steel, and 2 heavy-duty specially designed underslung trailers for the movement of heavy materials.

The area surrounding Birmingham is highly industrialized and includes Bessemer, Tarrant, Fairfield, Ala., and other separate municipalities, all of which are within a 10-mile radius of Birmingham. The principal industry within the area is the production and manufacture of iron and steel and iron and steel articles. The transportation of these commodities is the basis upon which the considered operations were founded and developed. Skewes transported property for anyone desiring his services, in an irregular-route radial service, from and to points within the Birmingham area, herein called the base territory. Although the application originally requested authority to conduct operations between all points in the States named therein, applicant no longer claims such broad authority. It concedes that the operations have since prior to June 1, 1935, been conducted between points in the base territory on the one hand, and points in the several States on the other, over irreguluar routes. While the record shows applicant and its predecessors have transported some shipments between points in Alabama, their movement appears to have been wholly in intrastate commerce.

Skewes did not maintain complete records of the service performed by him, and it is impossible to determine in many instances the commodities transported or the points served during the period he conducted the operations. In support of the operations claimed to have been conducted especially prior to August 1938, applicant relies to a substantial degree upon the oral testimony of Skewes, and that of two of his former employees, one who was manager of the operations from 1932 to 1938, and the other who had charge of the office after 1936, and upon the testimony of a representative of a manufacturer of steel bars, three motor carriers, and two representatives of a hardware firm. In addition to the testimony of these witnesses, applicant submitted in evidence abstracts listing shipments transported by Skewes between August 19, 1932, and August 26, 1938, and by it and the predecessor partnership between September 6, 1938, and March 2, 1940. Memorandum books, shipping orders, and other data evincing the operations of Skewes, and supporting transportation documents for shipments transported by the predecessor partnership and applicant during the latter period were made available at the hearings for examination by interested parties. The exhibit covering Skewes' operations shows that comparatively few shipments, other than iron and steel or iron and steel articles, were moved prior to 1937, and those listed therein as having been transported thereafter are representative only. The other exhibit lists all shipments transported by applicant and the predecessor partnership for the period included.

The oral testimony of the witnesses is from memory of what applicant's predecessor did after the lapse of several years, and does not establish the dates of the shipments claimed to have been transported, the approximate number of such shipments, or whether his service to the extent claimed was continuous. This evidence is somewhat indefinite and general in character and is rather difficult to appraise. It does, however, establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that Skewes was engaged prior and subsequent to June 1, 1935, in conducting an operation which was limited largely to the transportation of iron and steel and iron and steel articles from points in the base territory to points in a somewhat extensive area, and of some few commodities on return trips within the scope of the application as amended.

Applicant claims more extensive operating rights than those previously granted because of an alleged holding out by it and its predecessors to render such additional service and by reason of actual operations shown to have been performed. In order to establish that it is entitled to a certificate under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the act, applicant must show that it, or its predecessors, was in "bona fide operation on June 1, 1935, over the route or routes within the territory for which application is made and has so operated since that time." In determining the scope of the authority to which it may be entitled consideration is to be given, among other things, to the commodities transported and the actual operations performed within a reasonable period prior to the statutory date, and which have continued since that time with reasonable regularity. Where, as here, a territorial operation is claimed, such a showing must embrace a sufficient number of points throughout the territory to be representative of the whole. The term "bona fide operation" carries the connotation of substantiality and makes clear that a mere holding out to perform a service is not alone sufficient. Substantial, as distinguished from incidental, sporadic, or infrequent service, is required.

In discussing the showing required of an applicant under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a), the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, said: The questions are whether his service within the territory in question was sufficiently regular and whether his coverage of commodities was sufficiently representative to support a finding that he was in "bona fide operation" as a "common carrier" of the group of commodities or of the class or classes of property during the periods in question.

In considering applicant's claims, we shall give consideration to the principles set forth by the Court in the cited case, and it will be authorized to continue those operations in connection with which satis

factory evidence has been submitted, and which establishes that they have been conducted on and since June 1, 1935. As indicated, the mere holding out to provide service, unaccompanied by an actual and substantial operation consistent therewith is not sufficient to establish "grandfather" rights.

The service rendered by applicant as well as by its predecessors in one direction has been different from that in the reverse direction. Since the out-bound operations have been essentially different from those in-bound, they will be discussed separately.

OUT-BOUND OPERATIONS

Applicant, as heretofore indicated, seeks authority to transport iron and steel articles of all kinds from points within the base territory to points in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The evidence submitted in support of the application establishes that prior to August 1938, approximately 95 percent of Skewes' traffic consisted of steel bars, cast-iron sash weights, ornamental iron, steel pipe, cast-iron pipe, structural steel, castings, metal pans, manholes, and metal roofing, from points in the base territory to Tampa and other points in Florida, on and north of U. S. Highway 92 to Kissimmee, Fla., U. S. Highway 192 to Melbourne, Fla., and an unnumbered highway to the Atlantic seaboard; Atlanta, Lawrenceville, Rome, Hamilton, Cordele, Fort Benning, Gainesville, Cartersville, Elberton, Lumpkin, Waycross, and Savannah, Ga.; Baton Rouge, and New Orleans, La.; Meridian, Hattiesburg, Crawford, Hickory, Home, Bay Springs, Port Gibson, Vicksburg, Tupelo, Houston, Winona, Jackson, and Macon, Miss., and Columbia, Jackson, Sparta, La Follette, Chattanooga, Memphis, Union City, Winchester, Tullahoma, and Lewisburg, Tenn. There is no evidence that he served other points in Florida or points in Louisiana west of the Mississippi River.

