rate of 18 cents, the suspended rate in effect might be extended to lessthan-truckload shipments. As noted, the proposed rate is 2 cents less than the local rate on truckload shipments from and to these points on the same commodities. It is not clear from the record that the service accorded the local traffic warrants truckload rates thereon higher than those applied on traffic brought to Boston for movement beyond. The respondent relies entirely upon meeting the rail carload rate as justification for the proposed rate and minimum. The proposal, however, goes beyond meeting the competition. In this respect the situation before us is similar to that considered by division 3 in Iron and Steel from Pittsburgh and Aliquippa, Pa., 21 M. C. C. 791. The motor-carrier respondent therein proposed to meet a rail carload rate and 40,000-pound minimum on iron and steel articles, although admitting that 40,000 pounds could not be loaded in a single trucking unit. The division said: There is no showing on this record that the 40,000-pound minimum will result in any appreciably lower cost for respondent than a minimum not in excess of truck capacity. A minimum in excess of the possible loading in one truck does not necessarily justify a rate lower than a lawful truckload rate. Respondent rests its case upon the need of meeting rail competition. However, the suspended rate provides not only service equivalent to that provided under the rail carload rate but other privileges of value to the shipper or consignee * In effect, it offers most of the desirable features of less-than-carload service. The approval of the suspended rate might result, as feared by rail carriers, not only in the reduction of the less-than-carload rate to the present carload basis, with similar reductions in present rates of other motor carriers, from and to these points, but also in a general break-down in the present uniform rate structure throughout this territory. We find that the suspended rate is unjust and unreasonable. The suspended schedules will be ordered canceled, and the proceeding discontinued. 28 M. C. C. EX PARTE No. MC-21 CENTRAL TERRITORY MOTOR CARRIER RATES Decided March 15, 1941 Upon further consideration, findings and order in the original report, 8 M. C. C. 233, as subsequently modified, prescribing minimum rates, charges, classifications, ratings, rules, and regulations for motor common carriers between points in central territory, further modified. TWENTY-SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: In the original report herein, 8 M. C. C. 233, as subsequently modified,1 we prescribed minimum rates, charges, classification ratings, and rules for the transportation of all property, with certain exceptions, by common carriers by motor vehicle between points in central territory. The Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc., on behalf of its members, respondents herein, has filed petitions asking that we modify our prior orders in certain respects. The petitions or portions thereof considered herein, which were unopposed, generally seek to meet competitive rates maintained by other transportation agencies by reductions or increases in rates, and changes in commodity descriptions, or seek changes in tariff provisions to eliminate inconsistencies. Upon further consideration of the record and of the facts presented in the petition, we are of the opinion that the rates proposed are not below a reasonable minimum level and find that our previous findings and orders should be modified to prescribe as minima the rates, ratings, charges, rules, and other provisions set forth in the appendix to the order herein entered. 110 M. C. C. 67; 12 M. C. C. 153 and 567; 17 M. C. C. 541 and 543; 19 M. C. C. 36 and 545; 20 M. C. C. 663 and 725; 21 M. C. C. 473 and 677; 22 M. C. C. 311 and 729; 23 M. C. C. 93 and 435; 24 M. C. C. 69, 301, and 785; 26 M. C. C. 43, 67, 115, 285, and 287; 26 M. C. C. 751; and 28 M. C. C. 173. 28 M. C. C. No. MC-63513 (SUB-NO. 4)1 NORTHERN TRUCK LINE, INC., EXTENSION OF Submitted June 6, 1940. Decided March 18, 1941 Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of liquid petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks, from specified points in Wyoming to points in a described area in North Dakota, over irregular routes. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied. Eugene A. Burdick for applicant. C. J. Murphy, Willard B. Overson, A. V. Bjorklund, John F. Sullivan, E. T. Conmy, Jr., and George H. Buergi for protestants. F. P. Aughnay for intervener. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: These two applications were heard separately, and separate recommended orders were issued. Exceptions were filed by the protestant motor carrier to the recommended order of the joint board in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 4). No exceptions were filed to the recommended order of the joint board in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6), but it was stayed by us. Our conclusions differ in some respects from those recommended in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6). Both applications deal with related matters and will be disposed of here in one report. By application in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 4), filed February 28, 1939, as amended, the Northern Truck Line, Inc., of Williston, N. Dak., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks, from Osage and Newcastle, Wyo., to points in that part of North Dakota west of a straight line extending from the North Dakota-South Dakota State line near Morristown, S. Dak., to the Canadian border, traversing highways in South Dakota, over irregu lar routes. 