entirely of transient military personnel, applicant should be afforded the widest latitude in fulfilling its agreements with the military establishment. Therefore, authority is granted for both special and charter operations over irregular route.-D & M Taxi Co., Inc., 96 M.C.C. 439 (442, 447).

As protestants collectively are authorized to provide regular-route service at, and incidental charter service from, the major population centers of 9 of 15 Iowa or Nebraska counties where from applicant seeks charter authority, and no unwillingness or inability on their part to meet the reasonable charter transportation requirements of the traveling public in those areas is shown, no new charter service that would infringe upon protestants' operating rights should be authorized. And while the remaining 6 counties apparently have no charter service available, none appears to be needed, as the territory encompassing those counties is sparsely populated and no representative of a cohesive, homogeneous group from that area supported the application. Accordingly the authority sought for charter service must be denied.Arrow Stage Lines, Inc., Investigation and Revocation, 96 M.C.C. 572 (579-80).

Nor is there any justification for a grant of special-operations authority from the 15county area to points in the United States and ports of entry on the Canadian boundary. Supporting testimony is either highly speculative and vague or indicates merely a desire for charter service with the attendant convenience of the carrier itself collecting the money from each individual and soliciting additional customers to fill the bus. The type of special operations proposed, involving a broad territorial grant without limitation to specific events or provision of substantial accessorial services in addition to the transportation offered, would unduly encroach on services normally provided by regular-route passenger carriers and therefore would be contrary to public interest and the national transportation policy.-Id., p. 580.

However, numerous supporting witnesses desire special round-trip tour services to the New York World's Fair similar to those previously provided by applicant to the World's Fair at Seattle. As those witnesses do not comprise a complete and cohesive

group, but most of them reside in Norfolk, Nebr., or communities in reasonable proximity thereto, and protestants are not authorized to perform special round-trip tour operations from that area, nor does it appear that such service will be made available through their affiliated brokers, authority is granted applicant to conduct special roundtrip tour operations solely from Norfolk to the New York World's Fair for such period in 1965 as the Fair is open to the public.Id., p. 580.

Since proposed motor "tour" service is conducted pursuant to common arrangements with a regulated multi-State water carrier, which assembles the "tour" group and charges one fare for lunch, round-trip boat transportation, and applicant's bus transportation on Long Island, N.Y., it is a "special operation". And, although applicant has participated in providing such through transportation as a connecting carrier without appropriate authority, these tours have generated much public support, and a service such as applicant provided in the past is required if these tours are to be offered in the future. Therefore, since none of the protesting motor carriers can provide considered service and since applicant's past operations appear to have been conducted pursuant to an honest misunderstanding of the law, appropriate authority granted.Archambault, 99 M.C.C. 535 (538-40).

In view of protestant's authorized operations and insufficient evidence of record, applicant has failed to show that a public need exists for proposed extension of its special operations authority and/or for elimination of the seasonal restriction in its existing authority. No witnesses indicate a desire to travel to considered area at any time when applicant could not accommodate them under its present seasonably restricted authority and testimony as to other areas (specifically Florida, New Orleans and the west coast) is "vague" or of a "wishful variety." The report also expresses concern over applicant's dual status as a broker and common carrier, which apparently has created a situation where applicant as a broker has failed to exercise proper discretion and independent action in awarding or allocating traffic and where preferential treatment to neglect of other common carriers has result

ed. Denied.-The Gray Line, Inc., Extension, 102 M.C.C. 519 (525-6).

Proposed operations include such features as lodging, meals, tips, baggage handling, and admission to points of interest in addition to the transportation service performed; therefore, application contemplates something more than bare expeditious, point-topoint transportation and is consistent with Commission's view of what constitutes sightseeing and pleasure tour operations, citing 62 MCC 731. "Special operations" authority granted, but jurisdiction retained so that limitations may be imposed if necessary in light of decision in Ex Parte No. MC-29 (Sub-No. 1).-Eastern Massachusetts S. Ry. Co. Ext.-Tours, 103 M.C.C. 126 (129).

Applicant's proposed transportation of assembled, and preformed, groups of passengers between certain California points and location of six supporting casinos in Reno-Lake Tahoe, Nev., area, over regular and irregular routes and under flexible schedules designed to accommodate the casinos' various activities, found to be in the nature of a common carrier service similar to that provided in special or charter operations, rather than contract carriage, when proposed service would be held out to an indeterminate number of casino patrons solicited from the general public for each trip. Proposal corresponds to the type of service most appropriately covered by a grant of special operations authority, to the extent that individuals assembled into groups would be transported. However, under special operations authority alone, bona fide charter groups-also envisioned by the proposalcould not be transported; therefore, to provide for that segment of California patrons of supporting casinos, applicant is granted authority to provide special and charter party service. Gray Line Scenic Tours, Inc., 103 M.C.C. 807 (816-8)*.