Applicant and its immediate predecessor, the partnership, after August 1938 continued to specialize in the transportation of iron and steel and iron and steel articles from points in the base territory to points in the territory described above. There were also occasional shipments of household goods, hardware, and roofing cement from Birmingham, and one shipment of roofing cement from Bessemer prior to 1939, and one shipment of stone from Birmingham, one shipment of machinery, and a few scattered shipments of contractors' equipment from Bessemer thereafter, but applicant no longer claims authority under the "grandfather" clause to transport these commodities out-bound from the base territory.

In our prior findings, we restricted the authority granted applicant to the movement of certain iron and steel articles between points in

the base territory on the one hand, and points in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, on the other, to quantities of 6,000 pounds or more. After carefully reviewing the entire record, we are convinced that neither applicant nor its predecessors confined their out-bound movements to a particular class or type of iron and steel articles, but on the contrary engaged in the transportation of iron and steel and a substantial number of iron and steel articles from the base territory. The record also shows that Skewes especially, transported shipments of these commodities weighing less than 6,000 pounds as well as heavier shipments. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that applicant as successor in interest is entitled to continue the transportation of iron and steel and iron and steel articles, in any quantity, from points in the base territory to points within the territory described in the findings herein.

IN-BOUND OPERATIONS

Applicant contends that it should be granted authority to transport general commodities, except dangerous explosives, from all points in the previously named States, instead of certain specified commodities from points in Mississippi and Tennessee to the base territory, over irregular routes, because of a holding out to render this service in addition to the actual operations performed.

Although the testimony of Skewes, who conducted the operations until August 1938, was to the effect that he transported such commodities as were available on return movements, and that he solicited and originated shipments at points in the territory where deliveries of iron and steel and iron and steel articles were made, the record as a whole does not support the conclusion that he served an origin territory on in-bound traffic as great in scope as that to which out-bound shipments were transported. He recalled that during the period that he conducted the operations, he transported citrus fruits from points in Florida, vegetables and canned goods from points in Louisiana, hides and textiles from points in Mississippi, and canned goods and tile from points in Tennessee. There is no further oral testimony supporting these claims. The testimony of the other witnesses relates to the operations he conducted in the reverse direction.

An analysis of the documentary evidence discloses that between August 1932 and August 1938, Skewes transported in-bound to the base territory one shipment each of oranges from Tampa and Oviedo, Fla., one shipment of watermelons from Archer, Fla., one shipment each of paper from Pensacola and Panama City, Fla., one shipment of petroleum products in containers, and two shipments of canned goods from New Orleans, one shipment of tar from Gulfport,

Miss., two shipments of textiles from Stonewall, one shipment of tile from Chattanooga, seven shipments of canned goods from Newport, Tenn., two similar shipments from Tellico Plains, Tenn., and an occasional returned shipment of iron and steel articles. Thereafter, between, September 1938 and March 1940, applicant and the predecessor partnership transported in-bound to the base territory one shipment of petroleum products in containers from New Orleans, six shipments of textiles from Stonewall, one shipment of agricultural implements from Jackson, Miss., seven shipments of canned goods from Newport and two shipments of contractors' outfits from Murfreesboro, Tenn. While applicant and its predecessors transported a few additional scattered cross-haul shipments of other commodities such as cement from Sylacauga, Ala., to Atlanta, and tile from Daisy, Tenn., to Selma, Ala., authority for which is no longer sought herein, it is obvious that the in-bound service rendered since prior to June 1, 1935, has been confined to the transportation of a limited number of commodities rather than of general commodities.

The evidence is clear that the in-bound operations of neither applicant nor its predecessors were extensive but consisted of such shipments as they could properly and conveniently handle on return after delivery of out-bound shipments. Under the principles announced in the Carolina case, we are authorized to grant authority covering proven bona fide operations that have been conducted continuously since June 1, 1935; but neither under these principles nor under the statute are we required to grant more extensive authority in order for a carrier to engage in operations never engaged in on and prior to the critical rate merely to assure such a carrier a more profitable operation than that which it planned or conducted. See W. H. Tompkins Co. Common Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 349.

Applicant, since it acquired the operations, and its predecessors before it have depended upon the regular and substantial out-bound movements of heavy commodities for revenues sufficient to support the operations. While there were, in a number of instances, fortuitous return movements of several commodities in addition to certain commodities which have moved with some comparative regularity, neither applicant nor its predecessors were at any time prepared or equipped to obtain the return movement of such a number of commodities as to justify the conclusion that the coverage of the commodities transported were sufficient to come within the category or the commonly accepted definition of general commodities. The terminal facilities have always been maintained in the base territory, and no arrangements have been made outside of the base territory to secure return movements. The facilities and equipment used in conducting the operations are not suitable for the return transportation of general