Scope of Operation: See also OPERATION (SCOPE, GENERAL, ETC.); SAVING
CLAUSES (COMMODITIES, SCOPE) (SCOPE OF OPERATION, GENERAL, ETC.); SERVICE
(ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION).
Although testimony of shipper witnesses, supporting application for permit,
was confined to a discussion of gasoline, kerosene, and motor oil, the authority
granted covered "petroleum products". A more restricted commodity descrip-
tion would prevent applicant from offering to his shippers the complete service
to which they are entitled. Strawn Extension of Operations-Ohio, 281 (283).
COMMODITY RATES.
In General: See MINIMUM RATES (PRESCRIPTION BY COMMISSION).
Justification: See COMPETITion (Market).
Less than Truckload: The normal basis of rates for less-than-truckload ship-
ments, especially high-grade traffic such as alcoholic liquors, is the classification
basis, and common carriers should not establish commodity less-than-truckload
rates on such traffic except in compelling circumstances. Alcoholic Liquors, New
Orleans, La., to Columbus, Ga., 701 (703).
Proposed less-than-truckload commodity rate on alcoholic liquors from New
Orleans, La., to Columbus, Ga., substantially below the classification basis in
percentage of first class, and designed to serve one shipper, was not justified when
it did not appear that that shipper was unable to handle greater quantities or
required reduced rates for competitive reasons. Id. (703-704).
Relationship to Class Rates: Commodity rates on furniture and parts
from Boston, Mass., to Bangor, Augusta, and Portland, Maine, approxi-
mately the same as prescribed third class, column B, rates applicable between
other points in the New England territory, prescribed as minimum reasonable
rates. New England Motor Carrier Rates, 361 (371).
COMMON CARRIERS. See also FORWARDERS and particular duties or func-
tions by name.
Applications: See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (APPLICATIONS); SAVING
CLAUSES (APPLICATIONS, COMMON CARRIER).
Definition: See also CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT; EQUIPMENT (LEASED).
Applicant was not exempt from regulation as a taxicab operator when, although
he was engaged in a bona fide taxicab service and, until his purchase of a 14-
passenger bus, did not own or operate any vehicle carrying more than 6 passengers,
he had used the same vehicles for interstate transportation of chartered parties
on a group basis. Applicant was therefore a common carrier of passengers in
chartered service, subject to the act. Peters Common Carrier Application, 611
(614).
The difference between common and contract carriage is inherent in the service
rendered and accounts for the different standards of regulation set up in the act
for those types of carriers, including the requirement of a showing of public
convenience and necessity for common-carrier authority and of consistence with
public interest and the policy of sec. 202 (a) for contract-carrier authority.
Pregler Extension of Operations, 691 (695).
Dual Operation: See DUAL OPERATION.
Duties: See COMPETITION (CONTRACT CARRIERS VS. COMMON).
Holding Out as Test of Status: Applicant who conducted common-carrier
service by employing owner-drivers was entitled to "grandfather" authority for
such operations, rather than applicant owner-drivers, when the latter had no
direct or contractual relations with shippers, and so far as the public was con-
cerned the only holding out was that of the employer. J. Miller Co. Common
Carrier Application, 421 (428-429).
Obligations: See COMPETITION (Contract CARRIERS vs. Common).
Private Combined with Common Carriage: See PRIVATE CARRIERS.
Qualifications: Applicants seeking authority to conduct caravan tours of
children was disqualified for either permit or certificate when he had no assets,
but liabilities of thousands of dollars; he had not completed any past tour success-
fully and had had to appeal to the children's parents for funds to bring them home;
and letters and literature circulated to prospective patrons contained deliberate
misrepresentations. Georgia Caravan Camps, Inc., Contract Carrier Applica-
tion, 477.
For bona fide operation under the "grandfather" clause: See SAVING CLAUSES
(BONA FIDE OPERATION).
For list of applicants found "fit, willing, and able": See CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY (APPLICATIONS (list of applications granted)).
