OPERATION. See also COMMODITIES; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; Dual OPERATION; ROUTES; SAVING CLAUSES; and particular kinds of service or carriers.
BONA FIDE: It is fundamental that carrier status requires not only a holding out with ability and willingness to transport, but also some actual transportation consistent therewith. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. William Schafer & Son. Inc., 657 (659);
-And a bona fide local operation should be marked by greater consistency of movement than a long-haul service. Id. (659);
-To publish rates and hold out to the public as a carrier to the extent possible with available equipment does not constitute compliance with certificate, in absence of actual operation amounting to bona fide continuous and adequate service. R. D. Fowler Motor Lines. Inc., v. Colonial Motor Frt. Lines, Inc., 781 (784).
Compliance affidavit failed to establish bona fide resumption of operations when assertion that interstate authority from destination States had been arranged for was offset by failure to show that carrier's one truck had been licensed in any such State or that licensing was unnecessary; reference to "my truck" negatived availability for long-haul service of any equipment not fully engaged locally; and affiant's assertion as to solicitation was offset by failure to show any advertisement such as would be expected in a bona fide attempt to perform service of scope authorized. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. William Schafer & Son, Inc., 657 (659);
-That nature of household-goods traffic might make it difficult for carrier to develop any substantial volume, or even traffic to all authorized States. in 2 months after service of recommended report and compliance order, did not explain failure to show any long-haul service; and transportation of only three local shipments in 1 week and none in the following 6 raised doubt as to bona fide resumption of any operations. Id. (659).
JOINT: When separate legal entities conducting a joint operation had identical stockholders whose percentage of interest in each company was about the same Commission was warranted in looking through the corporate structures to determine that the persons back of them, and the beneficiaries of their single operating right, were the real parties in interest. Lincoln Tunnel Applics., 707 (711).
TEMPORARY: See also BURDEN OF PROOF. When no need for permanent extension of authority as a household-goods carrier was shown, but abnormal demands for service between eastern Wash and adjacent States resulted from Government construction projects and establishment of war facilities, Commission, on own motion considered issuance of temporary authority for that territory. Bogovich Ext.-Household Goods. 745 (746, 748).
Holder of temporary wartime permit need not defer application for permanent authority until termination of the war appears imminent, as application may be filed at any time. Major Contr. Car. Applic., 795 (799).
UNAUTHORIZED: See also RAIL AND MOTOR; ROUTES (Radial vs. Nonradial) (Substitution or Change); THROUGH ROUTES. Operation under color of a claimed "grandfather" right was not unlawful although showing of past service was insufficient to prove that right. Carolina Frt. Carriers Corp. Com. Car. Applic. 221 (236).
ORDERS. See TARIFF CIRCULARS.
OVERCHARGES.
See SCHEDULES (Applicability and Interpretation). PARCEL SERVICE. See COMMON CARRIERS (Definition, etc.); SERVICE. PARTIES. See also BURDen of Proof; INTERVENTIONS; PURCHASE.
APPLICANTS: When each of competing applicants would be able to render
needed through bus service in connection with a proposed route, but traffic
would support only one operation, authority was granted that one which already
furnished intrastate service over the route, had aided in development of the terri-
tory, and could perform interstate service at virtually no additional cost.
Public Service Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (609, 622);
-Successful applicant for alternate route had been the first to file application;
its showing of public need, while weaker than that of the others, was sufficient;
and its service required only rerouting of busses from alternate operating route,
whereas the others would probably have to curtail service on existing routes. Id.
(610);
-Diversion of traffic from other extension applicant would not be serious and
would be outweighed by benefit to the public, whereas grant to that one, by divert-
ing intrastate traffic from the one already operating, would jeopardize latter's
operation. Id. (622).
DEFENDANTS: Carrier was a proper defendant although assailed rules were
restricted not to apply over its local routes, when they applied on shipments
transported by it under a through-route arrangement. Carriers participating
in tariffs containing the rules were also proper defendants although they had not
demanded charges under the rules. Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck
Line, 337 (338).