Authority granted applicant to transport, in charter operations, airline crews between specified airports and New York, N.Y., and Philadelphia, Pa. The evidence establishes that flight crews will use applicant's proposed on-call service, involving transportation in 11-passenger vehicles, between considered areas and that the supporting air carriers and crew members desire singlevehicle transportation of each crew in order

to avoid separation of crew members and possible jeopardy of confidential papers and equipment, and while authority to transport a particular class of passengers is uncommon, exceptions exist, especially in the case of special and charter operations where a limited need for service has been established and the limitation can be enforced.-Salem Transp. Co. Inc., Ext.-Charter Operations, 106 M.C.C. 225 (231-2)*.

The fact that applicant operates daily with regularly scheduled departure hours does not forstall designating as "special operations" its transportation, over irregular routes, of groups of passengers in proposed commuter service by automobile.-Monarch Associates, Inc., 107 M.C.C. 277 (286)*.

Four applicants sought similar authority to transport passengers and their baggage, in special operations, beginning and ending at points in Westchester County, N.Y. and extending to points in the United States. The evidence of record indicates that the potential tour patronage from Westchester County would support the operations of only one applicant. When the number of applicants exceeds the number of carriers for which there is a need for service, we are required to evaluate the applicants and to choose which of them should be granted operating authority. Priority in time of filing similar applications, although of pertinent consideration at times, does not justify the granting of the first filed application where as here, there exists other factors weighing against this result. Manhattan (one of the four applicants) proposes to pickup and discharge passengers at those points which are most convenient for the majority of patrons of a particular tour. There is no indication that any of the other applicants are able to offer such an extensive tour service. Manhattan's proposed service will adequately provide the needed service and will alleviate the present inconvenience experienced by some tour patrons who must arrange their own transportation to and from other tour origin and termination points.-Manhattan Transit Co. Ext.-Special Operations Westchester County, N.Y., 108 M.C.C. 763 (764, 770, 771).

Applicant's proposal to transport passengers having a prior or subsequent movement

243-381 O-77-42

at Chicago, Ill., and Wisconsin points was denied because applicant's supporting evidence consists primarily of speculation and conjecture necessitating the conclusion that applicant has failed to bear its evidentiary burden. Despite the absence of opposition, an applicant must satisfy such a burden. See 100 MCC 50.-Tri-State Coach Lines, Com. Car. Applic., 110 M.C.C. 601 (608-9).

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).

15. Applicability of rules. [Vols. 11, 12, 18, 19, 21].-See also Mohawk Coach Lines, Inc., Interpretation, at $208(c), n. 16; and Salem Transp. Co. v. United States,

at $208(a), n. 30.

Charter rights that are incidental to common carrier authority and which have been conferred by operation of law without additional proof of need are not severable from underlying regular routes, and thus are distinguishable from specific charter authority issued upon proof either of need or of past "grandfather" operations. The benefits of $208(c) do not accrue unless the carrier is actually performing interstate regular route operations as authorized by its certificate.Estacada-Molala Stages, Inc.-Revocation of Certif., 118 M.C.C. 115 (123).

16. Origins. [Vols. 11-16, 18, 19, 21].-| Petitioner is authorized to perform incidental

|

Westchester County, despite rule 111(2) [established in 29 MCC 25, amended 48 MCC 521] that a common carrier may “originate * * (charter parties) within the territory served by its regular route." This rule is not susceptible of application with mathematical precision; factors considered include the terrain, density of population, proximity to other highways, operations of competing carriers and their ability to perform such service. Since the intent is to authorize operations incidental to or supplementary of regular-route service, there must be a mutuality between the two; mutuality is lacking, however, where persons in the area sought to be served in charter operations are unlikely to rely upon or use the regularroute service of the carrier in travelling to or from that area. Thus, except for along a small portion of petitioner's route, traversing the extreme northwest corner of Westchester County, petitioner does not have authority to provide considered service.— Mohawk Coach Lines, Inc., Interpretation, 103 M.C.C. 758(760-2).

The Commission has never established specific limits for the phrase "within the ter

ritory," as used in its regulations governing the origin territory of special or charter operations; exact limits must be considered

individually. And under circumstances of record defendant may originate charter service from points within 18 miles of its Evansville, Ind., to Henderson, Ky., regular route, since the area along this route is not densely populated and since area residents depend on its charter service. Furthermore, since Camp Breckinridge is within considered territory and since there is an economic relationship between the camp and Henderson, it is proper for defendant to originate charter service from Camp Breckinridge. Complainant's contention that, since the camp (a service point on its regular route) is solely within its origin territory, it cannot be within defendant's origin territory, is erroneous; the mere fact a point is on one carrier's regular route does not preclude a finding that such point is not within origin territory of another carrier's charter-party operations.—Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Evansville & O. V. Ry. Co., Inc., 105 M.C.C. 376 (378-9).

