on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Texas assertedly for purpose of rendering a more efficient service to shippers by eliminating necessity of operating through Arkansas gateway. Applicant disclaims reliance on "elimination of gateway" criteria but rather premises its application, which is supported by three shippers, on proposition that elimination of gateway is necessary in order to render a more expeditious service to shippers. Commission has consistently found that a carrier authorized to conduct radial operations may not operate between two radial points by operating through the base point. In view of the fact that applicant has produced no evidence to show that the service of existing carriers is unsatisfactory or inadequate, it has failed to establish that present or future public convenience or necessity require proposed operation; denied. -Engle Bros., Inc., Ext.-Arkansas Gateway, 110 M.C.C. 263 (264, 265).

Carrier's application for regular route authority to operate between Albany, N.Y., and Springfield, Mass., treated as an alternate route application, was denied by the review board because applicant had no authorized route with respect to which proposed route could be considered alternate; on reconsideration, however, the application is considered as one for elimination of Hartford, Conn., gateway since, by a combination of its slow and circuitous regular and irregular routes, applicant could operate between Albany and Springfield, using Hartford as a gateway. Although applicant has been operating between named termini, in actual fact such operations, even using the Hartford gateway, were not performed over its authorized regular and irregular routes; rather, using its irregular-route radial authority as the sole basis there for, applicant used a more expeditious but clearly illegal crosshaul. Thus, these operations which constitute the basis for the requested gateway elimination are clearly unauthorized; applicant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it is operating in good faith through the gateway; denied. Applicant admonished to adhere to strict compliance with the terms of its outstanding authority.. Dorn's Transp., Inc., Ext.-Springfield, Mass., 110 M.C.C. 92 (93, 94, 95)*. $210. DUAL OPERATIONS

1. Construction and interpretation.-See Northern Motor Carriers, Inc.Purchase-Bonded, at $5 (2), n. 48 dual.

3. Discrimination resulting from dual operation. -Applicant was granted a certificate in lieu of its permit. Its permit allows it to transport the same commodities between points in the same general territory, and, therefore it would be placed in a position to serve the same shippers both as a common and contract carrier. Such a situation would create the possibility of discrimination against which the provisions of $210 of the act are directed and would preclude the required findings that the resulting dual operations would be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Applicant has indicated that it is willing and able to convert its operations to those of common carriage. To prevent dual operations, issuance of a certificate will be conditioned on applicant's prior submission of a written request for cancellation of its permit.-Frost Trucking Co., Inc., Extension-Philadelphia, Pa., 110 M.C.C. 203 (211)*.

$210 a. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY

1. Construction and interpretation.-See East Tex. Motor Frt. LinesPurchase-Lee, at $5 (2), n. 110 temporary.

4. Public interest, in general.-Applicant, a travel agency, seeks a license authorizing operations as a broker at Wash., D.C., for transportation by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in charter operations, between points in United States. On exceptions, examiner's denial as to transportation for domestic passengers was affirmed. However, as to brokerage service in behalf of passengers from foreign lands; applicant proposes to promote and organize custom-made tours, of various nationalities gathered in Europe, designed to cater to European tastes. One protestant has an office overseas but applicant is proposing custom-made tours whereas protestant offers package tours; protestant uses New York and California gateways for such brokerage service whereas applicant will use Wash., D.C. Thus, proposed service will not result in useless duplication of service but will generate traffic beneficial to both public and existing carriers; application granted in part.Sanders World Travel, Inc., Broker Application, 110 M.C.C. 246 (248-52).

30. Conditions imposed; scope of operations.-Applicant, a travel agency located at Wash., D.C., was granted authority to transport foreign tourists between points in United States, in sightseeing and pleasure tours. All of the protestants (except one) have authority to transport domestic passengers in similar operations. In order to protect the interest of existing motor carriers of passengers, applicant's authority is restricted to making arrangements for persons having a prior movement in foreign commerce by air and using Dulles International Airport, Va., as a port of entry so that the authori granted will conform to the need shown.-Sanders World Travel Inc., Broker Application, 110 M.C.C. 246 (252).

