We find that present and future public convenience and necessity require continuance of operation by Skylines, Incorporated, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in charter operations from points in the town of Burrillville, Providence County, R. I., to points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine, and return, over irregular routes; that Skylines, Incorporated, is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that a certificate authorizing such operations should be granted; and that in all other respects the application should be denied. Upon compliance by Skylines, Incorporated, with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An order will be entered denying the application except to the extent granted herein. PATTERSON, Commissioner, dissenting: In my judgment the record does not sustain the findings of the majority that public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations. The evidence is clear that the proposed operations will not create any new business, but would serve only to further divide existing business now adequately handled by three authorized carriers. 28 M. C. C. No. MC-85412 ROY CARL HENDRICKS COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION Decided February 25, 1941 On reconsideration, findings in prior report, 18 M. C. C. 311, modified so as to authorize applicant to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of livestock, grain, and farm products, from points in the townships of Belvidere, Waumandee, Milton, Lincoln, and Alma, Buffalo County, Wis., to Minneapolis, St. Paul, South St. Paul, Wabasha, Lake City, Red Wing, and Hastings, Minn., and of general commodities, with certain exceptions, from the above-specified Minnesota points to the abovedescribed Wisconsin origin points, except that no service shall be rendered from Minneapolis and St. Paul to the cities of Alma and Fountain City and the village of Cochrane. Appearances shown in prior report. REPORT AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: The prior report and order herein, 18 M. C. C. 311, authorized the issuance of a certificate to applicant to operate in interstate or foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of livestock, grain, and farm products from the townships of Belvidere, Waumandee, Milton, Lincoln, and Alma, Buffalo County, Wis., to Minneapolis, St. Paul, South St. Paul, Wabasha, Lake City, Red Wing, and Hastings, Minn., and of general commodities, with certain exceptions, on return trips to the named Wisconsin points, over irregular routes. At the hearing applicant, by counsel, stated that applicant was not applying for authority to haul freight from Minneapolis and St. Paul to the cities of Alma and Fountain City and the village of Cochrane, Buffalo County, Wis. However, the prior findings herein failed to give effect to this statement. The proceeding is hereby reopened upon a protestant's petition for the purpose of correcting this matter. On reconsideration, we find that the prior report and order herein should be, and they are hereby, amended so as to authorize applicant to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, in interstate or foreign commerce, of livestock, grain, and farm products, from points in the townships of Belvidere, Waumandee, Milton, Lincoln, and Alma, Buffalo County, to Minneapolis, St. Paul, South St. Paul, Wabasha, Lake City, Red Wing, and Hastings, and of general commodities, except commodities of unusual value, dangerous explosives, commodities in bulk, household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, commodities requiring special equipment, and those injurious or contaminating to other lading, from the above-specified Minnesota points to the above-specified Wisconsin origin points, except no service shall be rendered from Minneapolis and St. Paul to the cities of Alma and Fountain City and the village of Cochrane, and it is so ordered. 28 M. C. C. No. MC-867721 IRVING NUDELMAN COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION Decided February 25, 1941 Upon reconsideration, findings in prior report, 22 M. C. C. 275, that public convenience and necessity require special seasonal operations by applicants, either individually or jointly, except those in Nos. MC-86950, MC-88899, MC-94274, MC-94293, MC-94300, MC-94311, MC-94360, and MC-94367, as common carriers by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in interstate or foreign commerce, between New York, N. Y., or portions thereof, on the one hand, and Sullivan and Ulster Counties, N. Y., or portions thereof, on the other, over irregular routes, through New Jersey, modified (1) by authorizing operations to or from all points in New York, N. Y., and (2) by restricting the authority granted to special operations in nonscheduled, door-to-door service, limited to the transportation of not more than six passengers in any one vehicle. Issuance of certificates approved upon compliance by applicants with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied. Appearances shown in prior report, and additional appearances: J. Almyk Lieberman for certain applicants and F. X. Masterson for rail protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, LEE, AND ROGERS BY DIVISION 5: In the prior report herein, 22 M. C. C. 275, which report included the 58 applications set forth in appendix I attached hereto, we found (1) that the operations considered therein were those of a common carrier and were special operations within the meaning of section 207 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and (2) that the public convenience and necessity required operation by each of the applicants named in that appendix, either individually or jointly, except those in Nos. MC-86950, MC-88899, MC-94274, MC-94293, MC-94300, MC-94311, MC-94360, and MC-94367, as common carriers by motor vehicles, in interstate or foreign commerce, for the seasonal transportation in such operations of passengers and their baggage, between May 15 and September 15, both inclusive, of each year, and between the points or places set forth in appendix II attached hereto, over irregular routes through New Jersey. We di 1This report embraces 58 applications, as set forth in appendix I attached hereto. rected that upon their compliance with certain conditions each applicant, except those noted above, be issued an appropriate certificate. Certain of the applicants included in our prior report, which are named in section A of appendix I and which are hereinafter called the petitioners, by petitions filed April 25, 1940, and subsequently, sought further hearing and reconsideration of our prior decision herein to the extent that they were denied authority to serve all of New York City, N. Y., and all points in Sullivan and Ulster Counties, N. Y. By petition filed April 29, 1940, applicants in Nos. MC-86950 and MC-94274, whose applications were denied in our prior report, requested further hearing. The Mountain Transit Corporation was permitted to intervene, and it replied to the above petitions. The Hudson Transit Lines, the Mountain Transit Corporation, and rail carriers each filed a petition requesting that we reconsider our previous finding that we had no authority to restrict applicants to the use of vehicles of the sedan type, and the petitioners replied. By our order of June 3, 1940, we reopened the proceedings for reconsideration on the record as made, and the Commission denied the petitions in all other respects. Applicants may be divided into two groups, (1) those who have been engaged in motor-carrier operations continuously since a time prior to June 1, 1935, and (2) those whom the records show instituted operations after June 1, 1935. In the prior report, those applicants coming within the first-mentioned group were granted certain rights, while the applications of those in group 2 were denied. For the sake of convenience we will consider first the operations of the latter group. The facts with respect to the operations of all the applicants are fully stated in the prior report. We stated therein that certain applicants (named in section C of appendix I) commenced their respective operations after June 1, 1935, and that all operations which such applicants have conducted since February 12, 1936, have been unlawful. We have reviewed the evidence offered with respect to these applications and find no error in the prior finding denying them. There is nothing to indicate that the facilities of the operators who have been operating continuously since prior to June 1, 1935, are not adequate to take care of the needs of the public in the type of service which they perform. We affirm our prior Applicant in No. MC-86950, whose application was denied in our prior report, is included as a party to the petition filed April 25, 1940, but the facts set forth in that petition are such as to lead us to conclude that this was apparently done in error, and his name, therefore, has been omitted from section A of appendix I. However, this applicant is a party to petition filed April 29, 1949, as explained in the report, and his contentions are disposed of in connection with that petition. |