Tests to Determine Status: See DEFINITION and Holding Out as Test of
STATUS under this heading.
COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT.
When individual applicant was president of, and through stock ownership
controlled, applicant corporation and was the principal witness in support of the
latter's "grandfather" application as well as his own; both had the same office
address and originally sought the same authority; and documentary evidence
showed that both had transported the same commodities between the same
points, with no separation or distinction in services actually offered the public,
both were found to be engaged in integral parts of the same operation, and their
combined services to constitute a single transportation business for which only one
certificate should be granted. Authority was therefore withheld pending receipt
of advice on behalf of both applicants, as to which should receive the certificate.
Cross Contract Carrier Application, 517 (529-530, 531).
Regardless of the motive of owners of common-carrier corporation in forming a
contract-carrier corporation for operation in the same territory, effect of their
action must be considered in passing on applications of the two for "grandfather"
authority. That they were owned and officered by the same individuals and their
headquarters were in the same premises; that their operations were largely coexten-
sive as to commodities and routes and were closely coordinated on and after the
statutory dates; and that shipping papers offered in support of contract-carrier
application bore the common-carrier designation, indicated a definite close rela-
tionship throughout the statutory period, resulting from common management
and control in addition to common ownership. New York & New Brunswick
Auto Exp. Co., Inc., Common Carrier Application, 663 (672-674).
COMPENSATORY RATES. See ALTERNATIVE RATES; MINIMUM RATES (PRE-
SCRIPTION BY COMMISSION); REDUCTIONS (Justification).
Articles: See COMMODITIES (Description).
Carrier: See also MINIMUM RATES (PRESCRIPTION BY COMMISSION); PAS-
SENGERS (COMMON CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS); SAVING CLAUSES (INTERRUPTION
OF SERVICE); Service (Adequate TranspoRTATION).
Maintenance of prescribed minimum rate on petroleum products from New
Jersey to Boston, Mass., subject to a reduced minimum weight to meet the rate
of certain water-motor lines was not justified to the extent that it would be lower
than necessary to meet rail competition. Since the proposed minimum weight
was the maximum weight which could be loaded without violating State laws,
reasonably compensatory rates, based on this minimum, were prescribed. New
England Motor Carrier Rates, 361 (382).
Finding in 8 M. C. C. 287, as modified, further modified to exclude from the
prescription of minimum rates, the rates on specified chemicals and compounds
used exclusively or almost exclusively in insecticides and fungicides and insecticide
and fungicide adhesives and spreaders, including combination of the specifically
named articles, between New England points and between points in New England
and in New York and New Jersey, to enable carriers to regain traffic lost to motor
contract carriers and private carriers. New England Motor Carrier Rates, 389.
Proposed reduction in less-than-truckload and truckload commodity rates on
groceries between Philadelphia, Pa., and New York, N. Y., to meet competition
of freight forwarders and contract carriers, found justified as to truckload rates
but not as to less-than-truckload rates. Groceries Between Philadelphia, Pa.,
and New York, N. Y., 697 (698).
Contract Carriers vs. Common: While common carriers are required to
serve the general public within the limits of their facilities, without discrimination
and at published rates, a contract carrier may choose its shippers and lawfully
discriminate between them, and its charges may be questioned only when below a
reasonable minimum. To permit such a carrier to invade the territory of estab-
lished common carriers, when no special or unusual service is contemplated, would
inevitably deprive them of the cream of the traffic, to their disadvantage and that
of the public. Pregler Extension of Operations, 691 (693).
Proposed reduction in local commodity rate on cottonseed products from
Little Rock, Ark., to Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., to meet competition of contract
carriers, found not justified. Lindley Truck Co., Commodities in Midwestern
States, 705.