$212 (a). SUSPENSION, CHANGE, REVOCATION, AND TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES, PERMITS AND LICENSES

1. Construction and interpretation. -The Commission will not go behi a certificate which, after applying the usual rules of grammar and punctuation, is found to be clear on its face. Since the respondent's certificate contains a modifying heavy-hauling restriction which follows the last antecedent "boats" and is not preceded by a comma, only the term "boats" is qualified by the restriction. Such interpretation is consistent with the usual rules of grammar and punctuation. A contrary interpretation requires a strained and illogical construction and would necessitate resort to matter extrinsic to the certificate.-Road Paving Materials Between Points in New England, 329 I.C.C. 199 (203) *.

Commission concluded that the commodity description of petitioner Home's certificate reading "machinery, equipment, and supplies used in maintenance and operation of industrial plants" was equivalent to the description

in petitioner H & S's certificate reading "industrial plants, and in connection therewith, machinery, equipment, and bulk stocks" although stated differently and that the record shows that each description was originally intended to cover heavy-hauler authority and that therefore each certificate should be modified. so as to clarify that each petitioner holds heavy-hauler authority. - Home Transp. Co., Inc. --Extension, 109 M.C.C. 137 (151-55)*.

Cardinal rule in interpreting motor carrier authority is that the certificate or permit must speak for itself. Absent the authority itself being patently indefinite or ambiguous, or errors of a ministerial nature, operating rights must be construed according to their terms regardless of what may have been intended at the time of issuance. The paragraph in certificate in question granting general-commodity authority "between the above-specified points and over the above-specified routes" follows four paragraphs granting livestock authority, first two of which grant authority between named Montana points while the last two grant livestock authority from Lewistown to Great Falls and from Lewistown to Billings; thus, with respect to authorization of general-commodity service at Lewistown, Great Falls, and Billings, it is not clear from language of the certificate whether return movements are authorized since livestock authority at those points is only for one-way movements. Consequently, there is considerable patent ambiguity in the certificate, and it is necessary to review the underlying record to determine its meaning. -Great Northern v. Stendal Transp. and Elmer's Exp., 110 M.C.C. 35 (30)*.

Review of record in "grandfather" proceedings granting considered authority to defendant Stendal Corp. shows that the Commission did not intend to authorize transportation of general commodities between Lewistown, Great Falls, and Billings, Mont.; that the only commodity applicant transported between those points was livestock; and that findings in the report did not grant applicant any general-commodity authority involving those cities. Moreover, though all of the livestock grants were erroneously placed ahead of the general-commodity authority in the original certificate, there can be no doubt that such rearrangement thereof so as to authorize an apparent service at Lewistown, Great Falls, and Billings, in carriage of general commodities, was an inadvertent ministerial error, and that such general-commodity authority was never intended to be granted. Thus, even if certificate issued to defendant Elmer's- following approval of transfer of the rights-were not ambiguous, it would have to be modified to correct the Commission's inadvertent error in the initial certificate; certificate in question corrected accordingly.-Id., pp. 38, 40-2.

The Commission has no power to enlarge any operating authority except in accordance with the standards established by the act. To warrant the proposed modification of petitioner's certificate in the absence of evidence as to the present and future public convenience and necessity, it must be shown that such modification is necessary to eliminate a patent ambiguity or to correct a manifest injustice. At the least, it must reasonably appear that the broader grant of authority sought would more accurately reflect what should have been issued on the basis of the evidence adduced at the original hearing.— Widing Transp., Inc., Investigation & Revocation, 110 M.C.C. 106 (109-10).

Complaint alleges that defendant has been operating in contravention of a tacking restriction placed in its certificate at the time defendant purchased the authority. Restriction precludes "joinder or tacking for the purpos of performing a through service between Omaha, Nebr., Council Bluffs or Des Moines, Iowa, on the one hand, and, on the other, points beyond St. Joseph, Mo.' Examiner recommended that complaint be dismissed; division affirmed the examine finding that the described restriction does not preclude joinder at those points within the commercial zone of St. Joseph which are located outside the city limits. On reconsideration, Commission found questioned restriction capable of two reasonable interpretations. In construing motor carrier authority, consideration may properly be given to the record upon which such authority was granted and other extraneous matter if the authority is itself indefinite or patently ambiguous.-Crouch Bros., Inc. v. Byers Transportation Co., Inc., 110 M.C.C. 127 (128, 131, 132)*.

