the Commission use the following criteria to
determine whether an applicant is fit, willi. ng, and able to provide
the requested servi. ce:(a) FIT The applicant must. demonstrate or the
Commission determine that the Applicant's safety
rating is satisfactory. Thi. s can be obtained from
U. S.D. O. T, SCDHPT, and PSC safety records.
Applicant should also certify that there are no
QUtstancllng judgments pendi. ng agalns't sUch
applicant. The applicant should further certify
that he is familiar with all statutes and
r'egUlat1ons, 3.. ncluding sa fety 1 egula't1ons,
governing for' —hll'e motor' ca. rx'ler ope1'a'tlons ln
South Carolina and agrees to operate in compliance
with these statutes and regulations.
(b) ABLE The applicant should demonstrate that he has
either purchased, leased, or otherwise arranged for
obtaining necessary equ. ipment to provide the
service for which he is applying. The applicant
should also provide evidence in the form of
insurance policies or insurance quotes indicating
that he is aware of the Commission's insurance
r:equirements and the cost associated therewith.
(c) WILLING Havi, ng met the requirements as to "fit and
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 3
2. 26 S.C. Regs. I03-134(I)(A)(I) (Supp. 1993) provides, in
relevant part, that the Commission use the following criteria to
determine whether an applicant is fit, willing, and able to provide
the requested service:
a) FIT The applicant must demonstrate or the
Commission determine that the Applicant's safety
rating is satisfactory. This can be obtained from
U.S.D.O.T, SCDHPT, and PSC safety records.
Applicant should also certify that there are no
outstanding judgments pending against such
applicant. The applicant should further certify
that he is familiar with all statutes and
regulations, including safety regulations,
governing for-hire motor carrier operations in
South Carolina and agrees to operate in compliance
with these statutes and regulations.
b) ABLE The applicant should demonstrate that he has
either purchased, leased, or otherwise arranged for
obtaining necessary equipment to provide the
service for which he is applying° The applicant
should also provide evidence in the form of
insurance policies or insurance quotes indicating
that he is aware of the Commission's insurance
requirements and the cost associated therewith.
c) WILLING Having met the requirements as to "fit and
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVEVrSER 30, 1994PAGE 4
able, " the submitting of the application for
operating authority would be suffi. cient
demonstration of the appli. cant's willingness to
provide the authority sought.
3. "The doctrine of [public] convenience and necessity i. s a
relative or elastic theory. The facts in each case must be
separately considered and from those facts i. t must be determined
whether public convenience and necessity requires a given servi. ce
to be performed or dispensed with. " State v. Carolina Coach
Corn~pan , 260 N. C. 43, 53, 132 6.6, 2d 249, 255 (1963).
4. "'Necessity' means reasonably necessary and not absolutely
imperative. " Xd. citing State v. Southern Railway Co. , 254 N. C. 73,
79, 118 S.E.2d 21, 25 (196,1). ".. . Xt is necessary if it appears
reasonably requisite, is suited to and tends to promote the
accommodation of the public. " Xd.
5. "Xn the phrase 'public convenience and necessity' the word
'necessity' means that which is needful, essenti. al, requisite or
conducive to 'public convenience. ' When more convenient and
adequate service is offered to the public, .it would seem that
necessity requires such public convenience should be served. "
Atlantic Greyhound Corporation v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 196 Va.
183, 193, 83 S.E.2d 379, 384 (1954).
6. The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that while an
intervenor's testimony that its business will be adversely affected
by the increased competition produced by an increased number of
motor carriers is relevant, such testimony "is not determinative
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 4
able," the submitting of the application for
operating authority would be sufficient
demonstration of the applicant's willingness to
provide the authority sought.
3. "The doctrine of [public] convenience and necessity is a
relative or elastic theory. The facts in each case must be
separately considered and from those facts it must be determined
whether public convenience and necessity requires a given service
to be performed or dispensed with." State v. Carolina Coach
Company, 260 N.C. 43, 53, 132 S.E.2d 249, 255 (1963).
4. "'Necessity' means reasonably necessary and not absolutely
imperative." Id. citing State v. Southern Railway Co., 254 N.C. 73,
79, 1.18 S.E.2d 21, 25 (1961). "... It. is necessary if it appears
reasonably requisite, is suited to and tends to promote the
accommodation of the public." Id.