Historical Note, vol. 17—p. 13557.

[Vols. 10-15, 17-19, 21].-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 (63-5).

Commission adopted regulations requiring motorbus operators to post conspicuous public notice as to baggage liability procedures at specified points and to permit the declaration of baggage value in excess of the free allowance limitations, during specified time periods, at baggage counters and the side of the bus. Commission also instituted an investigation into the adequacy of the existing free baggage allowance limita

tion.-Limitation of Free Baggage Allowance-Greyhound, 115 M.C.C. 566 (572

77)*.

10. Property, mail etc., transported with passengers.-[Vols. 10-12, 14, 18, 19].-The primary duty of a motor carrier of passengers is to its passengers, and any transportation of property must be subordinated to their interests. Passengers carriers' authority to transport express is limited by their certificates to transportation in same vehicles with passengers, which impliedly limits their transportation of express to shipments which can be carried without disturbing the comfort and convenience of passengers or interfering with the essential qualities of common-carrier passenger service. Transportation of property by a passenger motor carrier is a special service, distinctly different from that provided by an ordinary motor carrier of property, for which commensurate compensation is required.-Continental Dispatch, Inc., 95 M.C.C. 483 (491-2).

1. Construction and interpretation. [Vols. 10-12, 14-19].-Permit issued to a motor carrier constitutes formal determination of public need for motor transportation, regardless of the availability of other modes and authorizes holder to engage in for-hire transportation by motor vehicle, not by rail or other modes, on the public highway. Motor carriers must perform their authorized services by motor vehicle unless shipment by other modes is permitted by some specific statutory exception.-Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 244 F. Supp. 955 (955)*.

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)*.

Control of shipments is determined by payment of freight charges and routing of traffic, among other less significant factors, but if both of these criteria are met, then it can reasonably be found that such a shipper controls the shipment in question. A person who does not control the routing of a shipment is not such a shipper, even though it may pay the transportation charges either directly or ultimately, and a contract carrier under contract with such a person could not transport such a shipment. Therefore, evidence that a shipper does not control the routing of a shipment is usually sufficient to rebut the presumption emanating from its payment of the transportation freight charges. Administrative Ruling No. 76, 117 M.C.C. 433 (441-2).

If a consignee controls the selection of carriers and the routing of the shipment, it controls the shipment whether such transportation is prepaid or collect. However, the mere request by a contracting shipper that a noncontracting shipper, who controls the selection of motor carriers, accommodate it by utilizing the services of a specific motor carrier does not convert control of the transportation to the contracting shipper. The determination that this is so does not modify

| existing business or carrier practices in any significant manner. Rather, that determination merely serves to clarify a situation which appears to have caused considerable confusion among contracting shippers and carriers. The Minnehan rule [that payment by a consignor does not automatically qualify him as the actual shipper of the traffic] effectively terminated the negative aspects of the payment-control situation. This presumption is still valid but can be rebutted by evidence relating to selection of the carrier and the routing of the shipment.—Id., p.442.

5. Contract carrier, in general; definitions. [Vols. 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21].-A prerequisite of contract carriage is existence of contract between carrier and shipper; such contract must be bilateral and impose specific obligations upon carrier and shipper. In addition, considered contract may be with any person who contracts with carrier and pays transportation charges or is responsible for payment of transportation charges. Consequently, it is clear that there can be no valid contract between applicant and its parent, Produce Terminal Cold Storage Company, for transportation of estimated 85-90 percent of the outbound shipments owned by customers who both pay transpor tation charge and select carrier.-Produce Terminal Trucking Co. Contract Carrier Applic., 100 M.C.C. 695 (698-99).

The remaining 10 to 15 percent of affected outbound shipments are also owned by customers who have power to select carrier and ultimately pay transportation charge. Evidence does not indicate that Storage Company is obligated by agreement with its customers to designate carrier on these shipments, but merely that it does name the carrier if requested, or if the customer fails to do so. It is doubtful, therefore, whether Storage Company could contract with applicant for transportation of this traffic.-Id., p. 699.

However, assuming that Storage Company is a "shipper" within Commission's requirements as to shipments on which it names carrier, a permit still should not be issued. Ordinarily fact applicant is a whollyowned subsidiary of shipper does not affect contract carrier relationship; but, as in 52 MCC 772, where opportunity for favoritism, discrimination, and unfair competitive prac