basis for a grant of permanent operating authority.--Gra-Bell Truck Line, Inc., Ext.--Coloma, 115 M.C.C. 872 (879-80)*.

Existing carriers: At the instigation of a petition for reconsideration filed by protestant, a prior report and order was modified to restrict applicant's authority in two States which conflicted with protestant's authority. Supporting shipper had no complaint re protestant's LTL service to the two States, and had not utilized his truckload service. Protestant should be given opportunity of meeting shipper's need before new service to same points is authorized. Applicant's petition for authority to three other States and the District of Columbia was unopposed, and granted.--Oliver Trucking Co., Inc., Ext.--Delaware, 115 M.C.C. 554 (557)*.

Existing service adequate: Applicant's petition for permanent extension of authority held on a temporary grant was denied when evidence adduced by protestants revealed supporting shipper not to have made a concerted effort to utilize other available carriers whose service to points in question was considered adequate by Commission.--Gra-Bell Truck Line, Inc., Ext.--Coloma, 115 M.C.C. 872 (879-80)*.

Fitness, in general: Questions of fitness and paramount public interest are uniquely committed to the Commission's expertise; and scope of the court's review in action to set aside Commission order granting extension authority to defendant carrier (applicant) is limited to determining whether there is warrant in the law and fact for the agency's action. Plaintiffs' claim that the applicant's failure to produce evidence of its ability to comply with Commission rules and regulations makes it per se unfit, and mandates a remand, is not in harmony with realities of the case. Compliance with operating regulations was not in issue before the Commission, as the carrier was merely seeking enlargement of its existing authority; applicant produced evidence from which a conclusion could properly be drawn that it was not unfit financially; and in making the basic finding of fitness, the Commission considered question of regulation compliance though it was not seriously in issue. Furthermore, the court finds no prejudicial departure from provisions of the law that requires remand of the case for further consideration. Complaint dismissed.--St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. United States, 326, F. Supp. 938 (940, 943)*.

Household goods: Applicant has presented sufficient evidence of past good faith operations and indicating support of shippers who have utilized its services, in accord with findings in Kingpak, 103 M.C.C. 318, to warrant grant of authority to transport household goods.--Panda Transport, Inc., Extension--Baltimore, Md., 114 M.C.C. 75 (78-79)*.

Interchange: Application for extended common carrier general commodity authority to Jacksonville, Fla., was based on 5 years of difficulties in applicant's interchanging Florida traffic generated on its system. Connecting carriers were reluctant to enter into or maintain joint and through rates, insisted on premium divisions as price for continuing joint rates, and refused to exchange trailers or to pay rental for applicant's trailers.

Authority granted.--Overnite Transp. Co. Ext.--Jacksonville, Fla., 115 M.C.C. 718 (725)*.

Past operations: Defendant (applicant) operated from 1946 under a "special equipment" authority, transporting iron and steel articles on specially designed flat-bed trailers. In 1959, Commission held in 79 M.C.C. 335 that such flat-bed trailers should not be classified as special equipment. Applicant applied for, and was issued, a new certificate authorizing it to transport iron and steel articles to the same points, since its past operation had been conducted openly under a misinterpretation of its authority and since public need was shown for the continuance of the operation. equities are on the side of defendant: Commission changed the rules in a proceeding to which defendant was not a party, converting a 20-year lawful operation into one unlawful. Three-judge district courts often hold that the Commission can consider in a proper set of circumstances long-continued and successful past operations of an applicant in determining present or future public convenience and necessity. Sustained.--Allard Express, Inc. v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 171 (172-74)*.

In competing carriers' suit to enjoin and set aside Commission order granting extension authority to defendant carrier, the question of past violations bears equally on issues of public convenience and necessity as well as fitness; however, illegality of past willful operations does not ipso facto a grant of a certificate. The Commission carefully considered past violations of defendant carrier (applicant) and admonished it to cease such operations; and in an investigation proceeding, 112 M.C.C. 228, it was found that applicant's violations in 1967 were not willful and did not warrant a suspension of authority. Also, there is evidence of record in instant case, other than that based on applicant's operations beyond commodity scope of its certificate, supporting Commission finding of public convenience and necessity which consisted of shippers' testimony of need for proposed service. The Commission made the basic statutory finding of public convenience and necessity; and the finding of need is supported by subsidiary findings which are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Complaint dismissed.-St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 938 (942-43)*.

