West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, over irregular routes.

By another application, No. MC-40005 (BMC-8), filed February 7, 1936, as amended, the same applicants seek a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing an extension of operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of household goods and related articles, between all points in the United States except those specified above in No. MC-40005 (BMC-1) and except Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, over irregular routes.

By the two applications, applicants seek a territory embracing all of the United States, except seven western States. Several rail carriers oppose the applications, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin intervened in opposition to the authority sought to serve Wisconsin.

Applicants and their predecessors have been engaged in the warehouse and transportation business in Springfield since 1906, the present partnership having been in existence since about 1926. Since prior to June 1, 1935, they have owned and operated three vans for the interstate transportation of household goods and also have several other motor vehicles used in intrastate and local cartage service. The incidents of these operations are separately discussed below.

In addition to their long-distance household movings, applicants have been engaged in local interstate and intrastate cartage since prior to June 1, 1935, between Springfield and points within 10 miles of Springfield. Such operations involve the handling of general commodities to and from the Springfield terminals of rail and motor carriers which operate in interstate or foreign commerce. Transportation to and from rail terminals is performed on behalf of the local shippers or consignees, and applicants are not a party to a contract or other arrangement with such rail carriers. Applicants also perform a pick-up and delivery service in Springfield and points nearby under an undisclosed arrangement with line-haul motor carriers.

Although certain of these interstate services are embraced within the provisions of sections 202 (c) (2) and 203 (b) (8) of the act and do not require issuance of authority by us, we will authorize applicants to continue the transportation of general commodities between Springfield, and points within 10 miles, in the absence of specification in the record as to the terminal areas of the line-haul motor carriers and a determination of the Springfield commercial zone. Our remaining discussion has reference to applicants' operations in the transportation of household goods.

In conducting household-goods transportation, applicants have been affiliated for many years with Allied Van Lines, Inc., hereinafter

called Allied. They became a nonhauling agent of Allied in 1928, and on May 1, 1935, a hauling agent. They have functioned as such agents continuously since. As a nonhauling agent, applicants book loads in the name of Allied, but do not perform any part of the transportation involved. For such booking, they receive a percentage of the line-haul revenue. As a hauling agent, applicants perform the actual transportation service involved and receive the greater percentage of the line-haul revenue. Prior to May 1, 1935, applicants transported household goods in their own name, on their own billing, and without use of Allied's facilities. Since that time, they have transported shipments, in their equipment, booked by them and also loads booked by other Allied agents. With very few exceptions, all movements in excess of 75 miles of Springfield have been made under Allied's billing and form of transportation contracts.

Allied, so far as the record shows, owns no motor-vehicle equipment. It functions through a general office in Chicago, Ill., a number of field or registration offices, and the offices of its agents. Through its own offices and employees, Allied answers inquiries and refers prospective shippers to its agents, provides its agents with information as to the location, movement, and availability of shipments, and, in general, attempts to obtain return loads and economical service on behalf of the agents.

Since prior to June 1, 1935, the principal transportation performed by applicants beyond 75 miles of Springfield has been under a hauling agreement between them and Allied. This agreement provides that Allied will "advertise, sell, encourage, protect, develop return loads or otherwise develop long distance moving and hauling for its agents"; that it will establish offices for the registration of orders for movings booked by agents; that it will provide facilities, service, and supervision for the efficient matching, exchange of loads, and dispatch of motive equipment; and that the "Company [Allied] agrees to turn over to the Agent orders booked by the Company and/or by other Agents, according to procedure prescribed by the Company." ." Pursuant to the agreement, applicants agree, among other things, to register all booked orders for long-distance movings of 75 miles or more with an Allied office and to turn over such loads for hauling by other agents in accordance with Allied's regulations; "to haul loads booked by the Company and/or other Agents when requested to do so by the Company, providing, however, that in the division of revenue, the Agent hauling shall be assured no less than definite minimum of per mile revenue established by the Company; and, provided, that the Agent has suitable motive equipment to do the hauling at the time required"; to paint at least one van with Allied's name, colors, and design; to carry cargo, property-damage, and public-liability in

surance in certain minimum amounts; to solicit movings and sell service in the name of Allied and on Allied's transportation contracts; and to assume all responsibility for goods entrusted to its care by Allied or other agents.

Applicants' equipment is licensed in Illinois in their own names. They hold State authority from Indiana, Connecticut, and Colorado, and similar authority is unnecessary in several States in view of reciprocity agreements between Illinois and such States. Allied's State authority has been used by applicants in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, but applicants have at least eight statements showing payment to Allied for the use of the Missouri permit issued to it. The several types of billing used on shipments transported by applicants have Allied's name printed thereon and are signed by applicants as agent. Photographs submitted of applicant's three vehicles used in their interstate movings show both applicant's and Allied's names on two units and, apparently, only Allied's name on the third. In addition to the operating arrangement between applicants and Allied based upon the agreement of May 1, 1935, as detailed above, one of the three vehicles mentioned has been used mostly in a so-called "Rover" service pursuant to an oral agreement with Allied. The drivers are employees of applicants and are paid by them. All operating expenses are paid and borne by applicants.

