York City and Atlantic City, N. J., through Freehold and Lakewood, N. J. Nine round trips daily on week days and 11 round trips daily on week ends to and from New York City pass through Freehold, where connections are made with the Trenton Transit Company, which operates between Trenton and Asbury Park. The same schedules pass through Lakewood where connections are made with the Public Service Interstate Transportation Company, which operates between Philadelphia, Pa., and Asbury Park as described below.

The Public Service Interstate Transportation Company operating in conjunction with Public Service Coordinated Transport Company, an affiliate company, formerly provided a service between New York and Asbury Park by a transfer of passengers at Newark. The latter carrier, an intrastate operator, did not operate between Newark and Asbury Park during the summer of 1943 because of certain orders of the Office of Defense Transportation. The Public Service Interstate Transportation Company operating by itself, however, can furnish service between New York and Asbury Park by transporting passengers from New York to Lakewood over its New York-Atlantic City line and thence by its Philadelphia-Asbury Park line between Lakewood and Asbury Park.

The Asbury Park-New York Transit Corporation operates nine trips daily from Asbury Park to New York and three trips daily in the opposite direction. It makes reservations for seats which may be obtained by telephone or through company agents upon request. Its busses have reclining seats and are air-conditioned. On Sundays and holidays this carrier has service every 15 minutes northbound, the last bus being scheduled to leave Asbury Park for New York at 11 p. m. In addition, on Sundays considerable equipment is deadheaded to New York from 6 p. m. to 2 a. m. to take care of soldiers returning to their stations on this company's line. Bradley Beach is located a short distance from Asbury Park and local bus and taxi facilities are available for travel between the two.

Asbury Park and Bradley Beach are served by both The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey and The Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Tickets issued by either are accepted by the other. The two railroads operate a total of 40 trains south-bound on week days, 8 of which are Saturday-only trains and 9 are except-Saturday trains. North-bound, 34 trips are operated, 4 of which are except-Saturday trains and 3 are Saturday-only trains. On Sundays, 22 trains are operated south-bound and 24 trains north-bound, but during the summer season, in order to take care of the increased business, the railroads operate additional sections to the regular trains. These sections move ahead of the regular scheduled trains, a period of approxi

mately 30 minutes elapsing between the first train of that group and the last one. Approximately from 25,000 to 30,000 people travel toward New York on Sundays from stations on their lines between Bayhead Junction and Perth Amboy, N. J.

Protestants question applicant's fitness because of his failure to comply with certain prescribed requirements of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey concerning the construction of the equipment used by applicant in his operations between New York and Lakewood and his failure to file evidence of insurance with the board. This matter was considered in Rubin and Greenfield Common Carrier Application, 33 M. C. C. 383, and at page 390, division 5 said:

Whether the board's regulations now under discussion are such as it can validly promulgate notwithstanding Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, it is not our province to decide. That is an issue between applicants and the State. We shall, therefore, make such findings as to the need for the proposed services as we deem appropriate in the premises and will leave to the respective parties in interest the question of compliance with State regulations.

The decision of division 5 in the case cited is equally applicable in the instant proceeding. We conclude that applicant is fit and able to perform the operations authorized herein.

It is clear that protestant rail and motor carriers are rendering a frequent service, which because of its seasonal nature and the points served is heavily patronized, particularly over week ends and holidays. To the extent that overcrowding results on such days, applicant's proposed service will undoubtedly serve a public need. Apart from the fact that protestants' facilities are overtaxed at times, the service proposed by applicant differs from that offered by protestants both in the type of equipment used and the manner of operation. We have recognized in the past that door-to-door service is particularly attractive for persons traveling in family groups with small children or persons who are aged or infirm. Here no such service is now available to the public. A number of keepers of hotels and rooming houses, who are in a position to determine the needs and desires of their guests with respect to transportation to and from such hotels and rooming houses, have found that there is a need for the proposed door-to-door service. Not only will such a service fulfill a need for family groups and the aged or infirm, but it will be of service to the keepers of hotels and rooming houses in obtaining as guests persons who cannot, or do not desire to travel by regular common-carrier facilities. We conclude, therefore, that public convenience and necessity require the proposed service between New York City, on the one hand, and, on the other, Asbury Park and Bradley Beach. No need,

however, has been shown with respect to service at the other points for which authority is sought to serve.

