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.


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


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


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


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


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. ,


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


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


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


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


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)


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)

te, - dms.psc.sc.gov

Documents