5. "In the phrase 'public convenience and necessity' the word
'necessity' means that which is needful, essential, requisite or
conducive to 'public convenience.' When more convenient and
adequate service is offered to the public, it would seem that
necessity requires such public convenience should be served."
Atlantic Greyhound Corporation v. Commonwealth of Virginia, ].96 Va.
183, 193, 83 S.E.2d 379, 384 (1954).
6. The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that while an
intervenor's testimony that its business will be adversely affected
by the increased competition produced by an increased number of
motor carriers is relevant, such testimony "is not determinative
DOCKET NO. 94-1,40-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 5
and 'should not in itself defeat an application for additional
services'. " Welch Noving and Storage Co. v. Public Service
Commission, 301 S.C. 259, 391 S.E. 2d 556, 557 {1990), ci. ting
Greyhound Lines, Tnc. v. South Carolina Public Service Commission,
274 S.C. 161, 166, 262 S.E.2d 18, 21 {1980).
7. Ehmke/Carolina's Application indicates that the Applicant
is a North Carolina corporation. William T. Cirone, Executive
Vice President of Ehmke Novers, Tnc. {the parent. company of Ehmke/
Caroli. na) testi. fied about the Applicant's operations. Nr. Cirone
testified that Ehmke Novers, Inc. (Ehmke Novers) started in 1977 in
Cincinnati, Ohio and now operates in seven geographic locations in
the United States. According to Nr. Cirone, the 1993 revenues for
all the Ehmke Novers companies are in excess of 21 million dollars.
Nr. Cirone also testified that Ehmke Novers is the second largest
booking agent of interstate moves for Allied Van Lines in the
United States and that Ehmke Novers is the second largest provider
of relocation services for Allied Van Lines. Nr. Cirone also
described the services of Ehmke Novers and its subsidiaries.
8. Nr. Cirone testified that Ehmke/'Carolina began operations
in 1993 after purchasing an existing moving company. Nr. Cirone's
testimony also i.ndicated that Ehmke/Carolina has r. eceived a
"satisfactory" safety rating, that there are no outstanding
judgments against the Applicant, and that the Applicant is aware
of, and will meet the Commission's insurance requirements.
According to the Appl, i. cation, and corroborat d by Nr. Cirone's
testimony, the Applicant is familiar with all statutes and
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 5
and 'should not in itself defeat an application for additional
services' " Welch Moving and Storage Co. v. Public Service
Commission, 301 S.C. 259, 391 S.E.2d 556, 557 (1990), citing
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service Commission,
274 S.C. 161, 166, 262 S.E.2d 18, 21 (1980).
7. Ehmke/Carolina's Application indicates that the Applicant
is a North Carolina corporation. William T. Cirone, Executive
Vice President of Ehmke Movers, Inc. (the parent company of Ehmke/
Carolina) testified about the Applicant's operations. Mr. Cirone
testified that Ehmke Movers, Inc. (Ehmke Movers) started in 1977 in
Cincinnati, Ohio and now operates in seven geographic locations in
the United States. According to Mr. Cirone, the 1993 revenues for
all the Ehmke Movers companies are in excess of 21 million dollars.
Mr. Cirone also testified that Ehmke Movers is the second largest
booking agent of interstate moves for Allied Van Lines in the
United States and that Ehmke Movers is the second largest provider
of relocation services for Allied Van Lines° Mr. Cirone also
described the services of Ehmke Movers and its subsidiaries.
8. Mr. Cirone testified that Ehmke/Carolina began operations
in 1993 after purchasing an existing moving company. Mr. Cirone's
testimony also indicated that Ehmke/Carolina has received a
"satisfactory" safety rating, that there are no outstanding
judgments against the Applicant, and that the Applicant is aware
of, and will meet the Commission's insurance requirements.
According to the Application, and corroborated by Mr. Cirone's
testimony, the Applicant is familiar with all statutes and
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 6
regulations, including safety r. egulations, governing for-hire motor
carrier operations in South Carolina, and if granted authority, the
Applicant agrees to operate i.n compliance with these statutes and
regulations. The financia. .L exhibits attached to the Application
and admitted into evidence at the hearing, as wei. l as the testimony
of Nr. Cirone, indicate that Ehmke/Carolina is financially stable.
Attachments to the Applicati. on, exhibits admitted into evidence at
the hearing, and the testimony of Nr. Cirone also reveal that
Ehmke/Carolina has the necessary equi. pment to provide the service
for: which it seeks authority.
