broker as defined by section 203(a)(18) of part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, if the bus transportation is performed wholly within a single State, even though the tour includes air transportation to a point outside of the origin State and return. Notice of the filing of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1975. A representation in support of the relief sought was filed by Greyhound Lines, Inc. The filing of the considered petition was prompted by a letter from a district supervisor of this Commission indicating that it was his opinion that an agent which makes a common arrangement (complete package tour) for passengers by bus between Green Bay and Mitchell Field, when those passengers have a prior or subsequent movement by air in interstate commerce, must hold a brokerage license as required by section 211(a) of the act. The district supervisor's letter was later supported, upon petitioner's request therefor, by an informal opinion from this Commission's headquarter's staff that the travel agents required a brokerage license from this Commission. Wisconsin-Michigan Coaches filed the present petition for the purpose of seeking a formal ruling on the matter. THE PLEADINGS Petitioner asserts that the bus transportation from Wisconsin origins to Mitchell Field is an intrastate movement since no common arrangement is made between it and the air carriers, citing Motor Transp. of Passengers Incidental to Air, 95 M.C.C. 526, 536 (1964), and Archambault Common Carrier Application, 99 M.C.C. 535, 539 (1965). Section 203(a)(18) of the act provides, in pertinent part, that a broker "means any person not included in the term 'motor carrier' and not a bona fide employee or agent of any carrier, who or which, as principal or agent, sells or offers for sale any transportation subject to this part **." Section 211 of the act provides that no person shall for compensation sell or offer for sale transportation subject to this part unless such person holds a broker's license issued by the Commission to engage in such transportation. Therefore, petitioner contends that since the bus. transportation is intrastate in nature it is not subject to part II of the act, and consequently travel agents arranging for such bus transportation need not be licensed as brokers by this Commission. *** Greyhound's arguments are essentially the same as those of petitioner. It asserts that the transportation service provided by Wisconsin-Michigan is intrastate in nature and as such is not subject to part II of the act. Therefore, agents selling that portion of the application service assertedly do not require a broker's license from this Commission. Additionally, it asserts that if a contrary decision is reached it will have the effect of converting certain intrastate carriers to interstate carriers requiring certification from this Commission. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act applies, as pertinent, to the transportation of passengers or property by motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and to the procurement of and the provision of facilities for such transportation. See section. 202(a) of the act. The question of whether the motor transportation of passengers between an airport and a point in the same State is interstate commerce when those passengers have an immediately prior or subsequent interstate movement by air was dealt with in Motor Transp. of Passengers Incidental to Air, supra at 536. In that proceeding the Commission affirmed numerous past decisions and found that a motor carrier of passengers operating wholly within a State, selling no through tickets, and having no common arrangements with connecting out-of-State carriers is not engaged in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of the intentions of any passengers to continue or complete an interstate journey. See also Midwest Transp., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 98 M.C.C. 362 (1965), Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. Allen, 99 M.C.C. 1, 4 (1965), Portland Airport-Petition For Declaratory Order, 118 M.C.C. 45, 47 (1973), and Yellow Cab of Boca Raton, Inc. v. U. S. et al, 42 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1974). It is, thus, clear that the service to be performed by petitioner motor carrier is intrastate in nature. While those passengers traveling to Mitchell Field ultimately journey to a point outside of Wisconsin, that portion of the service provided by WisconsinMichigan is performed only within Wisconsin, does not involve the selling or honoring of through tickets by the carrier and does not involve a common arrangement between the motor carrier and connecting out-of-State air carriers. Since the service to be provided by petitioner described is in intrastate rather than interstate or foreign commerce, it is not within the purview of part II of the act. Insofar as brokerage operations are concerned, a broker is defined in section 203(a)(18) of the act as any person who sells or offers for sale transportation subject to part II of the act. Section 211 prohibits such a sale or offering unless the person holds a brokerage license from the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is no requirement that broker authority be held by those persons arranging transportation solely by rail, water, and air lines, inasmuch as those modes of transportation are not covered by part II of the act. Portland Van & Storage Co. Broker Application, 9 M.C.C. 731, 733 (1938), and Western N. Y. Motor Lines, Inc., Applic.