peak period. During the same weeks in February and August 1959, Greyhound realized passenger revenues totaling $8,054 and $13,040, respectively, and revenue per bus-mile of 45.4 cents and 59.01 cents, respectively, from its operations over these routes. The foregoing figures do not reflect revenue from other sources such as express traffic. Greyhound system's operating costs per bus-mile in 1957, 1958, and 1959, were 50.89 cents, 54.05 cents, and 56.22 cents, respectively, and its revenues per bus-mile from all sources in the same years were 53.80 cents, 60.55 cents, and 64.45 cents, respectively.

A representative of Onondaga Coach Corporation presented evidence as a witness for protestant Greyhound. Onondaga Coach Corporation operates a bus service in interstate commerce between Auburn and Syracuse, N.Y., via Skaneateles and Marcellus, N.Y. Auburn is. about 14 miles south of Conquest, N.Y., and about 20 miles south of Victory, N.Y.

A representative of Syracuse and Oswego Motor Lines, Inc., also presented evidence as a witness for protestant Greyhound. Syracuse and Oswego Motor Lines operates a bus service between Syracuse and: Oswego, N.Y., serving Baldwinsville as an intermediate point in both interstate and intrastate commerce. It has furnished Greyhound with only a small amount of interline traffic generated at Baldwinsville. It estimated that its interline traffic with Greyhound amounts to about $10,000 yearly in revenue, practically all accounted for by passengers moving to and from Oswego.

Applicant has the affirmative burden of establishing a public need for the proposed operation. It presented 17 public witnesses residing at or near intermediate points on the proposed route. No evidence was presented by any public witness concerning a need for the proposed interstate service for the movement of passengers over the entire length of the proposed route between Syracuse and Rochester as overhead traffic. Applicant points out that the lack of public witnesses with respect to those who could be classed as true overhead traffic presented no obstacle to grants of authority in Capitol Bus Co. Extension-Washington, D.C., 69 M.C.C. 447, 451, and in Wilson Extension-Huntington, W. Va., 77 M.C.C. 275. Both of the applicants in those proceedings were members of the National Trailways Bus System, and in both proceedings weight was accorded to statistical evidence showing that the applicants therein, by virtue of such membership, might by an improvement in their existing operations render an improved service to that portion of the public utilizing the service of the system of which they were a part. The facts in the instant proceeding are clearly distinguishable from those in the two cases cited above in that here, although applicant is apparently a member

of the National Trailways Bus System,1 there is no showing that the granting of the instant application would enable applicant to improve its service for the transportation of system traffic. As indicated, no attempt was made to establish a public need for overhead service. Although applicant's subsidiary presently holds intrastate authority over essentially the same route and there is a plan to merge the subsidiary with applicant in the future, this situation in and of itself does not constitute evidence of a need for interstate service between the termini of the proposed route. Moreover, we must consider whether the service being provided by Greyhound in the area is adequate and responsive to the public's requirements. Greyhound operates numerous daily schedules between Rochester and Syracuse over various routes (not including the one involved), and there is no showing of any inadequacy whatever in that service. Furthermore, it is clear that Greyhound would be adversely affected by institution of a new competitive interstate service by applicant between the terminal points of the involved route and also between Syracuse and Buffalo through Rochester. In the circumstances, we find no justification in this record for any grant of authority which would allow the transportation of overhead traffic moving between Rochester and Syracuse.

As noted above, all of the public support for the instant proposal stems from witnesses located at or near intermediate points on the involved route. There is no interstate bus service presently available at intermediate points on that route, other than between Baldwinsville and Syracuse. Although persons such as those supporting the application could utilize the intrastate service of applicant's subsidiary, in so doing they would be unable to purchase through interstate tickets or make use of through baggage checking facilities. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that a public need exists for the proposed service to the extent recommended by the examiner.

We come then to the question whether the restriction imposed by the examiner is in conflict with the provisions of section 216(a) of the act. That section provides, as here pertinent, that it shall be the duty of every common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle to establish reasonable through routes with other such common carriers. In Southwest Missouri R. Co. Common Carrier Application, 4 M.C.C. 582, the Commission was requested to restrict a certificate in such manner as to prevent interchange with connecting lines. Division 5 (now division 1) in rejecting this request, stated at page 584:

In our opinion such a limitation would be invalid as beyond our power to impose. Section 216(a) casts upon all common carriers of passengers by motor 1 Applicant adduced no testimony on this point, but Greyhound's witness characterized applicant as a Trailways carrier.

vehicle the duty to establish reasonable through routes with other such common carriers. The proposed restriction would be directly in conflict with that statutory duty. The power to attach terms, conditions, and limitations to certificates granted in section 208 (a) is a broad one, the standards being that they must be reasonable, that they must be required by the public convenience and necessity, or that they are necessary to carry out the requirements established under section 204(a) (1) and (6). But even such a broad power is inadequate to permit what in effect is a modification of a separate provision of the act.