1 This report also embraces No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6), Northern Truck Line, Inc., Extension of Operations-Montana. By application in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6), filed June 19, 1939, as amended, the same applicant seeks like authority to transport the same commodities from Great Falls, Cut Bank, Shelby, Sunburst, Kevin, Havre, and Lewiston, Mont., to points in that part of Montana east of Montana Highways 14 and 23 and from the named Montana points and Cody and Greybull, Wyo., to points in that part of North Dakota described above, over irregular routes. Rail carriers operating in the same general territory oppose both applications, and a contract carrier by motor vehicle opposes the application in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 4). The Association of Commerce, of Minot, N. Dak., intervened in No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6). Applicant has been in operation for a number of years and has suitable equipment for the transportation of petroleum products in bulk. It has appropriate authority from us to transport, insofar as here pertinent, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, liquid petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks, from Laurel and Billings, Mont., to points in that part of North Dakota on or west of a line consisting of North Dakota Highway 49 from the South DakotaNorth Dakota State line to the Missouri River, thence easterly along that river to the crossing thereof by North Dakota Highway 28, thence along the latter to the international boundary, and from Newcastle to Montana points on and east of U. S. Highway 212 and Montana Highway 22. This description of the North Dakota territory is substantially the same as that set out in the applications; and for practical reasons it is to be preferred because, by using designated highways, it establishes a definite, readily identified, boundary of the territory in question. We shall use such description herein, in lieu of the less definite description set out in the applications. No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 4).-A representative of a refinery at Newcastle, with dealers located at various points in the abovedescribed North Dakota territory, as well as certain jobbers of petroleum products in such territory, testified in support of this application. At the time of the hearing, the refinery had 10 accounts in the North Dakota territory, each of which was transporting its own gasoline from Newcastle. There is no common-carrier service by motor vehicle from Newcastle to North Dakota. The refinery representative has contacted approximately 20 dealers in North Dakota, and these dealers will buy from the refinery at Newcastle if they can get adequate transportation service from that point. As stated, certain jobbers of petroleum products also support the application. They contend that transportation by motor vehicle is needed to enable them thus requiring the use lots. arry smaller amounts of stock on hand, capital than when buying in tank-car In its exceptions to the recommended order of the joint board that applicant be authorized to transport from Newcastle, the motor-carrier protestant contends that this application should be denied. It points out that it had a prior application on file with us for authority to transport from Newcastle to points in the North Dakota territory. Our records show that we authorized the issuance of a permit as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of liquid petroleum products, in bulk, in tank trucks, within the territory included herein, to this protestant upon its compliance with certain conditions. Inasmuch as it is a contract carrier, this protestant is not compelled to serve the general public. Moreover, a shipper may have valid objections to the terms imposed by such carriers. In any event, a shipper is entitled to dependable motor-carrier service which is not subject to the contingency of negotiating a satisfactory agreement for contract carriage. Compare Rayfield Contract Carrier Application, 21 M. C. C. 214. No. MC-63513 (Sub-No. 6).-The president of the applicant corporation and a wholesale distributor of petroleum products testified to a need for the services proposed herein. Applicant's president stated that he had been requested by the refineries at Havre and Cut Bank to haul to points in this North Dakota territory. However, no representatives of these refineries appeared in support of the application. At the request of applicant's president, the wholesale distributor communicated with the refineries at Cody and Greybull. He was authorized to represent the refinery at Cody. At the time of the hearing there was no common-carrier service by motor vehicle from either Cody or Greybull to western North Dakota. This witness has been in the wholesale and retail petroleum business since 1917. He operates one truck transport, buys his petroleum products on the open market, and sells to dealers in western North Dakota and one or two unnamed points in eastern Montana. The largest percentage is purchased from Newcastle. He has transported, allegedly as a private carrier, a few shipments from Havre, Cody, and Great Falls. This witness would discontinue his alleged private-carrier operations if the authority sought is granted. Approximately 6 months prior to the hearing, two representatives of a refinery at Cut Bank spent a day with him in contacting prospective customers in North Dakota. It is alleged that the refinery prefers to service these prospective customers by motor vehicle because of the small quantities to be ordered by such prospective customers. Neither the customers nor the refinery was represented at the hearing. All the refineries applicant proposes to serve are now served by rail carriers. A witness for protestant rail carriers solicits the traffic |