9. Nr. Cirone testified that Ehmke/Carolina currently
provides the movement of household goods on an interstate basis.
Several shipper witnesses appeared on behalf of Ehmke/Carolina and
offered testimony concerning their satisfaction with the services
of Ehmke/Carolina. The shipper witnesses also testified that they
would like for Ehmke/Carolina to be able to handle their intrastate
needs.
10. Jim Nullen, Vice President of Smith Dray I'. ine a Storage
Co. , testified on behalf of the Xntervenors. Nr. Nullen admitted
that he believes tha. t Ehmke, ~Carolina is fi, t, willing„ and able to
provide moving services in South Car olina, but Nr. Nullen further
testified that household goods moves over the past few years from
the Spartanburg terminal have been "flat:. . " Nr. Nullen also offered
his opinion that the public is being served by the existing
carriers in this state.11. George Aiken, President of General Warehouse Co. , Inc. ,
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 6
regulations, including safety regulations, governing for-hire motor
carrier operations in South Carolina, and if granted authority, the
Applicant agrees to operate in compliance with these statutes and
regulations. The financial exhibits attached to the Application
and admitted into evidence at the hearing, as well as the testimony
of Mr. Cirone, indicate that Ehmke/Carolina is financially stable.
Attachments to the Application, exhibits admitted into evidence at
the hearing, and the testimony of Mr. Cirone also reveal that
Ehmke/Carolina has the necessary equipment to provide the service
for which it seeks authority.
9. Mr. Cirone testified that Ehmke/Carolina currently
provides the movement of household goods on an interstate basis.
Several shipper witnesses appeared on behalf of Ehmke/Carolina and
offered testimony concerning their satisfaction with the services
of Ehmke/Carolina. The shipper witnesses also testified that they
would like for Ehmke/Carolina to be able to handle their intrastate
needs.
i0. Jim Mullen, Vice President of Smith Dray Line & Storage
Co., testified on behalf of the Intervenors. Mr. Mullen admitted
that he believes that Ehmke/Caro!_na is f:[t, willing, and able to
provide moving services in South Carolina, but Mr. Mullen :further
testified that household goods moves over the past few years from
the Spartanburg terminal have been "flat." Mr. Mullen also offered
his opinion that the public is being served by the existing
carriers in this state.
ii. George Aiken, President of General Warehouse Co., Inc.,
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212WOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 7
testified that, his company has four (4) terminals i.n South
Carolina. Nr. Aiken also testified that over the last two years
his intrastate busi. ness is down approximately 20 percent.
12. Scott Dickerson of Smith Dray Line a Storage in Columbia
testified that the volume of intrastate household goods business
has declined approxi. mately 5% from last year. Nr. Dickerson
att. ributes this decline to the entrance of new moving companies and
to the "do-it-yourselfers". Nr. Dickerson also offered his opinion
that there are ample movers in South Carolina to handle the needs
of the South Carolina public.
13. Pat Carey of Carey Noving c. Storage, Inc. in Spartanburg,
Carey Novi. ng a Storage of Greenville, Inc. , and Arrow Noving a
Storage, Inc. of Rock Hill testified that his business has
experienced a 5.6-: loss in intrastate revenues. Nr. Carey stated
that approximately 20': of his business consists of intrastate moves
awhile approximately 80% is interstate moves.
14. Dr. William O. Bearden also testified on behalf of the
Intervenors. Dr. Bearden holds a Ph. D. in Business Administration
and currently is a professor of marketing at the University of
South Carolina. Dr. Bearden testified. that he was hired by the
Novers Conference to conduct a study on the extent to which the
public convenience and necessity is currently being served by the
existing motor carriers in South Carolina.
Dr. Bearden testified that he mailed seventy-one (71)
questionnaires to members of the Novers Conference. Of the
questionnaires mailed, three (3) were returned to Dr. Bearden for
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 7
testified that his company has four (4) terminals in South
Carolina. Mr. Aiken also testified that over the last two years
his intrastate business is down approximately 20 percent.
]2. Scott Dickerson of Smith Dray Line & Storage in Columbia
testified that the volume of intrastate household goods business
has declined approximately 5% from last year. Mr. Dickerson
attributes this decline to the entrance of new moving companies and
to the "do-it-yourselfers" Mr. Dickerson also offered his opinion
that there are ample movers in South Carolina to handle the needs
of the South Carolina public.
