Commodity list: Administrative ruling number 107

Commodity list

Alfalfa, see Feeds
¹ Animal fats - Not exempt - Bureau opinion
Animals, see Livestock

Case list

1. Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodities, 5 M.C.C. 511
   1. Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodities, 62 M.C.C. 87
   2. Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodities, MC-C-968, First Supplemental Report, decided February 11, 1958
2. Blythe Common Carrier Application, 66 M.C.C. 560
3. Bonney Motor Express, Inc., Extension, 69 M.C.C. 480
4. Dougherty Common Carrier Application, 31 M.C.C. 793
5. Erickson Transport Corp., Extension - Madison, South Dakota, decided December 31, 1957, MC-113908 Sub 21
6. Herrett Trucking Co., Inc., Extension - Feeds, 69 M.C.C. 487
7. Hughes Extension - Frozen Foods, 71 M.C.C. 457
8. Karst Extension - Containers, 62 M.C.C. 579
9. Lewis Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.C. 603
10. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc., Extension - Montana MC-111812 Sub 27, decided December 31, 1957
11. Monark Egg Corp., Contract Carrier Application 52 M.C.C. 576
12. Penn-Dixie Lines, Inc., Extension - Rice 72 M.C.C. 797
13. Prang Extension - Homing Pigeons, 53 M.C.C. 223
14. Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., Extension, Frozen Foods, 72 M.C.C. 459
15. Shipley Transfer, Inc., Extension - Liquid Latex, 52 M.C.C. 806 (Not printed)
16. Sprofera Common Carrier Application, 66 M.C.C. 123
17. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Interpretation, 64 M.C.C. 455

Notes

Note 1.

The report in Determination of Exempted Agricultural Commodities, MC-C-968, First Supplemental Report, decided February 11, 1958 was served on February 14, 1958. Whether any petitions for reconsideration will be filed is not known at this time.

Note 2.

In Penn-Dixie, 68 M.C.C. 29, Division 1 of the Commission held fresh citrus fruit sections not to be within the exemption. However, this decision was rendered prior to the affirmance, by the U.S. Supreme Court of the court decisions in I.C.C. vs. Home Transfer & Storage Co., 141 F. Supp. 599, 352 U.S. 884 and in Frozen Food Express vs. U.S., U.S. 148 F. Supp. 399 U.S. 6. In the former case peeled and sliced frozen peaches were held to be within the exemption, and in the latter case cut up vegetables and peeled and pitted peaches were held to be within the exemption.

Note 3.

In the Determination case, 52 M.C.C. 511, the Commission held that dehydrated vegetables do not come within the exemption. However, that position would seem no longer valid in view of the recent holding in Frozen Food Express vs. U.S. 148 F. Supp. 399 that dried egg powder, dried egg yolks and powdered milk are within the exemption, which holding was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 355 U.S. 6.

Note 4.

It is rather clear from the Determination case, 52 M.C.C. 511, that the Commission considered grinding to be manufacturing, though it did not specifically so hold. The Bureau until recently considered all ground commodities to be not exempt. In Herrett, 69 M.C.C. 487, (January 29, 1957) the Commission, Division 1, held ground oat hulls not within the exemption. This, however, was prior to the expiration of the date for appeal in Frozen Food Express vs. U.S. and I.C.C., 148 F. Supp. 399, in which the court held, among other things, that ground peanut shells, dried egg powder, and powdered milk are within the exemption. No appeal was taken as to ground peanut shells, and on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision as to the two powdered commodities. The Court opinion does not describe the grinding and powdering processes there involved, but in an early Commission case, Harris and Callis, 4 M.C.C. 169, it was said that ground peanut shells are produced by pulverization in a hammer mill.

In view of the Court holdings, which now are final, the Bureau no longer considers that grinding alone removes a commodity from the exemption. However, manufacturing which follows or precedes grinding may have this effect. Thus the bolting which produces flour would make that commodity non-exempt. Also meals produced by grinding commodities from which the oil has been extracted are considered not within the exemption. Thus in the Frozen Food case, mentioned above, the court held cottonseed meal not to be within the exemption.

Note 5.

In view of the "substantial identity" test of the U.S. Supreme Court in East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. vs. Frozen Food Express, 351 U.S. 49, the Bureau takes the view that the exemption includes cotton or wool which has been combed or carded but not spun, woven or knitted. Thus wool tops and noils are now considered within the exemption. Also considered within the exemption is waste which consists of scraps or discards of cotton or wool fibers resulting from the handling or thread, yard, or cloth.

Note 6.

This holding was made in Hughes, 71 M.C.C. 457, which proceeding later was reopened for further hearing. Pending final determination of the proceeding the holding cannot be considered an authoritative decision of the Commission. However, these same commodities were held not exempt in Bureau opinions rendered previous to the decision. Compare Administrative Ruling No. 98.