—Brokerage License, 10 M.C.C. 419, 420 (1938). Similarly, broker authority is not required for those persons arranging motor. transportation by carriers not subject to the licensing provisions of part II of the act. Clendenin Broker Application, 29 M.C.C. 568, 570 (1941), Fulwiler v. Lester, 46 M.C.C. 491, 495-496 (1946), and Practices of Property Brokers, 49 M.C.C. 277, 288-289 (1949). Significantly, if no license is required to arrange exempt interstate transportation which is subject to part II of the act insofar as "qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation or standards of equipment" are concerned, then certainly no license is required to arrange intrastate transportation which is not subject to part II of the act for any purpose. It is of no import that the tours described are, considered as a whole, in interstate or foreign commerce, since the jurisdiction of this Commission over brokerage activities is not defined in such terms. Inasmuch as the passenger service provided by Wisconsin-Michigan, the motor carrier, is intrastate in nature, and no other interstate motor transportation is involved, we, therefore, conclude that a broker's license issued by this Commission is not required by those persons arranging such passenger tours as described above. FINDINGS We find that a travel agent arranging a passenger tour involving both bus and air transportation is not a broker as defined by section. 203(a)(18) of the act if the bus transportation is performed wholly within a single State, does not involve the selling or honoring of through tickets by the motor carrier, and does not involve common arrangements between the motor carrier and connecting out-ofState air carriers, even though a portion of the tour involves interstate air travel; that this decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and that this proceeding should be discontinued. An appropriate order will be entered. No. MC-129413 (SUB-NO. 10) C. B. TRANSPORTATION, INC., EXTENSION-ANIMAL FEED Decided March 26, 1976 Upon reconsideration, findings in prior order (not printed), decided January 22, 1974, reversed. Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of specified commodities from, to, and between described points, subject to specified restrictions. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. Patrick E. Quinn for applicant. William L. Fairbank, James B. Hovland, Charles E. Johnson, and Gene P. Johnson for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 1, ACTING AS AN APPELLATE DIVISION, COMMISSIONERS GRESHAM, Commissioner: By application filed February 20, 1973, as amended, C. B. Transportation, Inc., of Sioux City, Iowa, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, (A) of dry animal and poultry feeds (except urea), dry animal and poultry feed ingredients (except urea), and animal and poultry health aids, in bag and in bulk (except in bulk, in tank vehicles), (1) from the plantsites of Corn Belt Supply Co., Inc. (Corn Belt), Murphy Products Co., Inc. (Murphy), and Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Feed Division (Nutrena), located at Sioux City, Iowa, to points in Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri (except points in Missouri within the St. Louis, Mo., commercial zone), Illinois (except points in Illinois within the St. Louis, Mo., commercial zone, points in Illinois within the Chicago, Ill., commercial zone, and points in Lake, DuPage, Cook, Will, Kane, and Kendall Counties, Ill., and points in McHenry County, Ill., on and east of Illinois Highway 23, points in Grundy County, Ill., on and east of Illinois Highway 47 and on and north of Illinois Highway 113, and points in Kankakee County, Ill., on and north of Illinois Highway 17), Colorado, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and North Dakota; (2) between the plantsites and warehouse facilities of Murphy Products Co., Inc., located in Montevideo, Minn., Burlington, Wis., and Sioux City, Iowa; and (3) between the plantsites and warehouse facilities of Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Feed Division, located at Sioux City, Iowa, on the one hand, and, on the other, Omaha and Grand Island, Nebr.; and (B) of dry animal and poultry feed ingredients (except urea), in bag and in bulk (except in bulk, in tank vehicles), from points in Nebraska (except Weeping Water and Fort Calhoun, Nebr.), South Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois (except points in Illinois within the St. Louis, Mo., commercial zone, points in Illinois within the Chicago, Ill., commercial zone, and points in Lake, DuPage, Cook, Will, Kane, and Kendall Counties, Ill., and points in McHenry County, Ill., on and east of Illinois Highway 23, points in Grundy County, Ill., on and east of Illinois Highway 47, and on and north of Illinois Highway 113, and points in Kankakee County, Ill., on and north of Highway 17), Colorado, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and North Dakota to the plantsites of Corn Belt Supply Co., Inc., Murphy Products Co., Inc., and Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Feed Division, located at Sioux City, Iowa, restricted in parts (A)(1) and (B) to traffic originating at or destined to the facilities of Corn Belt Supply Co., Inc., Murphy Products Co., Inc., and Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Feed Division, at Sioux City, Iowa. The application is opposed by Floyd Duenow, Sioux City Bulk Feed Service, Inc., and Umthun Trucking Co., all motor common carriers. The modified procedure was followed. By order entered January 22, 1974 (not printed), Review Board Number 3 denied the application in its entirety. In reaching that conclusion, the review board found that applicant and supporting shipper, Corn Belt, are under common control; that neither of the two supporting shippers which are not affiliated with applicant had indicated whether they were aware of the affiliation; nor, if they did have such knowledge, whether they had any objection to the affiliation; that Corn Belt would tender applicant a substantial amount of the total traffic available; that protestants hold substantial conflicting authority, and that, therefore, the application should be denied. Upon consideration of applicant's petition for reconsideration to which protestants, Floyd Duenow, separately, and Sioux City Bulk and |