"Destructive or Unfair": See also SERVICE (SUBSTITUTION OF Motor for
Practices engaged in by applicant, including numerous services for shippers
without compensation or for insufficient compensation to cover cost of such serv-
ices, the aggregation of shipments over long periods of time without charge for
storage, and other practices, particularly in view of the fact that it utilized services
of a single motor carrier whose operations were closely coordinated with that of
the applicant, and which was controlled by members of the same family, were
found to have resulted in destructive competition with respect to other motor
carriers operating between Spokane and Seattle, Wash. United Truck Lines, Inc.,
Common Carrier Application, 591.
Market: Truckload commodity rates on building, paving, and roofing mate-
rials from Millis, Mass., to Connecticut points were prescribed which would be
fairly related to rates from competing New Jersey points. Less-than-truckload
rates were denied, however, since class rates applied from the competing points.
New England Motor Carrier Rates, 361 (364–365).
New vs. Existing: See SERVICE (Adequate Transportation).
Private Carriers: Reduced minimum rates prescribed on leather and tanners'
supplies between Winchester, N. H., on the one hand, and Boston, Lynn, and
Peabody, Mass., on the other, to enable carriers to meet competition of traffic
moving in shipper-owner vehicles. New England Motor Carrier Rates, 361
(374-375).
Rail: Reduction in minimum rates prescribed in 4 M. C. C. 68 on fiberboard
boxes, corrugated, between Baltimore, Md., and Philadelphia, Pa., in less than
truckloads, and between those points and from Baltimore to points in New Jersey
in truckloads, to meet rail competition, found justified. Middle Atlantic States
Motor Carrier Rates, 207 (209).
When interstate railroads had long provided expeditious and economical com-
mutation service between New Jersey communities and ferries reaching downtown
and midtown Manhattan, authorization of bus competition which might tend to
jeopardize such service or reduce its efficiency was not warranted in absence of a
positive showing of public convenience and necessity, especially as it would be
practically impossible, because of street congestion, for trans-Hudson bus lines
to haul all the suburban passengers if the railroads' local service were discontinued.
New Jersey-New York Bus Applications, 219 (243).
Proposed reduction in less-than-truckload rate on bags and bagging, other than
burlap, gunny, or jute, from Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., and points grouped
therewith, to Springfield, Ill., to the basis of less-than-carload rail rates, to enable
carrier to regain traffic diverted to rail carriers, found justified. Bags and Bagging
from Twin Cities to Springfield, Ill., 391 (392).
Right to Meet: The act does not place upon the proponent of a reduced rate
the burden of proving affirmatively that the rate is reasonable and otherwise
lawful. This is particularly so when the proposed rate is the same as that in
effect over competing transportation agencies. Bags and Bagging from Twin Cities
to Springfield, Ill., 391 (392).
Shipper-Owner: See PRIVATE CARRIERS under this heading
COMPLAINTS.
Parties: See PARTIES.
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
The Commission's authority under sec. 204 (a) (3) to regulate qualifications
and maximum hours of service of employees of private carriers is not limited by
sec. 225 to investigation and report of need therefor. Section 225 conflicts
equally with pars. (1) and (2) of sec. 204 (a) pertaining to common and contract
carriers, and authority to prescribe safety regulations for such carriers was affirma-
tively determined in 1 M. C. C. 1, 11 M. C. C. 203, 13 M. C. C. 481, and 14
M. C. C. 669. Moreover, legislative history of the conflicting sections clearly
indicates intent of Congress to authorize prescription of safety regulations for all
carriers, if need be found, and failure to conform provisions of sec. 225 to those of
sec. 204 (a) was apparently an oversight. This view is confirmed by subsequent
enactment of Fair Labor Standards Act, exempting from maximum-hour provisions
of that act all employees whose hours of service are regulated by Commission.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (7-10).
As the Federal Government is brought into the field of safety regulation of
private carriers of property by prescription of safety and hours-of-service regula-
tions for interstate transportation by such carriers, conflicting State laws and regu-
lations become unenforceable against such carriers when operating in interstate
commerce. Id. (40).
