load, that protestants cannot provide the service required by the shipper, and that, inasmuch as the shipper will be forced to continue its private carriage if the authority sought is denied, protestants will not be adversely affected by a grant of such authority. In separate replies protestants collectively assert (1) that applicant has not shown that the available motor common carrier service is inadequate for the shipper's reasonable transportation needs, (2) that the shipper is interested only in lower rates on its less-than-truckload traffic, and (3) that protestants are willing and able to handle the involved traffic.

The pertinent facts are set forth in the prior report, and no useful purpose would be served by repeating them in detail here. Applicant is authorized, as a motor contract carrier, to transport as here pertinent, dairy products from Mason City to points in Florida. Its operations have previously been confirmed as those of a contract carrier under the definition thereof in section 203 (a) (15) of the act, as amended. It holds contracts with only two shippers, including the supporting shipper herein, State Brand Creameries, Inc., hereinafter called State Brand. It presently transports for the latter, butter from Mason City to specified points in Florida, including Miami.

State Brand operates creameries at Mason City and Dubuque. It ships from 25,000 to 60,000 pounds of butter a week therefrom to points in Florida, of which only 900 pounds originate at Dubuque. One Miami consignee purchases from the shipper about 25,000 pounds of butter a week, including the 900 pounds of the special type of butter processed only at the Dubuque plant, and requires that the latter butter be included in each shipment delivered. Prior to October of 1958, when the shipper transferred most of its production facilities from Dubuque to Mason City, Alterman satisfactorily handled traffic moving from Dubuque to Florida points. Since that time the shipper has transported the 900 pounds of butter each week in its own vehicles from Dubuque to Mason City, a distance of approximately 100 miles, where it is consolidated with butter processed at Mason City to make a single truckload, and is then transported by applicant to points in Florida. The shipper asserts that the rates charged for less-than-truckload shipments of 900 pounds of butter moving directly from Dubuque to Miami are prohibitive as compared to the rates on the consolidated truckloads of butter moving from Mason City. State Brand requested applicant to here seek authority whereunder applicant could stop to complete the loading of the consolidated truckloads at Dubuque en route from Mason City to Miami, thereby enabling the shipper to eliminate the described privatecarriage operation and comply with the Miami consignee's require

ments. The shipper will continue to transport the 900 pounds of butter each week from Dubuque to Mason City in private carriage if the authority sought is denied.

Alterman is authorized, as pertinent, to transport butter from Dubuque to Miami, but cannot serve Mason City. During the first 10 months of 1958, it transported about 700,000 pounds of butter for State Brand from Dubuque to points in Florida. Belford is authorized, as here pertinent, to transport butter from St. Louis, Mo., to specified points in Florida. It here proposes to participate in transporting the involved traffic as the delivering carrier through interchange at St. Louis under existing arrangements with an originating carrier not a party hereto. It is not willing to handle lessthan-truckload shipments from Dubuque, but desires to participate in the transportation of the shipper's entire traffic from Mason City and Dubuque to Florida points under the above-described interchange arrangements.

We are of the opinion that the shipper, owing to its changing requirements as the result of the transfer of a major portion of its production from Dubuque to Mason City, has shown a need for the proposed service to Miami. Applicant is satisfactorily serving the shipper on the consolidated shipments hereinbefore described by virtue of the shipper's transportation of a small volume of the overall traffic in private carriage, and is rendering for one of its two existing shippers, as it would under the instant proposal, a personalized type of service. Protestants are not authorized to provide the complete service required by the shipper and its consignee. Moreover, Belford is not authorized to serve Dubuque or Mason City directly, and is not interested in handling any less-than-truckload traffic from Dubuque. The fact that applicant's transportation charges are expected to be somewhat less than Alterman's is subordinate to the overall need of the shipper and its consignee for a complete and economical service. Considering the criteria set forth in section 209 (b) of the act, we conclude that the application should be granted to the extent recommended by the examiner; that protestants will not be adversely affected by the grant; and that, while applicant would not be adversely affected by a denial of the application, the shipper and its consignee would be deprived of the complete service required to meet their reasonable transportation needs.

We find that operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, over irregular routes, of butter from Dubuque, Iowa, to Miami, Fla., limited to a transportation service to be performed under a continuing contract or contracts with State Brand Creameries, Inc., of Mason City, Iowa, will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; 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; and that a permit authorizing such operation should be granted.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 218, and 221(c) of the act, with our rules and regulations thereunder, and with the requirements established in Contracts of Contract Carriers 1 M.C.C. 628, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate permit will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER HERRING, dissenting:

In my opinion, applicant has not shown a need for the proposed service, nor that present service is inadequate to meet the shipper's transportation needs. I would deny the application.