13. Pat Carey of Carey Moving & Storage, Inc. in Spartanburg,
Carey Moving & Storage of Greenville, Inc., and Arrow Moving &
Storage, Inc. of Rock Hill testified that his business has
experienced a 5.6% loss in intrastate revenues. Mr. Carey stated
that approximately 20% of his business consists of intrastate moves
while approximately 80% is interstate moves.
14. Dr. William O. Bearden also testified on behalf of the
Intervenors. Dr. Bearden holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration
and currently is a professor of marketing at the University of
South Carolina. Dr. Bearden testified that he was hired by the
Movers Conference to conduct a study on the extent to which the
public convenience and necessity is currently being served by the
existing motor carriers in South Carolina°
Dr. Bearden testified that he mailed seventy-one (71)
questionnaires to members of the Movers Conference. Of the
questionnaires mailed, three (3) were returned to Dr. Bearden :for
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVEmBER 30, 1994PAGE 8
address problems. From the sixty-eight questionnaires effectively
mailed, Dr. Bearden received thirty-five (35) responses, thirty
(30) of which were usable. The questionnai. re asked each
participant for an estimate of the number of intra. state household
moves in 1993. The questionnaire did not define intrastate move or
specify whether the answer included regul. ated or non-regulated
moves. Xn the responses, some participants reported moves within a
thirty (30) mile radius or beyond a thirty (30) mi. le radius. [The
Commission takes administrative not. ice that many tariffs of
household goods carriers break at the thirty (.30) mile radius. ]
In the course of his study, Dr. Bearden stated that he
gathered information on the number of trucks and equipment from Don
Walters of the South Carolina Trucking Association. Additiona. lly,Dr. Bearden collected annual reports of the trucking companies that
have been filed with the Commission and used the 1994 Novers
Stati. stical Profile which reported on 1992 totals. Dr. Bearden
also visited three trucking companies in Columbia and counted the
idle power units on the premises.
Dr. Bearden stated that his study showed the average number of
intrastate moves per company was 49 and that th. average number of
days each power unit was u'ti I, ized was 104,. 5 days, Dr . Bev rden
test:. ified that the return on assets for South Carolina trucking
companies was lo~er than national returns reported in two financial
publications. Dr. Bearden also testified that the average
operating ratios, computed by using annual reports on f.ile with the
Commission, improved in 1993 over the average operating ratios in
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-]212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 8
address problems. From the sixty-eight questionnaires effectively
mailed, Dr. Bearden received thirty-five (35) responses, thirty
(30) of which were usable. The questionnaire asked each
participant for' an estimate of the number of intrastate household
moves in 1.993. The questionnaire d_d not define intrastate move or
specify whether the answer included regulated oK non-regulated
moves. In the responses, some participants reported moves within a
thirty (30) mile radius or beyond a thirty (30) mile radius. [The
Commission takes administrative notice that many tariffs of
household goods carriers break at the thirty (130) mile radius.]
In the course of his study, Dr. Bearden stated that he
gathered information on the number of trucks and equipment from Don
Walters of the South Carolina Trucking Association. Additionally,
Dr. Bearden collected annual reports of the trucking companies that
have been filed with the Commission and used the 1994 Movers
Statistical Profile which reported on 1992 totals° Dr. Bearden
also visited three trucking companies in Columbia and counted the
idle power units on the premises.
Dr. Bearden stated that his study showed the average number of
intrastate moves per company was 49 and that the average number of
days each power unit was utilized was !.04,.5 days° D_:. Bearden
testified that the return on assets :fox South Carolina trucking
companies was lower than national returns reported in two financial
publications. Dr. Bearden also testified that the average
operating ratios, computed by using annual reports on file with the
Commission, improved in 1993 over the average operating ratios in
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 9
1992.
Dr. Bearden testified that he believed that the geographic
di. spersion of the present household goods carriers can service the
needs of the public in the entire state. Based on the results of
his study, Dr. Bearden testified that it is his opinion that there
is excess capacity among the existing household goods carriers in
South Carolina.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAÃ
1. Ehmke/Carolina has demonstrated that it is fit, willi. ng,
and abl. e to provide the Class E services For which it seeks
authority. Specifically, Ehmke/Carolina has established that ithas no outstanding judgments, that it. has the equipment necessary
to provide the services for which it seeks authority, and that i, t
has insurance which meets the Commission's requirements.