PASSENGERS. See also CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Extension of Opera-
tion); ROUTES; SERVICE; TRANSPORTATION.
CHARTERED OR SPECIAL OPERATION OR PARTIES: Although "grandfather"
authority for charter operation had been limited to origin area outside applicant's
regular-route territory, on ground that rights from latter territory were protected
by sec. 208 (c), the regular-route authority was seasonal only, and under rule VI
of charter-party regulations incidental authority flowing from sec. 208 (c) was
likewise limited. As applicant's charter operations were not limited to a season,
specific nonseasonal authority was granted for all territories to which it proved
"grandfather" rights. Campus Travel, Inc.. Com. Car. Applic., 421 (425)
Charter operation to Del. and W. Va. authorized, although past service had
been infrequent, since they were in same general territory as States to which fairly
consistent service had been rendered, but denied to Ill. when no service had been
performed during a 2-year period subsequent to the "grandfather" date and it
was two States removed from the rest of the destination territory. Id. (426).
Door-to-door service, operated on schedule only when passengers are available,
is a special operation within sec. 207 (a), and is particularly desirable for family
groups including small children or aged or infirm persons. Greenfield Com. Car.
Applic., 555 (558, 561).
COMMON CARRIAGE: Extension authority under which applicant could render
through bus service from nearby N. J. points to New York City, granted when
long-haul bus lines operating through affected communities made no attempt to
render local service. While volume of traffic was problematical, in view of com-
petition of direct rail commuter service and motor-rail service with interchange
at Newark, those communities were entitled also to through motor service.
Somerset Bus Co., Inc., Ext.-Somerville-New York, 543 (545, 549).
Denial: Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (618, 624);
Royal Cadillac Service, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 247.
Grant: Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599 (611, 624);
Somerset Bus Co., Inc., Ext.-Somerville-New York, 543.
Partial Grant: Campus Travel, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 421; Greenfield Com.
Car. Applic., 555; Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.-Bergen Turnpike, 599
(612)
THROUGH ROUTES: Passenger carriers have no duty under sec. 216 (a) to estab-
lish through routes merely to enable a connecting line to share in transportation
which they can perform, and provisions of sec. 216 (e) as to prescription of through
routes require more than mere showing that additional routes would be created.
Wolzinger v. Burlington Transp. Co., 51 (54);
-Prescription of through routes and joint fares between points on complainant's
circuitous route from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City and points beyond on lines
of defendants having more direct single or join routes from Los Angeles was not
warranted when defendants' facilities and service were adequate and additional
route would deprive them of some traffic, whereas lack of through routes had not
affected complainant's raffic. That complainant's lower fares to Salt Lake City
resulted in combinations lower than defendants joint fares and procured it some
through traffic did not establish need for prescription of through routes. Id. (53).
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC: Authority for year-round sedan service to vacation
resort was justified by overcrowding of trains and busses on week ends and holi-
days, and by absence of other suitable service for family groups or infirm persons.
Greenfield Com Car. Applic., 555 (561);
-But authority for bus service to a resort area was denied when established
carriers were able to handle normal traffic. Wartime congestion and shortage
of equipment on week ends and holidays tended at most to show merely a tem-
porary need for additional service. Royal Cadillac Service, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 247 (259).
PERMITS. See CONTRACT CARRIERS; OPERATION (Temporary).
PICK-UP AND DELIVERY. See COST OF SERVICE (Apportionment); DIFFER-
ENTIAL RATES; TERMINAL AREAS.
POLICY. See INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION.
POOL TRUCK SHIPMENTS. See DESTINATION.
PRACTICE OF LAW. See APPEARANCES; WITNESSES.
PRACTICES. See BROKERS (Fees); COMPETITION; TRANSIT.
PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE. See ASSEMBLING AND DISTRIBUTION
RATES; BULKY ARTICLES; GROUPS AND GROUP RATES; USE.