COMMISSIONER FREAS dissents.

VICE CHAIRMAN MURPHY did not participate.

84 M.C.C.

No. MC-78787 (SUB-No. 34)1

PACIFIC MOTOR TRUCKING COMPANY EXTENSION—

OREGON

Decided March 17, 1961

1. Upon further consideration, findings in prior report, 77 M.C.C. 605, modified. 2. In No. MC-78787 (Sub-Nos. 34, 36, and 37), operations by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of automobiles, trucks, and buses, found not consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Applications denied.

3. In No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 35), operation by applicant as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of automobiles and trucks, in initial movements, in truckaway and driveaway service, from a specified plant site in Oakland, Calif., to Austin, Tonopah, and Yerington, Nev., over irregular routes, found consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy.

4. In No. MC-78786, certificate, dated August 28, 1959, modified by the deletion therefrom of a restriction against the transportation of automobiles and trucks.

5. Holding by applicant of the permit authorized in No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 35) and of certificates heretofore issued found consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy.

6. Issuance of the permit authorized in No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 35), concurrently with cancellation of the permit in No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 34), dated November 24, 1958, approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and the application in all other respects denied. Appearances as shown in the prior report, and, in addition, George L. Buland, Charles W. Burkett, Jr., and Frederick E. Fuhrman for applicant; Larry A. Esckilsen, James K. Knudson, and Paul F. Sullivan for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION:

By applications filed in No. MC-78787, subnumbers 34, 35, 36 and 37, Pacific Motor Trucking Company, a corporation, of San Francisco, Calif., seeks permits authorizing operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, of the commodities, in the manner and to the extent, as specifically set forth in

1 This report also embraces No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 35), Pacific Motor Trucking Company Extension-New Motor Vehicles to Additional Nevada Points, No. MC-78787 (SubNo. 36), Pacific Motor Trucking Company Extension-New Motor Vehicles, Raymer, Calif., to Arizona, No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 37), Pacific Motor Trucking Company ExtensionAutomobiles-California Assembly Plants to Seven Western States, and No. MC-78786, Pacific Motor Trucking Company, a Corporation.

appendix A hereto. General Motors Corporation supports, and American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Contract Carrier Conference of American Trucking Associations, Inc., oppose the applications. Others opposing certain of the involved applications are shown in appendix A.

The four related contract-carrier applications were the subject of oral argument on a consolidated record and a report thereon,2 77 M.C.C. 605, hereinafter referred to as the report on oral argument. In the report on oral argument, applicant was granted permits authorizing the transportation of automobiles and trucks, under contract with General Motors Corporation, in the manner and to the extent as set forth in appendix B hereto, there being reserved to the Commission the right to impose in the future any restrictions or conditions which may then appear necessary or desirable in the public interest. The issuance of the permits was conditioned upon receipt of a written request from applicant for imposition of a restriction against the transportation of automobiles and trucks in its outstanding certificates in No. MC-78786 and various subnumbers thereunder. Upon compliance by applicant with the aforementioned condition, it was issued a consolidated permit, No. MC-78787 (Sub-No. 34), dated November 24, 1958, authorizing the operations described in appendix B. Thereafter, pursuant to the applicant's written request, it was issued a consolidated certificate in No. MC-78786, dated August 28, 1959, embracing its outstanding common-carrier authority, wherein on sheet 46 thereof there was imposed a blanket restriction as follows: "RESTRICTION: The operations authorized herein are re stricted against the transportation of automobiles and trucks."

Following the issuance of the described report on oral argument, a suit was instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside our order. The district court denied such relief, 170 F. Supp. 38, but upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the judgment of the district court was reversed and the cause was remanded to the lower court. American Trucking Assns. v. United States, 364 U.S. 1 (1960). The district court then remanded the matter to us for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court, including a determination as to whether or not the permit hereinbefore granted applicant should remain in effect pending action on the remand. The permit has been allowed to remain in effect pending final determination of these proceedings.

In view of the remand to us, and in consideration of applicant's subsequently filed petition for reconsideration, the reply thereto by certain protestants and interveners in opposition, and applicant's

On reconsideration and oral argument in the title proceeding which had been the subject of a prior report on oral argument, 71 M.C.C. 561.