kana, Tex., to the extent that they are beneficially interested in or affected by said operations, are and have been participating in concert with Joseph V. Hofer and Hofer, Inc., in said violations.

An appropriate order will be entered requiring the respondents to cease and desist forthwith, and hereafter to abstain, from participating in any operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, of the character found in this report to be unlawful.

COMMISSIONER HERRING Concurs in the result.

No. MC-704 (SUB-No. 21) 1

J. O. (RED) WILLETT PIPE LINE STRINGING CORPORATION EXTENSION-ALASKA

Decided March 13, 1961

On reconsideration, public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicants, in interstate or foreign commerce, as common carriers by motor vehicle, over irregular routes of specified commodities between points in Alaska. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicants with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied. Carll V. Kretsinger and Rollo E. Kidwell for applicants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GOFF, AND HERRING

BY DIVISION 1:

These applications were heard on a consolidated record and were the subject of a single report and recommended order of the examiner. As they involve related issues, we will dispose of them in a single report. No exceptions were filed to the order recommended by the examiner, and such order became effective as the order of the Commission by operation of law; however, by order dated November 22, 1960, on our own motion, we reopened the proceedings for reconsideration on the present record.

In No. MC-704 (Sub-No. 21), by application filed September 12, 1958, J. O. (Red) Willett Pipe Line Stringing Corporation, of Monroe, La., 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 pipe and machinery,

1 This report also embraces Nos. MC-19416 (Sub-No. 10) Dunn Bros., ExtensionAlaska and MC-106497 (Sub-No. 12) Parkhill Truck Company Extension-Alaska.

equipment, materials, and supplies incidental to and used in connection with the construction, operation, servicing, repair, maintenance, and dismantling of pipelines, including the stringing and picking up thereof, (1) between points in Alaska, and (2) between points in Alaska, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the continental United States except Alaska. In No. MC-19416 (Sub-No. 10), by application filed September 12, 1958, Dunn Bros., Inc., of Dallas, Tex., and in No. MC-106497 (Sub-No. 12) by application filed August 28, 1958, Parkhill Truck Company, a corporation of Tulsa, Okla., seek certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing the same service. No one opposes the applications.

The examiner recommended that each applicant be authorized to transport machinery, equipment, materials, and supplies used in or in connection with the construction, operation, servicing, repair, maintenance, and dismantling of pipelines for the transmission of gas, petroleum, and petroleum products, including the stringing and picking up thereof, between points in Alaska.

The examiner in his report stated that the recommended grant of authority to operate between points in Alaska may be tacked with applicants' present authority to operate between points in the United States, except Alaska, to provide a through service to and from points in Alaska. We reopened this proceeding for further consideration solely concerning the tacking issue. In other respects, the examiner's recommendations, which we have considered in the light of the evidence, are fully supported by the record, and they are hereby adopted as our own.

Applicants are motor common carriers authorized to transport oilfield commodities between numerous points in the United States south of the Canadian border, and they may serve many points on the international boundary. The examiner apparently reasoned that because under their present authority applicants may operate through ports of entry on the international boundary from Washington, for example, to Canada and from Canada to Alaska, they could tack somewhere in Canada to provide a through service from Washington to Alaska. We do not agree.

A motor common carrier may tack separate grants of unrestricted authority if there is a point of service common to both authorities, provided that the operations are conducted through such common point, and that the character of the service is maintained. The common point must be a point "to which" the carrier is authorized to transport a given shipment under one authority and "from which" it is authorized to transport that same shipment under the joining authority. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., Interpretation of Certificate, 48 M.C.C. 610. The operating authorities granted or to be granted by this Commission con

tain no such common point. Furthermore, it is well established that operating authorities such as those involved here may not be tacked across State lines. Farmer-Purchase-Crouse, 45 M.C.C. 267. Here, even though the State lines are not contiguous, clearly a different conclusion is not warranted. We conclude that applicants cannot tack their existing authority to transport the involved commodities between points in the United States, except Alaska, with the authority granted below so as to provide a through service to and from points in Alaska. As noted by the examiner, no need has been established for such a through service, so the examiner's findings will be adopted without modification.