However, the restriction involved herein is quite different from the one at issue in Southwest Missouri R. Co. Common Carrier Application, supra. The restriction here does not prevent the interchange of any passengers, but rather prohibits the transportation of passengers between certain points. With respect to those passengers whom applicant can transport under the proposed grant of authority, there is no restriction whatsoever against interchange. We conclude, therefore, that the indicated restriction does not contravene the requirements of section 216(a), and that it is required in order to limit the grant herein to the need shown and at the same time adequately protect existing service.

No authority is needed for the transportation of mail.

We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of passengers and their baggage, and express and newspapers in the same vehicle with passengers, between Rochester, N.Y., and Syracuse, N.Y., from Rochester over U.S. Highway 104 to its junction with New York Highway 370, and thence over New York Highway 370 to Syracuse, and return over the same route, serving all intermediate points, restricted against the transportation of any passenger or passengers whose transportation involves movement over the entire length of the above-specified route between Rochester, on the one hand, and, on the other, Syracuse; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that an appropriate certificate authorizing such operation should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221 (c) of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate certificate will be issued.

An appropriate order will be entered.

84 M.C.C.

No. MC-98749 (SUB-No. 10)1

DURWOOD L. BELL EXTENSION-ARIZONA

Decided January 24, 1961

1. In No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 10), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of chemicals, in bulk, from a plant site near Longview, Tex., to points in nine States.

2. In No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 11), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle over irregular routes of chemicals, in bulk, from Kingsport, Tenn., to a plant site near Longview, Tex., subject to restriction.

3. Issuance of a certificate authorizing the described operations approved upon compliance by applicants with certain conditions and applications in all other respects denied.

Austin L. Hatchell for applicant in both proceedings.

Charles L. Ford, Jr., H. P. Pittman, and Thomas F. Kilroy for protestants in No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 10).

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, WEBB, AND HERRING BY DIVISION 1:

The application in the title proceeding was heard by an examiner and the case embraced herein was handled under the no-oral hearing procedure. Both proceedings were the subject of separate reports and recommended orders by different examiners. In No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 10), exceptions were filed by a protestant and applicant replied; and in No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 11) exceptions were filed by the applicant. Since the applications present related issues, they will be disposed of here in a single report. Our conclusions differ slightly from those recommended in both proceedings.

By application in No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 10), filed February 8, 1960, as amended, Durwood L. Bell, doing business as Bell Transport Company, of Longview, Tex., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle of chemicals as defined in Maxwell Co. Extension-Addyston, 63 M.C.C. 677 (but not limited to liquids), in bulk, in specialized equipment, from the site of the plant of the Texas Eastman Company, near Longview, to points in Arizona,

1 This report also embraces No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 11), Durwood L. Bell ExtensionKingsport, Tenn.

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, over irregular routes, restricted against joinder of such operation with other authority held for the purpose of performing through movements to or from points other than those described above. The application is opposed by Eldon Miller, Inc., hereinafter called Miller, The Texas Railroad Association, class I rail carriers in the western district, and the Pacific Southwest Railroad Association.

By application in No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 11), filed May 19, 1960, the same applicant 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 of chemicals as defined in Maxwell Co. Extension-Addyston, supra, in bulk, in specialized equipment, from Kingsport, Tenn., to the plant site of the Texas Eastman Company near Longview, Tex.

The examiner recommended that the application in the title proceeding be granted. On exceptions Miller contends that a grant of authority to serve points in protestant's territory is not warranted by the evidence, that it should be afforded the opportunity to meet shipper's needs. It argues that the shipper did not indicate the frequency and volume of present traffic, or the specific destination points involved in present and future movements. In reply, applicant asserts that the record amply supports the examiner's findings. Also, it avers that Miller cannot transport all of the subject commodities and can serve only five of the destination States, over circuitous routings. In No. MC-98749 (Sub-No. 11) the examiner recommended that applicant be granted authority to transport liquid chemicals as defined in Maxwell Co. Extension-Addyston, supra, in bulk, in specialized equipment, from Kingsport, Tenn., to the site of the Texas Eastman Company near Longview, Tex. On exceptions, applicant contends that the examiner erred in limiting the grant of authority to liquid chemicals and that the record supports a complete grant of its application.

In both proceedings, the evidence adduced, the examiners' recommendations, the exceptions, and the replies thereto have been considered. We find that the examiners' statements of fact are adequate and accurate in all material respects, and, as hereinafter supplemented, we adopt those statements as our own.

Applicant holds authority as a motor common carrier to transport chemicals and liquid chemicals as defined in Maxwell Co. ExtensionAddyston, supra, from the site of the Texas Eastman Company plant near Longview to points in 29 States and the District of Columbia, and of synthetic plastics, in bulk (not in liquid form) from the described plant site to points in 8 of the same States. Applicant has

84 M.C.C.