City and Chicago, and those of representatives of certain of the other supporting shippers regarding the inbound movement of undisclosed commodities from various points most of which were unspecified, there is no showing that such a service is desired or required. There is nothing to indicate how this inbound traffic is now moving nor the volume of the shipments, and applicant knows of no inbound shipments which will require movement. Most of the evidence concerned the outbound movement of traffic from Providence to Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Certain other points mentioned by the shippers as places at which service is desired, such as Boston, Philadelphia, Pa., Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md., Cincinnati, Ohio, and Atlanta, Ga., are not included within the territorial scope of the amended applications.

As noted, the proposed service is apparently designed primarily to transport the traffic now shipped by J.S.S. Beyond Chicago this traffic moves in small quantities. During the month of June 1957, J.S.S. shipped to Chicago 342,712 pounds of traffic of which 45,625 pounds moved to Los Angeles, 11,130 pounds moved to San Francisco, 6,151 pounds moved to Dallas, and 10,180 pounds moved to St. Louis. The remainder was either distributed to consignees in the Chicago area or moved from that point by parcel post or Railway Express. These amounts also include certain of the shipments of the other shippers supporting the application in the title proceeding, which would be tendered to applicant for movement if the authority sought is granted. J.S.S. and the other shippers do not desire that their shipments be held in Chicago, or at any other point, to await the accumulation by applicant of sufficient traffic to make it economically possible for it to operate a vehicle to points beyond, but desire that their shipments be tendered promptly to other carriers for movement. This is contrary to applicant's operating proposal, and in fact does not differ substantially from the service the shippers are now receiving. It is clear that without the accumulation of additional shipments, the small volume of traffic available for movement to points beyond Chicago by the supporting shippers will not warrant the institution of nor support the proposed service, even if all of the traffic were tendered to applicant for movement. The supporting shippers complain of delays in the transportation of their shipments, and that motor carriers at Providence will not accept certain of their traffic for movement. The majority of these delays apparently occur at Chicago. As applicant is expected to interline shipments at that point with other carriers, it is difficult to distinguish between the service proposed by it and that now available. Present service is available by A.C.E. and All States, between Chicago and the Providence area, which has not been used by the shippers though their facilities have

been used by other members of M.J.S. Although shippers contend that the service of these carriers is unsatisfactory because they cannot accept shipments composed in part of various articles of unusual value, there is no evidence of the volume of traffic consisting of articles of unusual value available for movement, nor is it established that applicant will be offered any quantity of this traffic. Neither is there any showing that the motor carriers at Chicago with which the shippers expect applicant to interline shipments are in a position to accept articles of unusual value for movement.

With respect to the application in No. MC-116695 (Sub-No. 1), admittedly, adequate service is available to transport the tubing made of base metals, from Providence to Chicago. Gold-plated tubing is not within the scope of the application, and as the evidence consisted, for the most part, of the need for service for the transportation of shipments composed in part of this traffic, it cannot be considered. But even if the evidence relating to the gold-plated tubing were considered, we do not believe it would demand any different conclusion, for the supporting shippers now have the facilities of Railwy Express to provide this service, and would use applicant's proposed service only in the event it might prove superior to that of Railway Express.

The evidence as a whole is general in nature, and we are not convinced that the proposed operations would result in a service different from that now available to the shippers nor that the available traffic would support the proposed operations. For the most part the support of the application appears to be predicated on the preference of J.S.S., and the other supporting shippers, for the services of applicant. This, of course, is not sufficient to warrant a grant of the broad authority sought. We conclude, therefore, that the applications should be denied. In view of this conclusion it is not necessary for us to discuss the other matters raised on exceptions.

We find that applicant has failed to establish that present and future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations; and that the applications should be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered.

81 M.C.C.

No. MC-C-258

KANSAS CITY, MO.-KANSAS CITY, KANS.,
COMMERCIAL ZONE

Decided June 29, 1959

Upon further consideration, findings in prior report, decided May 14, 1959, modified, and limits of the zone adjacent to and commercially a part of Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas City, Kans., within the meaning of section 203 (b) (8) of the Interstate Commerce Act, redefined in certain respects. Additional prior reports, 31 M.C.C. 5, 51 M.C.C. 833, and 54 M.C.C. 288.

Appearances as shown in the prior reports.

FOURTH REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GOFF, AND WEBB

BY DIVISION 1:

In the prior report herein, 79 M.C.C. 513, decided May 14, 1959, we redefined in certain respects the limits of the zone adjacent to and commercially a part of Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas City, Kans., within which transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, is, under section 203(b) (8) of the Interstate Commerce Act, conditionally and partially exempt from regulation. The new boundary resulting from that redefinition, which is set forth fully in that report, extended the zone to include three additional areas, one to the north, another lying along the eastern and southern boundary, and the other to the west.

