savings does not warrant a grant of authority in the absence of a showing of inadequacy in available joint-line services. Moreover, a grant to applicant would adversely affect protestants. Denied.--Poole Truck Line, Inc., Extension--Pensacola, 117 M.C.C. 1 (6-7)*. 28. Change in route; alternate route. Change in route, in general: Inasmuch as the implied authorization under the "intermediate-point service" provision of the Superhighway Rules to serve points on the superhighway and connecting highways is specific in nature service is permitted at all portions of the commercial zones of such "on highway" points, including those portions of the commercial zones of such points which extend beyond 1 airline-mile of the superhighway and connecting highways The authorization to serve points within 1 airline-mile of the superhighway an connecting highways represents, in part, an acknowledgment that superhighways are often constructed around rather than through major traffic centers, and that in many instances an "on superhighway" authorization would fail to confer effective operating rights.--Property Motor Carrier Superhighway Rules, 117 M.C.C. 119 (150). The requirement under the "25-mile" rule of the Superhighway Rules that the superhighway route (including the highways connecting such superhighway route with the carrier's authorized underlying regular service route) between the point of departure from and the point of return to the carrier's authorized underlying service be "wholly within 25 airline-miles of the author ized regular service route" means that every point on the superhighway route must be within 25 airline-miles of the authorized service route, and, at the same time, every point on the authorized service route must be within 25 airline-miles of the superhighway route.--Id. (150). The "intermediate-point service" provision under the "25-mile" rule of the Superhighway Rules is not to be construed to permit a carrier to serve points within a 50 mile radius of the superhighway (25 miles on each side), either separately, or in conjunction with the other provisions of the "25-mile" rule. The "25-mile" rule is limited by the very terms of the "intermediate-point service" provision to points which are on and within 1 airline-mile of the superhighway (and "connecting" highway).--Id. (150-51). Operations by and with railroads.--Commission, citing Rock Island, 63 M.C.C. 91, approved authority sought herein by applicant, a rail motor common carrier affiliate, without restrictions limiting its service to operations supplementary to rail service as "special circumstances" were found to exist because of failure of independent motor carriers to provide a full common carrier service to their authorized points for which an existing public need has been shown.--Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co. Ext.-Dallas & Fort Worth, 114 M.C.C. 321 (345). 35. Unrestricted authority granted as "special circumstances" clearly establish that such grant will not result in undue restraint of competition, and public interest requires proposed operation, which the authorized independent motor carriers have not furnished, except where and when it suited their convenience.-Id., 114 M.C.C. 321 (345). 208 (a). TERMS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ROUTES, TERMINI; EXTENSION OF ROUTES; 2. Construction and interpretation.--From the inception of Federal otor carrier regulation the Commission has used three separate, distinct, nd mutually exclusive terminologies to authorize irregular-route trucking perations [106 M.C.C. 1, 26, and 27]. These are the simple and selfxplanatory "from and to" description, and the radial and nonradial "between" escriptions. A radial description depicts operations between a base point nd other points in a described area; employs the language "between ***, n the one hand, and, on the other, * * *;" and is limited to the transportaion of traffic from and to the base point or points. In contrast, a nonradial rant which is described in terms of service "between * * * and * * * authorzes operations between all points within the described area. -Hilt Truck ine, Inc.-Investigation of Operations, 117 M.C.C. 9 (23-24). 208(b). DEVIATION FROM ROUTES 1. Construction and interpretation.--See Property Motor Carrier Superhighway Rules, $208 (b), n. 5. 5. Regulations governing.--Inasmuch as the implied authorization under the "intermediate-point service" provision of the Superhighway Rules to serve points on the superhighway and connecting highways is specific in nature, service is permitted at all portions of the commercial zones of such 'on highway" points, including those portions of the commercial zones of such points which extend beyond 1 airline-mile of the superhighway and connecting highways. The authorization to serve points within 1 airline-mile of the superhighway and connecting highways represents, in part, an acknowledgment hat superhighways are often constructed around rather than through major raffic centers, and that in many instances an "on superhighway" authorization would fail to confer effective operating rights.