Defendant is authorized under both its original and purchased authori ties to serve St. Joseph, Mo., and points in its commercial zone. The authority granted defendant was restricted to preclude joinder with the existing regular and irregular rights of carrier at St. Joseph, Mo., for the purpose of performi a through service between Omaha, Nebr., Council Bluffs or Des Moines, Iowa, on the one hand, and, on the other, points beyond St. Joseph, Mo. Defendant has been operating between Council Bluffs and Kansas City, Kans., by tacking at a point within St. Joseph commercial zone outside the city limits of St. Joseph claiming that the restriction does not preclude such operation. On reconsidera tion, Commission found questioned restriction ambiguous on its face, and susceptible of two reasonable interpretations; on the one hand there is defendant's interpretation that the restriction against service at St. Joseph did not preclude tacking at points within St. Joseph commercial zone beyond municipal limits of that city, and on the other, the avowed purpose of restriction is included in certificate itself and is notice to the world of its intent, i.e., to preclude service between the involved points. Commission concluded that the latter construction was the one that was intended to be imposed in the purchase proceeding in order to preclude all overhead operations between the involved points.-Id., pp. 131-33.

25. Revocation of authority.—See Greyhound Lines, Inc., Ext.Grand Canyon, at $5 (2), n. 110 revocation.

30. Amendment of certificate or permit.-Petitioners herein request heavy-hauler authority based on "grandfather" claims performed by their respective predecessors and continued by petitioners. Both petitioners were competitive in the same area and both adduced same evidentiary basis for their claims but the commodity descriptions in each certificate were stated differently; although covering equivalent commodities. Petitioners' heavy-hauling operations had been unquestioned for 30 years; documentary evidence and oral testimony also confirm that heavy-hauler operations have been continuously performed since prior to the "grandfather" date. Therefore, both certificates were modified so as to reflect that each petitioner has heavy-hauler authority. Home Transp. Co., Inc.-Extension, 109 M.C.C. 137 (155-57) *.

The title and embraced proceedings arose as a result of Commission's investigation into the operations of respondent, and of a petition of respondent for clarification and modification. In the investigation proceeding, respondent was found to be engaged in unauthorized for-hire transportation under its certificate in violation of $206(a) of the act; in the modification proceeding, joint board modified alleged ambiguous term "jobsite" to mean a place at which work is in progress, about to begin, or recently terminated, involving construction or destruction of improvements to real property. Respondent's movements of shipments from docksite to damsite is clearly not a movement from one jobsite to another jobsite. The fact that the Commission's interpretation of the certificate differs from respondent's is not controlling; the Commission's expertise in these matters and its construction is controlling unless clearly erroneous, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or in contravention of some established principle of law; Commission's findings constitute a definitive declaration of what rights existed from the very beginning under the certificate and cannot be equated with modification; modification denied and cease and desist order entered.-Widing Transp., Inc., Investigation & Revocation, 110 M.C.C. 106 (107, 109, 110, 111).

above.

See also Great Northern v. Stendal Transp. and Elmer's Exp., n. 1,

35. Cessation of operations exceeding authority.—Since operations which respondent had been conducting in movement of imported iron and steel articles from docksite to a jobsite violated its certificate authorizing operations "between jobsites," they were unlawful. Contrary to carrier's argument, the certificate is not ambiguous merely because it authorized service at "jobsites"; cease and desist order entered.—Widing Transp., Inc., Investigation and Revocation, 110 M.C.C. 106 (11).

Restriction in defendant's certificate is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, and the two conflicting but plausible and rational constructions of the same certificate create sufficient doubt as to its true meaning such as to characterize the certificate itself as patently ambiguous, and upon analysis of the questioned restriction against a through service between specific points; defendant's single line, overhead operations between said points is in contravention of the restriction in its certificate and is unlawful; cease and desist order entered. -Crouch Bros., Inc. v. Byers Transportation Co., 110 M.C.C. 127 (133) *.

$212 (b). TRANSFER OF OPERATING RIGHTS

10. Transfer of operating rights, including "grandfather" rights. Though transfer of authority to transport livestock and general commodities between named Montana points was approved, and certificate issued to defendant transferree, before decision on complaint alleging unlawful operations and requesting that certificate, if transferred, be corrected to show that transportation of general commodities is not authorized between Lewistown, Great Falls, and Billings, transferree cannot contend it is an unsuspecting buyer. The complaint was filed while transfer proceeding was pending; and since transferree had full notice of issues in complaint case before the transfer