PRESUMPTIONS. See BURDEN OF PROOF; CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
(Proof); DIVISIONS OF RATES; RATE COMPARISONS; TRANSIT.
PRICES. Rationing and ceiling prices on shoes did not warrant their exclusion
from general rate increase. While not all other commodities were rationed,
nearly all were subject to price ceilings. and their manufacturers were faced with
same conditions. Increased Com. Car. Truck Rates in New England, 13 (20).
PRIVATE CARRIERS. DEFINITION AND TESTS OF STATUS: Although private-
carrier definition in sec. 203 (a) follows the definitions of common and contract
carriers, which it specifically excludes from the private-carrier class, and which
therefore must be considered first. no conclusion as to their application need be
reached before the private-carrier definition can even be considered. Kline Contr.
Car. Applic., 451 (455).
All issues of for-hire versus private carriage should be determined on basis of
the operator's primary business and receipt of compensation identifiable as for
transportation is not controlling. Id. (456);
—Applicant primarily engaged in supplying a paper mill with pulpwood was
a private carrier in transporting it from point of purchase to the mill. Marcellus
Contr. Car. Applic., 128 (129);
-Applicant which had curtailed its own quarry operations during the war and
purchased stone for resale, under an agency arrangement, was a private carrier
in making deliveries to its customers, as such arrangement was temporary and
not an abandonment of its primary business. Moreover, 90 percent of its inter-
state business involved no transportation, and such as it performed was incidental
to its stone business and not for profit. John S. Teeter & Sons, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 200;
-Transportation of dress materials from jobbers' premises in N. Y. to appli-
cant's plant in N. J., and of finished dresses to the jobbers, was private carriage
incidental to his primary business as a dress manufacturer. He received no
compensation identifiable as for transportation, since cost of operating his truck
was included in his price quotations as nonproductive expense, regardless of
whether any transportation was performed. Klien Contr. Car. Applic., 451 (456).
PROCEDURE. See DAMAGES; INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION.
PROFIT FACTOR IN REASONABLENESS: The general rate level should be
adjusted to permit profitable operations in the future, and not to reimburse
carriers for past losses. Increased Com. Car. Truck Rates in New England, 13
(22).
A carrier operating at a loss cannot do so indefinitely without impairing or
destroying its ability to render an essential common-carrier service, and should
be permitted to increase its rates. Increased Rates. Hayes Frt. Lines, 173 (182).
PROTEST. See BROKERS (Proof, etc.); CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (Proof).
PUBLIC INTEREST. See CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (In General):
INSURANCE.
PURCHASE. See also COMMON CARRIERS (Qualifications); HEARING; RAIL AND
MOTOR. Sale of "grandfather" claims and substitution of vendee as applicant
is approved without passing on rights which may ultimately be confirmed. and
without determining whether operation over claimed routes has been continuous
since the "grandfather" date. Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic.. 37 (39).
When petition for reopening of purchase proceeding indicated intent of parties
to embrace in the transaction all "grandfather" rights which might be confirmed
in vendor, and not merely those previously confirmed and authorized to be sold
to vendee. purchase of additional rights confirmed in reopened "grandfather"
proceeding was approved. Wallace Com. Car. Applic., 307 (308, 313).
QUESTIONNAIRES. See EVIDENCE (Hearsay).
RADIAL AND NONRADIAL OPERATIONS. See ROUTES.
RAIL AND MOTOR. COORDINATION: Specification of key points on connect-
ing authorized routes, beyond termini of proposed route, in restricting extension
authority to prevent all-motor operation between points on the combined routes,
did not go beyond scope of extension application and would not diminish appli-
cant's rights over combined routes. Rock Island Motor Transit Co., Ext.-
Trenton, Mo., 470 (474).
Although removal of restrictions against operation of all-motor service by
railroad subsidiary over its combined routes was not warranted, key-point condi-
tion was substituted for rail-haul condition when the latter prevented elimination
of way-freight train service. Id. (474, 475).