All traffic transported has been handled in applicants' equipment. When transporting shipments as hauling agents, or in "Rover" service, applicants have received from 60 to 75 percent of the resulting revenue. As nonhauling agent, applicants' compensation for their services has ranged from 20 to 25 percent of the charges collected on the shipments turned over to other carriers. When applicants both book and haul a shipment, they retain all transportation and other charges for services performed by them, except deductions for insurance and service charges due Allied under the agreement. Collections are made by applicants' drivers, are forwarded to applicants, and are deposited to their account. For services rendered by Allied, it receives from applicants 4 percent and upward of the total charges collected on shipments handled by them. Monthly settlements are made with Allied for its share of the revenues received and for commissions to be paid other booking agents on loads turned over to applicants.

Two primary questions thus are presented: (1) Whether applicants have been engaged in operation on June 1, 1935, and continuously since in their own right as a common carrier by motor vehicle, and (2) whether their nonhauling activities, in connection with interstate movings booked in Allied's name, constitute brokerage operations.

Motor-carrier operations within 75 miles of applicants' headquarters are specifically excluded from the hauling agreement and it is clear that these operations are part of applicants' independent service. In considering the motor-carrier operations in excess of that area, we must determine whether applicants' affiliation with Allied has been such as to cause a transfer of those basic and essential elements of direction and control of and responsibility for the operation to the shipper and the public from applicants to such an extent that they are not an independent operator in their own right.

Prior to the time applicants operated under the hauling agreement, applicants were engaged in the warehouse and transportation business, and their holding out and performance of service in their own name was known to the public. A continuing intention to keep the public advised of their own existence is evidenced by the retention of their own trade name, and we find nothing in the arrangement between them and Allied indicating the creation of a new motor-carrier entity to supplant their long-existing business. On the contrary, there is ample evidence to support the view that continuance of such established operation was intended. For example, continued ownership, operation, and maintenance of equipment and availability of operating personnel is applicants' concern; they are required to carry their own insurance; State authority could be applied for and held in their own name as shown by the record; they are required to settle claims arising from the performance of the hauling service; they agree to "assume all responsibility for the proper delivery of goods" and "carry out all reasonable service to the customer agreed to by themselves"; and the manner and means of performing the transportation rested with them. Although no single fact can be isolated and underscored as a determining feature, the arrangement as a whole does not, we believe, have for its purpose the leasing of vehicles to Allied or the transfer of control over or responsibility for the operation by any other means out of applicants' hands. Use of Allied's name and office facilities suggest employment by applicants of an additional trade designation under which applicants continued their own motor-carrier operations and, of course, a means through which information as to matched or return loads is provided. In all events, it is clear that the actual transportation service has been performed with equipment owned, operated, and controlled by applicants and that they have been fully responsible for the operations. Accordingly, we conclude that movements made by applicants in their own vehicles whether resulting from solicitation and booking arrangements in their own name or through use of Allied billing were and are those of applicants as an independent common carrier in their own right.

As indicated, applicants collect commissions of 20 and 25 percent for obtaining shipments to be transported by other hauling agents of

42 M. C. C.

Allied. In such instances, applicants solicit such interstate movings, enter into contractual arrangements with shippers for the transportation service, and register the loads with an Allied office for the procurement of a carrier to perform the service so arranged for. In entering into arrangements with shippers in the described transactions, applicants designate themselves as "agents" of Allied. Allied, however, does not itself actually perform the motor-carrier service; it merely accepts registration of the shipment and then contacts another hauling agent for performance of the transportation.

In Kedney Warehouse Co. of N. Dak. Broker Application, 33 M. C. C. 443, on facts which do not differ substantially from those in the instant proceeding, we concluded that applicant therein was not a broker under section 203 (a) (18) of the act, saying, beginning at page 445:

Applicant is an agent of Allied Van Lines, Inc., hereinafter called Allied, an association of carriers which claims to transport, or arranges for the transportation of, household goods by its members throughout the United States. Under its agreement with Allied, applicant is obligated to turn over to the latter all freight which is to be transported over 100 miles. Shorter hauls may be handled by applicant in any way it sees fit, but, as stated above, applicant has not arranged for any such transportation for some time. Upon notification by applicant that certain tonnage is available, Allied selects one of its agents or members, which may or may not be applicant, for the performance of such transportation. Applicant exercises no control whatsoever over the selection of the carrier whose services are utilized. It considers itself as a solicitor for Allied. For the obtaining of the business, applicant receives a commission of 25 percent of the transportation charge after a 4-percent fee has been deducted by Allied.

We believe that the arrangement between applicant and Allied Van Lines, Inc., whereby applicant is required to and does turn over to Allied all business which is to be transported over 100 miles, thereby relinquishing all control whatsoever over the selection of the carrier which performs the transportation, is wholly inconsistent with the claimed operations as a broker.

It is our opinion that the finding made in this case is a proper one, and that a similar conclusion is warranted here.

No. MC-40005 (BMC-1).-Applicants submitted several abstracts listing shipments of household goods transported by them. Between 1928 and June 1, 1935, operations were conducted between such points in Illinois as Springfield, Chicago, Evanston, Peoria, Ohlman, and Oak Park, on the one hand, and points in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, on the other. In addition to such radial operations, applicants also made one trip each from Baltimore, Md., to Chicago, Ill., in 1934; from Pittsburgh, Pa., to Gary, Ind., in 1929; and from Cleveland to Van Wert, Ohio, in 1932, the interstate nature of this latter trip not being evident. Based upon applicants' service in transporting household goods continuously since prior to June 1, 1935, therefore, they are entitled to a certificate authorizing such operations between