Legislative Intent: See CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION (LEGISLATIVE
INTENT); SECURITY FOR PROTECTION (RULES AND REGULATIONS OF COMMISSION).
CONNECTING LINES. See DISCRIMINATION (IN GENERAL); INTERCHANGE
(CONNECTING Lines).
Extension of contract carriage of dairy products from additional Iowa territory
to Dubuque, Iowa, for consolidated rail shipment beyond, was not warranted on
ground that common carriers could not adequately perform the service because
their obligations precluded control over tonnage of shipments and made the rail
consolidation uncertain. Adequacy of the proposed service admittedly de-
pended on selection of shippers having sufficient volume, and there was no showing
that established common carriers were unable to serve such shippers satisfactorily.
Pregler Extension of Operations, 691 (694).
If a statute is subject to two interpretations, one of which is clearly constitu-
tional and the other of doubtful constitutionality, the former should be adopted.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (4).
Section 204 (a) (3), empowering Commission to determine the need for, and to
prescribe, safety regulations for private carriers of property, does not delegate
legislative authority without sufficient guiding standards and is not therefore
unconstitutional. The grant of authority is in accordance with long-established
Congressional practice, and the constitutionality of similar provisions of part I,
attacked on like grounds, has invariably been upheld. Such provisions were
declared in 231 U. S. 423 to be general rules of action, which Commission should
apply to particular situations by administrative regulations. Section 204 fur-
nishes a more definite standard than the sections of part I upheld by the Supreme
Court, and the phrase "to promote safety of operation" is a positive guide in
prescribing maximum hours of service for employees. Id. (4-7).
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.
In General: If a statute is subject to two interpretations, one of which is
clearly constitutional and the other of doubtful constitutionality, the former
should be adopted. Motor Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (4).
In Pari Materia: Section 204 (a) (3), empowering Commission to determine
the need for, and to prescribe, safety regulations for private carriers of property,
does not delegate legislative authority without sufficient guiding standards and is
not therefore unconstitutional. The grant of authority is in accordance with
long-established Congressional practice, and the constitutionality of similar
provisions of part I, attacked on like grounds, has invariably been upheld. Such
provisions were declared in 231 U. S. 423 to be general rules of action, which
Commission should apply to particular situations by administrative regulations.
Section 204 furnishes a more definite standard than the sections of part I upheld
by the Supreme Court, and the phrase "to promote safety of operation" is a
positive guide in prescribing maximum hours of service for employees. Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (4-7).
Interstate Commerce Act: See INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.
Legislative Intent: Legislative history of sections 204 and 225 clearly shows
intent of Congress in sec. 204 (a) (3) to empower Commission to prescribe quali-
fications and maximum hours of service of employees of common and contract
carriers and private carriers of property, if need be found; and failure to amend
sec. 225 to conform with sec. 204 as finally enacted was probably an oversight.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations-Private Carriers, 1 (8-9).
Congressional recognition of Commission's power under sec. 204 (a) (3) of
Motor Carrier Act to prescribe qualifications and maximum hours of service for
employees of common, contract, and private carriers is embodied in sec. 13 (b)
of Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted about 3 years later, which excepts from
operation of sec. 7 thereof all employees whose qualifications and hours are
regulated by Commission. Any other interpretation of sec. 13 (b) would render
it a nullity. Id. (9-10).
Motor Carrier Act, 1935: See MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935.
Schedules: See SCHEDULES.
CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT. See also PICK-UP and DeliveRY.
Transportation from Elmira to other New York points, of packing-house
products moved to Elmira by rail from interstate origins for distribution by
applicant to ultimate consignees, was interstate commerce. Clifford Common
Carrier Application, 505 (507).
Applicant hauling sewing machines, iron novelties, and other commodities,
from Belvidere, Ill., to a forwarding company or motor carrier at Chicago, Ill.,
named in bill of lading as consignee of shipments destined to interstate pur-
chasers, performed an integral part of a through movement in interstate or
|