When approval of purchases of operating rights by railroad subsidiary reserved
right to impose future restrictions to confine service to rail-auxiliary, operation of
independent motor service over routes so acquired was unauthorized and should
be discontinued. Campbell Sixty-Six Exp., Inc., v. Frisco Transp Co., 641 (647,
653):
-Failure to impose precise restrictions on operation under the purchased
rights was unimportant to lawfulness of the independent motor service, in view
of that reservation and reference in the certificates to orders in the purchase
proceedings. Id. (653);
-Carrier described proposed service as auxiliary; and purchases would have
been disapproved had that limitation not been understood. As carrier in effect
agreed to such limitation, no particular restriction appeared necessary, and while
there might have been uncertainty as to manner of operating such a service, it
clearly did not embrace motor carriage independent of rail service. Id. (651,
653);
-But unrestricted operation over other purchased routes was not unlawful
when approval was not conditioned on performance of auxiliary service exclu-
sively, and subsequent decisions confirming vendor's "grandfather" rights did
not restrict certificates issued to defendant as successor. Id. (645, 653).
When need was not shown for independent motor service over extension route,
but merely for expedited service to smaller rail stations. authority was restricted
to transportation of railroad traffic on rail billing and rates; but key-point condi-
tion was not imposed, in view of applicant's unrestricted authority between
principal points on existing routes. Burlington Transp. Co. Ext.—Ill., Iowa,
and Mo., 729 (737).
Extension of service for handling of package freight where train service was
slower, more expensive, and less practical would benefit both applicant railroad
and the public. While partial coordination of service by applicant and independ-
ent motor carriers, in conformity with O. D. T. requirements, had effected some
improvements over all-rail service, it was less efficient, expeditious, and econom-
ical than if applicant controlled both the rail and the motor service, and was,
moreover, an emergency measure the continuance of which Commission had
neither power nor justification to compel. Illinois Central R. Co. Ext.-Iowa,
Minn., and S. Dak., 767 (768, 774).
RATE COMPARISONS. See also ASSEMBLING AND DISTRIBUTION RATES;
CLASS RATES: DISTANCE.
LONG-AND-SHORT-HAUL RATES: Lower charges for longer interterritorial hauls
than for shorter intraterritorial hauls over same routes were prima facie unreason-
able and required special justification. Minimum Charges in Central Territory,
145 (156).
TERRITORIES: Minimum charge on shipments between central and New
England and trunk-line territories should not be lower, distance considered,
than within central territory. Minimum Charges in Central Territory, 145 (146).
TRUCKLOAD WITH LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD: Although third-class rating on
shoes appeared fairly related to average densities for civilian and army shoes,
latter moved in truckloads whereas shipments of civilian shoes averaged about
1,000 pounds. A basis somewhat lower would be appropriate for any such
sustained t. 1. movement. Boots, Shoes, and Paints in New England, 627 (629).
RATIONING. See PRICES.
REASONABLENESS (RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES). See also COST
OF SERVICE; DAMAGES; INCREASED RATES; MINIMUM WEIGHTS; TARIFF
CIRCULARS; and particular rates or services.
LOSS AND DAMAGE: Increased exceptions rating on paints in glass containers,
in quantities under 6,000 pounds, and restriction of t. 1. and 1. t. 1. commodity
rates not to apply to shipments in glass, found not justified when no specific data
were presented as to greater susceptibility to damage than for shipments in metal
cans or greater time required for loading and unloading, and higher density of
shipments in glass should yield greater revenue. Boots, Shoes, and Paints in
New England, 627 (638).
REFRIGERATION. See AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES; SPECIAL SERVICES.
REGULATIONS OF COMMISSION. See also TARIFF CIRCULARS.
CHARTERED Or Special ParTIES: Rule VI: Campus Travel, Inc., Com. Car.
Applic., 421 (425).
|