On reconsideration in Nos. MC-704 (Sub-No. 21), MC-19416 (SubNo. 10), and MC-106497 (Sub-No. 12) we find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by each applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of machinery, equipment, materials, and supplies used in or in connection with the construction, operation, servicing, repair, maintenance, and the dismantling of pipelines for the transmission of gas, petroleum, and petroleum products, including the stringing and picking up thereof, between points in Alaska; that each 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 appropriate certificates should be granted; and that the applications, except to the extent granted herein, should be denied.

Upon compliance by each applicant with the provisions 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, appropriate certificates will be issued.

An appropriate order will be entered.

84 M.C.C.

1

No. MC-46737 (SUB-No. 35) 1

GEO. F. ALGER COMPANY EXTENSION-CEMENT

Decided March 14, 1961

1. In No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35) upon further hearing, applicant found not fit to receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing its proposed operations. Application denied.

2. In No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36), applicant found not fit to receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing its proposed operations. Application denied.

George S. Dixon, Walter N. Bieneman, and James P. Tryand for applicant in No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35).

Walter N. Bieneman for applicant in No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36). Melvin E. Bailet and Ellis V. Gregory for the Bureau of Inquiry and Compliance, Interstate Commerce Commission in No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35).

Herbert Baker, William B. Elmer, and George H. Wolff for protestants in No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35).

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER HEARING 2 DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GOFF, AND HERRING BY DIVISION 1:

These applications were heard on separate records and were the subject of separate reports and recommended orders by an examiner in the title proceeding and by a joint board in the No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36) proceeding. Since related issues are involved, they will be disposed of here in a single report.

In the title proceeding exceptions to the examiner's recommended order on further hearing, were filed by the Commission's Bureau of Inquiry and Compliance, hereinafter called the Bureau, and applicant replied. In the No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36) proceeding, no exceptions were filed to the joint board's recommended order, but it was stayed by us. Our conclusions differ from those recommended in both proceedings.

1 This report also embraces No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36), Geo. F. Alger Company Extension--Monroe County, Mich.

On further hearing in No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35) only.

*This proceeding was supported by the same shipper and was heard on a 'consolidated record with, and was embraced in No. MC-44300 (Sub-No. 7), Hess Cartage Company Extension-Monroe County, Mich. The joint board's recommended order in the latter proceeding became effective as the order of the Commission on June 30, 1960, by operation of law, granting the identical authority recommended in the instant proceeding.

In the title proceeding by application filed February 18, 1959, as amended, Geo. F. Alger Company, a corporation, of Detroit, Mich., 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 cement, in bulk and in bags, between points in Michigan, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, except (1) from Mitchell, Speed, and Stroh, Ind., (2) from points in Branch County, Mich., to points in Indiana and Ohio, (3) from Holland, Mich., to points in Allen, Lagrange, Noble, Steuben, Elkhart, La Porte, and St. Joseph Counties, Ind., and (4) that traffic originated in Ohio shall be restricted to Cleveland, Ohio, only. Michigan Transportation Company and Darling Freight, Inc., hereinafter called MTC and Darling, respectively, oppose the application, and adduced evidence at the initial hearing, but did not appear at the further hearing.

In No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 36), by application filed February 18, 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 cement, in bulk, in tank equipment, (1) from points in Monroe County, Mich., to Chicago, Ill., and points in that part of Illinois lying on and north of that part of U.S. Highway 24 beginning at the Illinois-Indiana State line and extending westwardly to its junction with U.S. Highway 51, and on and east of that part of U.S. Highway 51 beginning at said junction and extending northwardly to the Illinois-Wisconsin State line; (2) from the plant site of the Dundee Cement Company at Chicago, to points in Indiana and Michigan; and (3) between points in Monroe County, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Monroe and Wayne Counties, Mich. No one opposes the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXAMINERS AND THE JOINT BOARD

In No. MC-46737 (Sub-No. 35), the examiner recommended on the initial hearing that applicant be authorized to transport cement, in bulk and in bags, over irregular routes, (1) from St. Joseph (Berrien County), Mich., to points in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, (2) from points in Wayne County, to points in' Indiana, and (3) from Cement City (Lenawee County), and Port Huron (St. Clair County), Mich., to points in Indiana and Ohio; and that the application be denied in all other respects. No timely exceptions were filed to such recommended order which became effective as the order of the Commission on August 10, 1959.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and Weiss Trucking Company, Inc., withdrew their opposition upon amendment of the application to its present form.