Public need: On the basis of public need, a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing operation as a common carrier was granted to an agricultural cooperative for transportation of general commodities, including explosives, for the Department of Defense.--American Farm Lines Common Carrier Application, 114 M.C.C. 30 (41-42).

On reconsideration, unrestricted authority to transport the involved commodities from Philadelphia, Pa., granted as evidence of 7 supporting shippers was representative of total existing need to warrant a broader grant of origin authority in place of the previous grant restricted to supporting shippers only. --Weiss Transportation Co. Extension--Delaware, 114 M.C.C. 70 (72)*.

Railroad service considered: Existing rail services are not designed to meet supporting shipper's need for expedited, multi-point deliveries, and the record amply establishes that the shipper requires motor carriage as an additional mode of transportation. Authority granted.-Pulley Freight Lines, Inc., Extension--Compounds, 115 M.C.C. 106 (109-10)*.

28. Change in route; alternate route.

Elimination of gateway: To allow motor carriers to ignore the routing and gateway limitations in their operating authorities and thus to provide totally new motor services for which no public need had been established, would be to largely negate the certificate and permit requirements of the Act. However, if a proposed substitute service bears a reasonable relationship to the authorized service for which it is substituted, and if the proposed substitution would not affect the carrier's competitive situation, it is permissible.-Wold Storage & Transfer, Inc. v. Alaska Transfer, Inc., 115 M.C.C. 288 (291-93).

30. Extension of operations.--Applicant's petition for extended authority granted to three States and the District of Columbia, but refused to two States on basis of protestant's evidence of adequate available service.--Oliver Trucking Co., Inc., Ext.--Delaware, 115 M.C.C. 554 (557)*.

36. Operations by and with water carriers.--Complainants sought intervention of Commission based on alleged violation of $203(c). Defendant had substituted water for motor transportation when it was no longer possible to utilize ferry service. Complaint dismissed.--Wold Storage & Transfer, Inc. v. Alaska Transfer, Inc., 115 M.C.C. 288 (292).

$208(a). TERMS AND SPECIFICATION OF ROUTES, TERMINI; EXTENSION OF ROUTES; RESTRICTION ON ADDITIONS TO EQUIPMENT

2. Construction and interpretation.--Commission's power to attach terms, conditions, and limitations to certificates conferred by $208(a) is exceptionally broad and provides Commission with jurisdiction to promulgate regulations as regards smoking on interstate buses.--Smoking on Interstate Buses, 114 M.C.C. 256 (260-64).

Shippers' expressed requirements for complete, expeditious, singleline service, particularly as involves LTL shipments, should not become a gimmick whereby a preferred applicant may obtain authority merely by the naming of some points not adequately served by existing carriers. It becomes an important query in such circumstances whether the Commission should sanction grants of unrestricted authority when such grants may result in actual service less than that expected, and, in effect, result in a certificate being issued on the result of a false premise. On the other hand, shippers who support an application should be able to rely upon the actual development and continuance of the type of service promised by applicant. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to require applicant, who has been successful in obtaining authority on the basis of its proposal to tailor its service to the needs of the small shipment shipper, to report to the Commission in an annual "Performance Report" its success in meeting the shippers' requirements.--Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., Extension, 115 M.C.C. 416 (428).

$208(c).

TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIAL OR CHARTER PARTIES

1. Construction and interpretation.--Commission prescribed regulations limiting smoking on interstate buses engaged in regular route, special

operations to a maximum of 20 percent of the total seating capacity of such buses as smoking was found to be a substantial nuisance and a possible health hazard.--Smoking on Interstate Buses, 114 M.C.C. 256 (264-67).

10. Special or charter party operation.--Where applicant and affiliated broker may already perform substantially the same service under combination broker-charter authority, application for special operations authority granted upon proof that (a) applicant is participating in substantial lawful operations within the territory sought to be served, (b) that some benefit will accrue to applicant in the form of more economical or efficient operation, but (c) that any such benefit will not be so great as to amount to the institution of a new service, not previously available, and competitive with existing services. Further, any such grant of special operations authority will be conditioned upon receipt of request for cancellation of that portion of the affiliate's broker license which duplicates authority granted here. The latter condition is imposed in conformity with established Commission policy not to grant authority to allow a carrier to perform operations that may already be performed under existing laws or regulations.-Greyhound Lines, Inc., Ext.--Special Operations, 115 M.C.C. 82 (89, 90).