--Property Motor Carrier Superhighway Rules, 117 M.C.C. 119 (150). The requirement under the "25-mile" rule of the Superhighway Rules that the superhighway route (including the highways connecting such superhighway route with the carrier's authorized underlying regular service route) between the point of departure from and the point of return to the carrier's authorized underlying service be "wholly within 25 airline-miles of the authorized regular service route" means that every point on the superhighway route must be within 25 airline-miles of the authorized service route, and, at the same time, every point on the authorized service route must be within 25 airline-miles of the superhighway route.--Id., pp. 150. The "intermediate-point service" provision under the "25-mile" rule of the Superhighway Rules is not to be construed to permit a carrier to serve points within a 50 mile radius of the superhigway (25 miles on each side), either separately, or in conjunction with the other provisions of the "25-mile" rule. The "25-mile" rule is limited by the very terms of the "intermediate-point service" provision to points which are on and within 1 airline-mile of the superhighway (and "connecting" highway).--Id. (150-51). $208 (c). TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIAL OR CHARTER PARTIES 1. Construction and interpretation.--Although passenger carrier's application for extension of its authority was not accompanied by the full $200 filing fee required when it reached the Commission on December 19, 1966, and remaining $150 of the fee was transmitted after January 1, 1967, it was within the Commission's power to regard the application as filed before January 1, 1967, within the meaning of 1966 amendment to $208 (c) which limits the automatic grant of charter rights to applications filed "on or before January 1, 1967."--Blue Bird Coach Lines, Inc. v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 1331 (1333, Note)*. 3. Definitions.--Notwithstanding apparently contrary conclusions in Whitman, 47 M.C.C. 737 (1948), the provision of a vehicle for the exclusive use of the group which hires it, and charging a flat rate per vehicle vis-a-vis a per-passenger rate, are not sufficient to make the operation a "charter." To determine whether a particular group is sufficiently cohesive to be lawfully transported by a carrier holding charter authority the community of interest standard is applied (Edwards, 100 M.C.C. 453) (1956).--Airfield Service Co. Ext.--Charter Operations, 117 M.C.C. 165 (169-70)*. 4. Evidence.--Applicant, in support of its contention that the proposed service is required by the public convenience and necessity, relied a most exclusively on past operations assertedly performed under the mistaken belief that they were exempt. No user testimony was adduced, and the supporting witnesses--five airlines and an airport facilities operator--merely refer requests for service to applicant. Application denied.--Airfield Service Co. Ext.--Charter Operations, 117 M.C.C. 165 (169)*. $209 (a) (1). 1. CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE; PERMIT ESSENTIAL TO OPERA- Construction and interpretation.--That a contract carrier utilized the services of a broker, dealer, and agent not authorized by its permit does not constitute unlawful operation, so long as the carrier entered into a contract only with the shipper named in its permit, did so to serve a purpose of the contracting shipper, and the contracting shipper guaranteed payment of freight charges.--P.C.M. Trucking, Inc., Extension-Allentown, Pa., 117 M.C.C. 201 (206)*. 25. Necessity, demand, for service, in general. Common Denied: Shipper fails to demonstrate the nature of its manufacturing and/or distribution activities requiring a dedicated service. carriers now available can dedicate equipment to exclusive use of shipper, a legally acceptable service as long as they are willing to do so for other shippers, and are able directly or through interlining to provide multiple stopoff service. Denied.--Kerr Contract Carriage, Inc., Contr. Car. Applic., 115 M.C.C. 862 (869-71). 34. Extension of operations.--The number of applicant's outstanding contracts (6), detracts somewhat from the strength of its presentation, t standing alone or in conjunction with any possible minor effect on prostant does not warrant denial of application. It was clearly established at the supporting shipper's distinct transportation needs can best be tisfied by applicant.--Prang Trucking Co., Inc., Ext.--New Brunswick, N.J., 7 M.C.C. 38 (48)*. 09(b). APPLICATION FOR PERMIT; FORM, ETC. 20. Evidence; admissibility.--Evidentiary standards for establishg prima facie case include requirement that applicant show "any deficiencies existing service" in initial verified statement [103 M.C.C. 555, 558]. en applicant failed in its duty of submitting specific evidence of service ficiencies in its initial statement, but presented such specific evidence its rebuttal statement, protestant (by rule of practice 23, prohibiting ling of a reply to a reply) was unfairly prevented from presenting an adeate defense. Rebuttal statements cannot be used to introduce new evidence t referred to in initial statements but must be confined to answering points ised by protestants in their reply statements. Motion to strike evidence in buttal granted.