Ehmke/Carolina has demonstrated that its safety rat. ing is
sat.isfactory. The Commission inter. prets the submission of the
Application as Ehmkef'Carolina's demonstration of its willingness to
provide Class E services in South Carolina.
2. The Commission finds that the 1ntervenors have not
establ. ished that the public convenience and necessity would be
adversely affected by the entry of Ehmke, /Carolina into the market.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the public convenience and
necessity is not being served and that the public convenience and
necessity would be better served by allowing Ehmke/Carolina into
the market. While Dr. Bearden asserts that excess capacity
currently exists in South Carolina among the household goods
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 9
1992.
Dr. Bearden testified that he believed that the geographic
dispersion of the present household goods carriers can service the
needs of the public in the entire state_ Based on the results of
his study, Dr. Bearden testified that it is his opinion that there
is excess capacity among the existing household goods carriers in
South Carolina.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Ehmke/Carolina has demonstrated that it is fit, willing,
and able to provide the Class E services for which it seeks
authority. Specifically, Ehmke/Carolina has established that it
has no outstanding judgments, that it has the equipment necessary
to provide the services for which it seeks authority, and that it
has insurance which meets the Commission's requirements.
Ehmke/Carolina has demonstrated that its safety rating is
satisfactory. The Commission interprets the submission of the
Application as Ehmke/Carolina's demonstration of its willingness to
provide Class E services in South Carolina.
2. The Commission finds that the Intervenors have not
established that the pub].ic conveni.ence and necessity would be
adversely affected by the entry of Ehmke/Carolina into the market.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the public convenience and
necessity is not being served and that the public convenience and
necessity would be better served by allowing Ehmke/Carolina into
the market. While Dr. Bearden asserts that excess capacity
currently exists in South Carolina among the household goods
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVENBER 30, 1994PAGE 10
carriers, the Commission is of the opinion that the testimony of
Dr. Bearden does not establish that the public convenience and
necessity is being sufficiently served to justify exclusi. on of
Ehmke/Carolina from the South Carolina market. The Commission
notes that the shipper witnesses recogni. ze Ehmke/Carolina as a
carrier. which provides reputable quality service and that the
shipper witnesses desire Ehmke/Carolina's servic."es.
3. Further, the testimony of the motor carr. ier witnesses that
increased competition by Ehmke/Carolina could hurt their busi. ness
does not sway the Commission to find that the public conveni. ence
and necessity i. s being served. The Commi. ssion is cognizant that
the Intervenors are concerned that Ehmke/Carolina's entry into the
market will adversely affect existing business. However, the
Commission concludes that this concern in and of itself is
insufficient to defeat Ehmke/Carolina's Application as this concern
has not been shown to adversely impact public cnnvenienc. "e and
necessity.
4. The Commission also concludes that Hearing Exhi. bit No. 7
should be admitted into evidenc. "e. Ehmke/Carolina sought to
introduce a copy of a newsletter of the American Ktovers Conference.
The Intervenors objected to the introduction of the newsletter
asserting that a proper foundation had not been established.
Ehmke/Carolina introduced the newsletter to show that more recent
data than the data useci by Dr. Bearden was available for
comparison purposes in his study. The Commission therefore
concludes the newsletter should be admitted into evidence and
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE i0
carriers, the Commission is of the opinion that the testimony of
Dr. Bearden does not establish that the public convenience and
necessity is being sufficiently served to justify exclusion o:f
Ehmke/Carolina from the South Carolina market. The Commission
notes that the shipper witnesses recognize Ehmke/Carolina as a
carrier which provides reputable quality service and that the
shipper witnesses desire Ehmke/Carolina's services.
3. Further, the testimony of the motor carrier witnesses that
increased competition by Ehmke/Carolina could hurt their business
does not sway the Commission to find that the public convenience
and necessity is being served. The Commission is cognizant that
the Intervenors are concerned that Ehmke/Carolina's entry into the
market will adversely affect existing business. However, the
Commission concludes that this concern in and of itself is
insufficient to defeat Ehmke/Carolina's Application as this concern
has not been shown to adversely impact public convenience and
necessity.
4. The Commission also concludes that Hearing Exhibit No. 7
should be admitted into evidence. Ehmke/Carolina sought to
introduce a copy of a newsletter of the American Movers Conference.
