application by adding Scottsbluff and Bridgeport as destination points in Nebraska. Applicant proposes to conduct the operation over U S. Highways 26 and 87, a distance of about 225 miles. The transport unit will move empty from applicant's headquarters in Nebraska to Casper.

Applicant operates a service station at Bayard and has purchased the ground at Bridgeport on which he intends to build another station. He is receiving his supply of petroleum products from Casper by railroad and testified that the service is ordinarily very good. He referred to one instance when a car was delayed and left him without any gasoline to sell. At one time applicant received part of his supply by motor transport, but the unit burned and was not replaced by the operator. That was in 1936. Applicant then commenced shipping by another petroleum transporter, but this operator now hauls only crude oil from Parco, Wyo., to Chadron, Nebr. Applicant testified that he did not know of any available transporter that could serve him from Casper.

Applicant sells a branded product at his service station that can conveniently be obtained only from Casper. He and his brother intend to purchase a transport unit and conduct a private operation to the service station at Bayard and to Bridgeport when a service station is built. He was of the opinion that this operation would not require the full time of the transport. In order to make the operation profitable, he proposes to haul for anyone in Bayard, Bridgeport, or Scottsbluff when it is necessary to keep the transport busy. His primary consideration is supplying his own service stations. Applicant testified that one service-station operator at Bayard had asked him to render service in emergencies, if he secured a certificate. He did not know of any other person that would possibly use his service.

No shipper appeared in support of the application, nor did any competent witness testify that there was a public need for applicant's service at any of the destinations for which application is made.

Applicant's reason for starting the proposed service is that he can obtain much speedier service by motor transport than he gets by rail and can eliminate one handling of the petroleum products. If transport is used, the products can be dumped directly into the tank at the service station, which is located at some distance from the bulk storage plant located on the railroad right-of-way.

The mere desire of an applicant to promote his private business is not a sufficient reason for granting a certificate or permit. Applicant can haul petroleum products to his own service stations for sale to the public without a permit or certificate, since that is a pri

vate operation not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, except as to certain provisions of section 204 of the act.

The joint board finds that present and future public convenience and necessity do not require the service proposed by applicant covering the transportation of petroleum products in bulk as a common carrier, as hereinbefore described, from Casper to Bayard, Bridgeport, or Scottsbluff. The application is denied.

It is recommended that the appended order be entered.

9 M. C. C.

No. MC-89192

RAY BADMAN CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided August 11, 1938

Operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of canned vegetables, from points in Williams County, Ohio, to various points in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and of empty tin cans, from Elwood, Ind., and Clearing, Ill., to points in Williams County, Ohio, over irregular routes, found consistent with the public interest and with the policy declared in section 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935. Permit granted.

Richard A. Lindermann for applicant.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, SPLAWN, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5:

On July 22, 1938, the following recommended report and a recommended order appended thereto, filed with us by the examiner, were served on the parties. No exceptions to the order have been filed, and, not having been stayed or postponed by us, it has become effective as our order.

REPORT AND ORDER RECOMMENDED BY THE EXAMINER

By application filed May 23, 1938, Ray Badman, of Bryan, Ohio, seeks a permit authorizing operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of canned vegetables, from canneries located in Williams County, Ohio, to various points in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and of empty tin cans, from Elwood, Ind., and Clearing, Ill., to canneries in Williams County, Ohio, over irregular routes.

It appearing, upon investigation of the matters involved in the application, that no hearing in respect thereof might be necessary, the application was referred to the examiner for appropriate proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935.

Applicant has been engaged in business as a motor carrier for the past 10 months under Ohio permit No. 1522, authorizing intrastate movements only. His prior experience consists of driving for other motor carriers, in interstate and intrastate commerce, from 1929 to 1937 when he secured his Ohio permit and started his own business

thereunder. He now hauls intrastate under written contracts for the Kruse Cannery Company, Franks Cannery Company, Bryan Cannery Company, and Fayette Canning Company, all located in Williams County, Ohio. Applicant proposes to transport in interstate or foreign commerce canned vegetables for the canneries named above and several other canneries located in the same county, and to transport empty tin cans from manufacturers located at Elwood, Ind., and Clearing, Ill., to the canneries. Bilateral contracts can and will be secured by applicant from each shipper if the authority requested be granted.

The filing of the application was prompted by requests of the shippers that applicant secure the necessary authority to enable them to utilize his specialized service for deliveries to points in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. The cannery business is highly competitive, and flexibility of motor-carrier service is necessary, in many instances, to meet competition and to effect prompt deliveries. A transportation service is also desired that will eliminate as many different handlings as possible in transporting the merchandise from the factories or canneries to the seller's place of business. Cans bent in transit or otherwise enhance the hazard of spoilage. This is an item of importance to all canneries. Motor-carrier service has been found advantageous in this respect. Should the canneries be unable to employ a contract carrier, they propose to purchase their own equipment and haul their own merchandise. The shippers use rail service for some of their shipments, where practicable. If it be necessary to provide their own motor transportation, it is stated, the canneries will use rail service only when absolutely necessary, as it will be more desirable for each shipper to haul all his products possible in order to reduce the cost of private service and to protect his investment. Rail service is available for most of the canneries, but it appears that two canneries in Williams County have no rail service at their plants.

Applicant owns six units of new equipment. While the greater demand for transportation arises between July 1 and December 1, owing to the fact that this is the time the canneries are in full operation, there will be a demand for transportation service throughout the year. There seems to be no question as to applicant's qualifications, financial or otherwise. He has successfully operated for the past 10 months in Ohio, and his service to the canneries has been entirely satisfactory, as is evidenced by their desire to extend his specialized service to other States.

No protest against the granting of the application has been filed. It appears that there is no direct motor competition involved and that the operation would not be contrary to the public interest.