It has now been brought to our attention that there are two errors in this new boundary description. We therefore are reopening this proceeding for further consideration on the present record, on our own motion, solely for the purpose of correcting such errors. The facts are set forth in detail in our prior report and need not be restated here.

A portion of the boundary line, in connection with the proposed extension to the north, was considered by us at the time of the prior report as extending "from the Missouri River north along the western and northern boundary of Parkville, Mo. (which is directly across the Missouri River from Nearman) to junction Missouri Highway 9, thence north over Missouri Highway 9***." However, it is now apparent that "Missouri Highway 9" was inadvertently designated as "Kansas Highway 9" in our findings and should be corrected.

Also, in considering the extension to the west, we pointed out that a segment of the western boundary line would include a portion of Bonner Springs, Kans., a point not embraced in the original proposal, and that there was no justification for such an enlargement. In redescribing this portion of the boundary so as not to include any part of Bonner Springs, we considered at the time that Kansas Highway 32 intersected Kansas Highway 7 at a point north of that community, whereas it is now clear from a reexamination of the maps submitted that these two highways intersect within Bonner Springs and that Kansas Highway 32 extends east from that community. The correct description of this segment of the boundary in question, therefore, should be "thence north on Kansas Highway 7 to Bonner Springs, thence along the southern and eastern boundaries of Bonner Springs to junction Kansas Highway 32, thence east on Kansas Highway 32 to 65th Street."

In the interest of clarity, the findings in the prior report will be modified to the extent set forth above, and will be restated in full.

On further consideration, we find that the zone adjacent to and commercially a part of Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas City, Kans., contemplated by section 203(b) (8) of the Interstate Commerce Act, now includes and is comprised of all the area bounded by a line as follows:

Beginning on the north side of the Missouri River at the western boundary line of Parkville, Mo., thence along the western and northern boundaries of Parkville to Missouri Highway 9, thence north along Missouri Highway 9 to its junction with U.S. Highway 71, thence north along U.S. Highway 71 to the southern limits of the Mid-Continent International Airport, thence along the southern, western, northern and eastern boundaries of said airport to U.S. Bypass 71, thence east along U.S. Bypass 71 to Liberty, Mo., thence along the northern and eastern boundaries of Liberty to U.S. Bypass 71, thence south along U.S. Bypass 71 to Sugar Creek Road (4N), thence east along Sugar Creek Road (4N) to a common junction thereof with U.S. Highway 24 and an unnumbered highway, thence southeast over such unnumbered highway to its junction with Jones Road, thence south on Jones Road to its junction with Necessary Road, thence south on Necessary Road to its junction with Holke Road, thence west on Holke Road to Kiger Road, thence south on Kiger Road to Evans & Sheley Lane, thence east on Evans & Sheley Lane to County Road 10E, thence south on County Road 10E to the northern limits of Lees Summit, Mo., thence along the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of Lees Summit to County Road 10S (Longview Road), thence west on County Road 10S to its junction with Raytown South Road (5E), thence south on Raytown

South Road (5E) to Missouri Highway 150, thence west on Missouri Highway 150 to the eastern boundary of Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, thence along the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of said air force base to Missouri Highway 150, thence west along Missouri Highway 150 to the Kansas-Missouri State line, thence north along the Kansas-Missouri State line to 110th Street, thence west along 110th Street to its junction with U.S. Highway 69, thence north along U.S. Highway 69 to its junction with 103rd Street, thence west along 103rd Street to its junction with Pflumm Road, thence north along Pflumm Road to Lenexa, Kans., thence along the southern, western, and northern boundaries of Lenexa to Pflumm Road, thence north along Pflumm Road to its junction with Kansas Highway 10, thence west on Kansas Highway 10 to its junction with Kansas Highway 7, thence north on Kansas Highway 7 to Bonner Springs, Kans., thence along the southern and eastern boundaries of Bonner Springs to its junction with Kansas Highway 32, thence east on Kansas Highway 32 to its junction with 65th Street, thence north along 65th Street to its junction with U.S. Highway 24, thence east along U.S. Highway 24 to its junction with 64th Street Terrace, thence north along 64th Street Terrace to Parallel Road, thence west along Parallel Road to 81st Street, thence north along 81st Street to its junction with Kansas Highway 5, thence east along Kansas Highway 5 to 77th Street, thence north along 77th Street and its continuation; Pomeroy Drive, northwestly to its junction with 79th Street, thence north along 79th Street to its junction with Wolcott Drive at Pomeroy, Kans., thence due west 1.3 miles to its junction with an unnamed road, thence north along such unnamed road to the entrance to the Powell Port facility, thence due north to the southern bank of the Missouri River, thence east along the southern bank of the Missouri River to a point directly across from the western boundary of Parkville, Mo., thence across the Missouri River to point of beginning.

An appropriate order will be entered.

81 M.C.C.