the continuation of such service by motor vehicle will adversely affect the operations of existing motor carriers. We conclude, therefore, that public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations authorized in the findings herein.

Applicant is fit and able, financially and otherwise, properly to conduct the motor-vehicle operations authorized herein.

As seen, all interstate shipments moving from and to Laingsburg, Mason, Leslie, and Rives Junction would receive either an immediately prior or subsequent movement by rail or air, in addition to a motor-carrier movement over the proposed routes. We conclude, therefore, that applicant should be restricted to the transportation of shipments moving in this manner and to the performance of service which is auxiliary to, or supplemental of, express service. Appropriate conditions to those end will be incorporated in the findings herein.

Upon further hearing, we find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of express matter moving in express service, (1) between Lansing and Lainsgburg, Mich., as follows: From Lansing over U. S. Highway 27 to the junction unnumbered highway approximately 4 miles north of Lansing and thence over the unnumbered highway through Bath, Mich., to Laingsburg, and return over the same route, serving no intermediate points, and (2) between Jackson and Lansing, Mich., over U. S. Highway 127, serving Leslie and Mason, Mich., as intermediate points, and Rives Junction, Mich., as an off-route point, with service at such intermediate and off-route points restricted to traffic moving to or from Jackson, Lansing, or points beyond, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The service to be performed by applicant is limited to service which is auxiliary to or supplemental of express service.

(2) Shipments transported by applicant shall be limited to those moving on a through bill of lading or express receipt covering in addition to a motor-carrier movement by applicant, an immediately prior or immediately subsequent movement by railroad or aircraft.

(3) Such further specific conditions as we, in the future, may find it necessary to impose in order to restrict applicant's operation to service which is auxiliary to or supplemental of express service.

We further find 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 a 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 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An order will be entered denying the application except to the extent granted herein.

MAHAFFIE, Commissioner, concurring in part:

I approve the report insofar as authority is granted. In my opinion the record warrants granting the application in its entirety.

PATTERSON, Chairman, dissenting:

The service proposed by applicant is not in fact a substituted motor for rail service for the reason that there is no complete abandonment of rail service but merely curtailment thereof. Actually, applicant's service would duplicate that of the rail carrier since daily rail service is still continued between the points for which the majority would grant authority. In my opinion the evidence does not establish a need for applicant's proposed operations.

43 M. C. C.

No. MC-22589

CAMPUS TRAVEL, INC., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided June 6, 1944

On reconsideration, findings in prior report, 43 M. C. C. 816, modified. Applicant found entitled to continue (1) seasonal operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage, and of newspapers and express in the same vehicle with passengers, between New York, N. Y., and Tamiment, Pa., and between Philadelphia, Pa., and Tamiment, over specified routes, and (2) charter operations from specified points in New York and New Jersey and Tyler Hill, Pa., to points in various States, over irregular routes. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. Other report, 41 M. C. C. 811.

Appearances shown in prior reports.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION :

By application filed February 12, 1936, as amended, under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Campus Travel, Inc., of New York, N. Y., doing business as Campus Coach Lines, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing continuance of operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, and of express and newspapers in the same vehicle with passengers, (1) between New York City and Tamiment, Pa., and (2) in seasonal operations between Philadelphia, Pa., and Tamiment, over regular routes, serving certain intermediate and off-route points, and (3) passengers and their baggage, in charter operations between points in several States and the District of Columbia, over irregular routes, as set forth in appendix A hereto.

In a report on reconsideration, 43 M. C. C. 816, decided November 27, 1943, division 5 found that applicant was entitled to a certificate authorizing continuance of operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, (1) of passengers and their baggage, and of express and newspapers in the same vehicle with passengers, in seasonal operations extending from May 1 to September 30, both inclusive, of each year, between New York City and Tamiment via Bushkill, Pa., between Philadelphia, Pa., and Bushkill, and between Philadelphia and Tamiment, over the regular

routes described in appendix B hereto, serving the intermediate and off-route points therein described, with operations over the routes between Philadelphia, on the one hand, and Bushkill and Tamiment, on the other, limited to the transportation of not more than six passengers, not including the driver, and children under 6 years of age, who do not occupy a seat or seats, in any one vehicle; and (2) of passengers and their baggage in charter operations from points in New York and New Jersey within 50 miles of the Borough of Manhattan, New York, N. Y. and from Tyler Hill, Pa., to points in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, over irregular routes. The application in all other respects was denied.