--Kerr Contract Carriage, Inc., Contr. Car. Applic., 115 M.C.C. 2 (866). 10. DUAL OPERATION 3. Discrimination resulting from dual operation.--Applicant's ternate request to retain part of its contract carrier authority in a conrsion proceeding denied because approval of such request create a situation I which applicant could employ discriminatory practices prohibited by $210 of e Act inasmuch as applicant could transport similar commodities in same rritory as both a common and contract carrier.-Cleveland General Transport, ., Inc., Conversion, 114 M.C.C. 536 (546). 1. Construction and interpretation.--The Commission was unable to nd satisfactory evidence to establish an immediate and urgent need for serve which could not be met by existing carriers, and such evidence is staturily required for the issuance of emergency temporary authority. Applicant s found to seek to restructure an existing service rather than to institute needed service. Denied.--REA Express, Inc., Application for ETA, 117 M.C.C. I (87, 90). 11(b). ISSUANCE OF BROKER LICENSE 3. Applications, generally; parties; notice.--Applicant's petition r operation as broker denied on following bases: failure to establish fitss, willingness, or ability to perform the proposed service (including nancial inadequacy); proposals by applicant appear to be needlessly duplitive of existing service; and applicant's relationship with common carriers. : has long been held by Commission that common directorates and common ownerip between a broker and a motor carrier of passengers would deprive the oker of the unrestrained independence of judgment which is required of a oker in order that he may provide the best and most economical services available. Albright, 83 M.C.C. 406 (1960). Applications granted in exceptio to such relationships were generally unopposed and approved after establishment of public interest.--Gray Line National Tours Corp. Broker Application, 114 M.C.C. 914 (921-23). 4. Public interest, in general.--See Gray Lines National Tours Corp. Broker Application at $211(b), n. 3. 10. Hearings; evidence.--The division granted a motion to strike the testimony of more than 30 witnesses for whom no certifications of support had been filed. This proceeding was handled under special rules of procedure and at a prehearing conference applicant had specifically agreed to submit certifications. The rule in Carolina Transit Lines, Cam. Car. Applic., 111 M.C.C. 630 (1970), did not apply because (1) applicant did not show it was unaware of the interests of these witnesses when it prepared its initial statement regarding support, and (2) the witnesses themselves were not members of the traveling public, but rather were professional travel agents whose interests are generally fixed and who should be familiar with the requirements of testifying in support. The Carolina case cannot be viewed as an open-ended invitation to secrete witnesses and spring them on unsuspecting protestants.--Gray Line National Tours Corp. Broker Application. 114 M.C.C. 914 (917-18). §212(a). SUSPENSION, CHANGE, REVOCATION, AND TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES, PERMITS, AND LICENSES 1. Construction and interpretation.--Where the Commission, in issuing motor carrier certificate, intended to include all authority applied for and the carrier's outstanding authority, any other interpretation would be invalid, and limits of the grant are not clearly defined, authority granted should be interpreted as intended. Accordingly, when the Commission combined two such authorities and issued the carrier a certificate to operate "between Centre, Ala., and Atlanta, Ga., serving all intermediate points between Centre, Ala., and Rome, Ga., including Rome," as intended, the certificate conferred authority to transport cargo (1) between Centre and Rome and (2) between Centre and Atlanta, provided that (a) cargo originated in Atlanta go directly to Centre before being delivered to intermediate points between Centre and Rome (including Rome), (b) cargo terminating in Atlanta come directly from Centre, and (c) cargo originating at points intermediate to Centre and Rome (including Rome) destined for Atlanta is transported first to Centre and then directly to Atlanta.--Georgia Highway Exp., Inc. v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 906 (911-12)*. 30. Amendment of certificate or permit.--Respondent's petition for modification of "grandfather" authority to transport stock in trade of drugstores, on basis of ambiguity, denied, since respondent introduced no evidentiary justification for enlarging the authority to general commodities and no ambiguity was present.--North Central Truck Lines, Inc., Invest. & Revoca., 117 M.C.C. 180 (192). 35. Cessation of operations exceeding authority.--Respondent's refusal to operate within the limits of its authority to transport "stock |