The Intervenors objected to the introduction of the newsletter
asserting that a proper foundation had not been established.
Ehmke/Carolina introduced the newsletter to show that more recent
data than the data used by Dr. Bearden was available for
comparison purposes in his study. The Commission therefore
concludes the newsletter should be admitted into evidence and
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOUENBER 30, 1994PAGE 11
overrules the objection of the Intervenors.
Ehmke/Carolina objected to and made a Notion to Strike a
portion of Dr. Bearden's redirect testimony regarding the ratio of
inter. state to intrastate revenues of Ehmke Novers. Dr. Bearden
testified that the ratio of EhmkejCarolina interstate/intrastate
revenues is roughly equivalent to the 80':(20': ratio which he used
in his study. Ehmke)Carolina objected to this testimony as
irrelevant and not comparative as Ehmke/Carolina is not operating
in South Carolina. The Commission beli. eves that the testimony was
proper and therefore overrules Ehmke/Carolina's objection and
Notion to Strike.
IT XS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Ehmke/Carolina's Application for Class E authority to
transport household goods, as defined by Regulation 103-211(14),
between points and places in South Carolina i. s hereby approved.
2. Ehmke/Carolina shall comply with all applicable statutes
and regulations regarding for-hire transportation in South
Ca r'ol in a, .3. Ehmke/Carolina shall file the proper license fees and
other informati. on required by S.C. Code Ann, $58 —23-10 to
558-23-1830 (1976 as amended) and by 26 S, C. R..gs. 103-100 to
103—272 (1976, as amended) within sixty (60) days of the date of
this Order, or within such additional time as may be authorized by
the Commi. ssion.
4. Upon compliance with S.C. Code Ann. 558-23-10 to
%58-23-1830 (1976, as amended), and the applicable pr'ovisions of 26
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE ii
overrules the objection of the Intervenorso
Ehmke/Carolina objected to and made a Motion to Strike a
portion of Dr. Bearden's redirect testimony regarding the ratio of
interstate to intrastate revenues of Ehmke Movers. Dr. Bearden
testified that the ratio of Ehmke/Carolina interstate/intrastate
revenues is roughly equivalent to the 80%/20% ratio which he used
in his study. Ehmke/Carolina objected to this testimony as
irrelevant and not comparative as Ehmke/Carolina is not operating
in South Carolina. The Commission believes that the testimony was
proper and therefore overrules Ehmke/Carol_na's objection and
Motion to Strike.
IT IS THEREFOREORDEREDTHAT:
i. Ehmke/Carolina's Application for Class E authority to
transport household goods, as defined by Regulation ].03-211(14),
between points and places in South Carolina is hereby approved.
2. Ehmke/Carolina shall comply with all applicable statutes
and regulations regarding for-hire transportation in South
Carolina.
3. Ehmke/Carolina shall file the proper license fees and
other information required by S.C. Code Ann_ _58-23-i0 to
§58-23-1830 (1976, as amended) and by 26 SoC. Regso 103-100 to
103-272 (1976, as amended) within sixty (60) days of the date of
this Order, or within such additional time as may be authorized by
the Commission.
4. Upon compliance with S.C. Code Ann. §58-23-10 to
_58-23-1830 (1976, as amended), and the applicable provisions of 26
DOCKET NO. 94-140-T — ORDER NO. 94-1212NOVEMBER 30, 1994PAGE 12
S.C. Regs. 103-100 to 103-272 (1976, as amended), a certificateshall be issued herein to Ehmke/Carolina authorizing the motor
carrier services granted herein.
5. Prior to compliance with the above-noted requirements and
receipt of a certi. ficate, the motor carrier services authorized
herein may not be provi, ded.
6. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until
further Order of the Commission.
BY ORDER OF THE CONNISSION:
ATTEST:
Executive Director
(SEAL)
DOCKETNO. 94-140-T - ORDERNO. 94-1212NOVEMBER30, 1994PAGE 12
S.C. Regs. 103-100 to 103-272 (1976, as amended), a certificate
shall be issued herein to Ehmke/Carolina authorizing the motor
carrier services granted herein.
5. Prior to compliance with the above-noted requirements and
receipt of a certificate, the moto[ carrier services authorized
herein may not be provided.
6. This Order shall remain in full force and effect until
further Order of the Commission_
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:
ATTEST:
Executive Director
(SEAL)