Although authority is sought to operate over a regular route, special operations customarily are performed over the most convenient highways, and in order that applicant may render the most expeditious service possible we will grant authority herein to operate over irregular routes.

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, in special operations in nonscheduled door-to-door service, limited to the transportation of not more than six passengers in any one vehicle, but not including the driver thereof and not including children under 10 years of age who do not occupy a seat or seats, between New York City, on the one hand, and, on the other, Asbury Park and Bradley Beach, N. J., over irregular routes; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such operations and to conform to the requirements of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that an appropriate certificate authorizing such service should be issued; and that in all other respects the application should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act, and with 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.

43 M. C. C.

No. MC-60387

BONNER HAULING COMPANY, INC., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION

Decided July 4, 1944

1. Upon reconsideration, findings in prior report, 41 M. C. C. 404, modified, and all of applicant's operations found to be those of a contract carrier by motor vehicle.

2. Applicant found entitled to continue operations as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, with exceptions, between Philadelphia, Pa., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, within 125 miles of Philadelphia, over irregular routes, by reason of its having been engaged in such operations on and continuously since July 1, 1935.

Harold S. Shertz for applicant.

Other appearances as shown in prior report.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In the prior report in this proceeding, 41 M. C. C. 404, division 5 found that the operations of applicant, Bonner Hauling Company, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pa., were in part those of a common carrier and in part those of a contract carrier; that applicant was entitled, under section 206 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, to a "grandfather" certificate as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, with exceptions, in interstate or foreign commerce, between the points and in the manner specified in part I of the attached appendix; that applicant also was entitled, under section 209 (a) of the act, to a "grandfather" permit as a contract carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, with exceptions, in interstate or foreign commerce, between the points and in the manner specified in part II of the attached appendix; but that the holding by applicant of both the certificate and permit would not be consistent with the public interest and with the national transportation policy. Accordingly, applicant was afforded time to divest itself of either one or the other of the rights to which it was found entitled. Within the time specified, applicant filed a petition for reconsideration, taking issue only with the finding that its dual operations will not be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy.

Upon consideration of the record herein and of applicant's petition, we are reopening this proceeding for reconsideration on the record as made. The facts in respect of applicant's operations are discussed in the prior report, and will be restated here only to the extent necessary to dispose of the issues herein.

Applicant's business consists entirely of furnishing motor-carrier equipment with drivers. Prior to the statutory date it had 20 trucks of various types and a garage where this equipment was serviced. At the time of the hearing the number of trucks had increased to 36. Under contracts in effect on or prior to the critical date and since, applicant agrees to make available to various manufacturers, distributors, and others (hereinafter called shippers), fully equipped trucks with drivers, for the transportation of their property between their respective places of business in Philadelphia and various points, in some instances as far as 125 miles from Philadelphia. These contracts, hereafter referred to as long-term contracts, are on an annual basis and provide for a 90-day notice for cancelation. Trucks made available to shippers under these contracts are devoted exclusively to their use. The greater part of applicant's equipment is devoted to service under such contracts. Equipment assigned to each individual shipper is especially equipped or constructed so as to be adaptable to the transportation of the particular merchandise dealt in by such shipper. The name of the shipper is painted or stenciled on the trucks assigned to it, and, insofar as the general public is concerned, such trucks appear to belong to the shipper to whom they are furnished. However, the trucks also have applicant's name and insignia on the doors. Extra equipment is provided by applicant as required by the shippers on an hourly basis. When not needed by the shippers referred to above, the extra equipment with drivers is made available to other persons on an hourly basis under oral agreements.

Applicant pays all expenses incidental to operating the trucks, such as expenses for gasoline, oil, repairs, and driver's wages. It carries public-liability, property-damage, and cargo insurance, and social security insurance for its employees. It places trucks at the disposal of the shippers who instruct the drivers as to their use, which shipments to pick up and deliver, and the destination thereof. Shipping papers, if any, are prepared by the shippers. Applicant is responsible for loss of, and damage to, property transported, and to the public for damages arising from such transportation. The charges for the use of extra equipment, when not provided for in a long-term contract, are assessed in accordance with the rates set forth in applicant's tariff.

Division 5 found that the ultimate right to control and to limit, as well as the responsibility for the performance of the transportation,