Upon petition of applicant, the proceeding was reopened for reconsideration on the record as made; and the order of November 27, 1943, insofar as it denied the application, was vacated and set aside.

Applicant objects to the findings in the prior report only with respect (1) to the limiting of operations over the routes between Philadelphia, on the one hand, and Tamiment and Bushkill, on the other, to the transportation of not more than six passengers, not including the driver, and children under 6 years of age, who do not occupy a seat or seats, in any one vehicle; and (2) to the failure of the division to grant more extensive authority to perform charter operations. In all other respects, the record supports the grant made in the prior report; and our discussion herein will be limited to the matters set forth in applicant's petition. The facts are adequately set forth in the prior report and will not be repeated except when necessary for clarification of discussion.

Applicant states that his regular-route operations should be considered as a whole; that Tamiment is the center of such operations; that the size of equipment used depended upon the needs of the traffic, as is evidenced by the fact that busses were used on the New York route; and that, therefore, the restriction limiting operations over the Philadelphia routes to the transportation of six passengers only in any one vehicle should be removed. It contends further that, to its knowledge, the Commission heretofore has placed such a limitation only upon motor carriers engaged in special operations, within the meaning of section 207 (a) of the act, over irregular routes; that special operations differ from applicant's "regular route, terminal to terminal, intermediate point, scheduled service;" and that "to limit a portion of the operations because the same happened to use smaller size vehicles upon the particular occasion as different from special operations, is in contravention of the prohibition of section 208 (a) which protects the right of the carrier to expand its equipment and facilities."

Apart from the fact that the New York and Philadelphia routes have a common termini, Tamiment, the operations rendered thereover have no relation to each other. In other words, they cannot be considered as a system of routes; each route is complete in itself and does not form a part of a through route or routes; and separate service is rendered over each route. Over the New York route, persons residing at New York City or in the vicinity are transported to and from Tamiment, a summer resort, or to and from similar places at intermediate points. A similar service is rendered over the Philadelphia routes for persons in the Philadelphia area. The grant or denial of, or the placing of a restriction upon, the service to be rendered over the Philadelphia routes will have no effect upon the service rendered or to be rendered over the New York route, and vice versa.

Although applicant seeks to differentiate between the regular-route, terminal-to-terminal scheduled service which it renders and the special operations performed by a so-called door-to-door carrier which operates seven-passenger vehicles, it is apparent that in certain respects the services rendered by both are similar. For instance, the door-todoor operator generally offers only a seasonal service for the purpose of transporting passengers and their baggage to and from summer resorts and such passengers comprise the greatest, if not the entire, source of revenue. Substantially the same can be said with respect to applicant's operations.

Apart from such similarity of operation, however, we find no provision in the act which precludes us from restricting motor carriers, other than those performing special operations, to the use of certain types of equipment for the purpose of describing the service to be rendered. Section 208 (a) of the act states in part:

*:

Any certificate issued under section 206 or 207 shall specify the service to be rendered and the routes over which, the fixed termini, if any, between which, and the intermediate and off-route points, if any, at which, and in case of operations not over specified routes or between fixed termini, the territory within which, the motor carrier is authorized to operate; and there shall, at the time of issuance and from time to time thereafter, be attached to the exercise of the privileges granted by the certificate such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the public convenience and necessity from time to time require, Provided, however, That no terms, conditions, or limitations shall restrict the right of the carrier to add to his or its equipment and facilities over the routes, between the termini, or within the territory specified in the certificate, as the development of the business and the demands of the public shall require. In Nudelman Common Carrier Application 28 M. C. C. 91 in construing the above proviso, division 5 said at page 93:

In other words, we clearly have the power and duty to specify in any certificate the service to be rendered, except that we may not attach maximum limitations to the quantity of the service to be furnished.