$208(d). TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE, NEWSPAPERS, EXPRESS, OR MAIL

1. Construction and interpretation.--Commission herein prescribed tentative regulations requiring interstate bus operators to provide clear and adequate public notice as to their free allowance on the valuation of baggage and all procedures and charges required for valuation of baggage in excess of their free allowance. Carriers are also required to provide adequate opportunity and facilities for passengers to ensure proper valuation of their baggage.--Limitation of Free Baggage Allowance--Greyhound, 114 M.C.C. 56

(63-65).

$209 (a)(1). CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE; PERMIT ESSENTIAL TO OPERATION, ETC.

New and Extended Operations

25.

Necessity, demand, for service, in general.--In suit to enjoin and set aside Commission order granting defendant carrier, that had served an explosives shipper from three origins for 32 years, a permit to serve same shipper from three other origins to points in 41 of its 43 authorized States, the evidence concerning number of shippers to be served, nature of proposed service, effect that grant of the permit would have on protesting carriers and that denial would have on applicant and/or its shipper, and changing character of shipper's requirements, supported the Commission conclusion that the application should be approved. On review, the record shows that the Commission followed the five criteria which $209 (b) requires it to consider; and that there is substantial evidence to support its finding as to each separate criterion and its ultimate conclusion on the application. Therefore, the Commission's decision that issuance of the permit in question would be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy is supported by substantial evidence; complaint dismissed.--C. I. Whitten Transfer Co. v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 1120 (1123-26)*.

18. Burden of proof.--Where the record lacks evidence of the volumes to be moved from and to the respective origin and specified destination points, such record prevents the proper framing of authority to applicant responsive to the supporting shipper's needs and is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements necessary to sustain a grant of authority.--Yelle # Contract Carrier Application, 115 M.C.C. 408 (413)*.

25. Hearing, generally.-No oral hearing is required in contract I carrier application proceeding where there is no material dispute of fact. In instant case, plaintiffs (protestants in Commission proceeding) allege I there was "a material issue or a discrepancy of the facts;" however, the mere assertion that supporting shipper of explosives had no need for multiple pickup service, supported by no positive and little negative evidence, did s not produce a material dispute of fact when the need for such service had à been shown by applicant's actual operations on behalf of the shipper, as well as by the shipper's statement. Therefore, the Commission's refusal to grant an oral hearing on the application was not error; complaint dismissed.-C. I. Whitten Transfer Co. v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 1120 (1121-23)*.

30. Conditions imposed; scope of operations.--Citing Kirkland, € 61 M.C.C. 691 (1953), it has been consistently held that a broker, although limited by the terms of his license to doing business at a particular location, may nevertheless solicit business and interview prospective patrons, : either himself or through agents at other points, provided that the actual brokerage contract is entered into or executed at his authorized place of business. That is, the parties must mutually sign the contract at that specific point. The reason is that a need for brokerage services at other points has not been shown. The defendant was therefore issued an order to cease and desist from the practice of contracting tours through unauthorized agents at points other than Dallas, Tex.--Trails West, Inc. v. Continental Trailways, Inc., 115 M.C.C. 269 (273-76)*.

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

1. Construction and interpretation.--The rule of the last antecedent, adopted in T. I. McCormack, 89 M.C.C. 5, 102 M.C.C. 577, and 110 M.C.C. 499, does not apply in the interpretation of respondent's authority, since application of the rule would require interpreting the certificate to entail a grant to transport the almost limitless commodity of "raw material," and such an interpretation does violence to logic, grammar, experience, established practice, and common sense. Therefore, all commodities named in the sentence in question are modified by the phrase "used in the manufacture of piece goods," rather than only the immediately preceding commodity named.-Skyline Transport, Inc.--Investigation & Revocation, 115 M.C.C. 807 (823-24).

Respondent's authority to transport store, restaurant, and bar fixtures and equipment does not include authority to transport generally manufactured displays, not specifically intended for use in bars, restaurants, or stores. Therefore, respondent's transportation of displays, display