include the specific chemicals as to which testimony had been adduced. Obviously to make the above findings, it would be necessary to determine which of the chemicals being transported actually were petrochemicals, or in the alternative, to make a finding as to what a petrochemical actually was. There is insufficient evidence of record to make such determinations. In addition, the findings herein obviate the necessity for making such determination. Therefore, the petitions for interpretation or modification of certificates in Sub-Nos. 40 and 44 are hereby dismissed.

The record is abundantly clear that Central has become a vital and effective force since 1968 in the transportation of liquid chemicals within the involved territory. The record is likewise clear that the supporting shippers believe that the continued services of Central are necessary if their transportation needs are to be met. The supporting shippers are unanimous in their opinions that the services which have been received from protestant Chemical have been satisfactory to the degree performed but that the volume of traffic and their transportation needs demand that the services of Central be continued.

Under the circumstances, we believe that the record is sufficient to support the conclusion that applicant is shown to have participated as a part of a continuing endeavor in the transportation of liquid chemicals under color of right and, as such, has been a consistent part of the competitive picture in the involved territory since 1968. In this respect, figures taken from the carriers' reports filed with the Commission show that the operating revenues of Central during 1969 were $1,650,803 and during 1973 were $5,251,717. The revenues of Chemical during 1969 were $76,439,011 and 1973 were $103,069,491. It is obvious that both Central and protestant Chemical prospered to a substantial degree since the issuance of certificates to Central and its entry into the market within the involved territory. Accordingly, we cannot find that a grant of the subject authority would create a new or aggravated competitive situation to the detriment of other carriers. We believe that the applicant's past operations under color of right, considered in connection with supporting evidence of the shippers as discussed herein, demonstrates a need for the service which clearly is not counterbalanced by any possible adverse effect which a grant of authority might have on the protestant carrier. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the grant of authority described in the findings below most accurately comports with the service shown to be required and the authority described below will be approved in lieu of the several forms of relief sought.

To the extent that duplicate authority is involved in Sub-Nos. 97 and 98, the operating authorities granted should not be construed as conferring more than a single operating right in each of the grants.

FINDINGS

In No. MC-118831 (Sub-No. 97), 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, over irregular routes, of liquid petrochemicals, in bulk. (except anhydrous ammonia, fertilizer and fertilizer materials), from points in North Carolina, (except Charlotte), to points in South Carolina and Virginia, restricted against the transportation of caustic soda from Acme, N.C., and points within 5 miles thereof to points in South Carolina.

In No. MC-118831 (Sub-No. 98), 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, over irregular routes, of liquid

petrochemicals, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from points in South Carolina to points in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia, restricted against the transportation of liquid chemicals from Charleston, S.C., to points in Georgia.

We further find that this decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

We further find that the petitions for interpretation or modification of certificates or alternate petitions to dismiss in No. MC-118831 (Sub-No. 40) and No. MC-118831 (Sub-No. 44), be dismissed.

It is the ORDER of the Administrative Law Judge and Joint Board No. 196, That in the absence of a stay or postponement by the Commission or the timely filing of exceptions, the effective date of this order shall be 30 days from the date of service thereof;

It is further ordered, That upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 218, and 221(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, with the rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate be issued to applicant authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of the commodities described, and in the manner described above;

And it is further ordered, That unless compliance is made by the applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 218, and 221(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act within 90 days after the date of service hereof, or within such additional time as may be authorized by the Commission, the grant of authority made in said decision shall be considered as null and void, and the application shall stand denied in its entirety effective upon the expiration of the said compliance time.

125 M.C.C.

No. MC-1977 (SUB-NO. 15)

NORTHWEST TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC., EXTENSIONCOLORADO, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO POINTS

Decided September 13, 1976

Public convenience and necessity found not shown to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with exceptions, between described points in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, over specified routes. Application denied.

Marion F. Jones and Leslie R. Kehl for applicant.

Olif Q. Boyd, Morris G. Cobb, Robert E. DeLand, Robert R. Digby, Donald E. Fernaays, Duncan A. McLeod, William S. Richards, R. Y. Schureman, and Francis J. Steinbrecher for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GRESHAM, AND CLAPP

CLAPP. Commissioner:

Exceptions to the initial decision and recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge were filed separately by Arrow Freightways, Inc., and Riteway Transport, Inc., jointly by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, Navajo Freightlines, Inc., T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc., and Western Gillette, Inc., jointly by Illinois-California Express, Inc., Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc., and The Sante Fe Trail Transportation Company, and jointly by Oakley Transfer and Storage Company, Inc., and Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc., and applicant filed a reply to each of the foregoing exceptions. Our conclusions differ from those recommended.

By application filed November 9, 1972, Northwest Transport Service, Inc., of Denver, Colo., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities (except those of unusual value, commodities in bulk, and commodities requiring special equipment), (1) between Trinidad, Colo., and Phoenix, Ariz.,

from Trinidad south over Interstate Highway 25 to junction Interstate Highway 40, thence west over Interstate Highway 40 to junction U.S. Highway 666 at Sanders, Ariz., thence south over U.S. Highway 666 to junction Arizona Highway 61 at St. Johns, Ariz., thence over Arizona Highway 61 to junction U.S. Highway 60, thence over U.S. Highway 60 to Phoenix, and return over the same route, serving the off-route point of Rosario, N. Mex., and all intermediate points, (except those between Albuquerque, N. Mex., and the New Mexico-Arizona State line), and further restricted against service between Albuquerque, N. Mex., and Phoenix, Ariz.; (2) between Walsenburg, Colo., and Phoenix, Ariz., from Walsenburg, west over U.S. Highway 160 to junction U.S. Highway 89, thence south over U.S. Highway 89 to junction Interstate Highway 17, thence south over Interstate Highway 17 to Phoenix, Ariz., and return over same route, serving all intermediate points and the off-route point of Dolores, Colo.; and (3) between Durango, Colo., and junction Arizona State Highway 504 and U.S. Highway 160, from Durango south and west over U.S. Highway 550 to junction New Mexico Highway 504, thence west over New Mexico Highway 504 to the Arizona-New Mexico State line, thence over Arizona State Highway 504 to junction U.S. Highway 160, and return over same route, serving all intermediate points. The application is opposed by Albuquerque-Phoenix Express, Inc., Arrow Freightways, Inc., Barton Lyman, doing business as Lyman Truck Line, Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, IllinoisCalifornia Express, Inc., IML Freight, Inc., J. B. Montgomery, Inc., Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., Oakley Transfer and Storage Company, Rio Grande Motorway, Inc., Riteway Transport, Inc., The Santa Fe 'Trail Transportation Company, Thunderbird Freight Lines, Inc., T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc., and Western Gillette, Inc., all motor common carriers.'

By initial decision and recommended order served March 17, 1975, the Administrative Law Judge found that a public need exists for applicant's proposed service and recommended that the application be granted in its entirety.

'No evidence in opposition was presented by either IML Freight, Inc., or Barton Lyman, and Yellow Freight System, Inc., withdrew its protest at the conclusion of applicant's presentation of evidence.

The failure of Albuquerque-Phoenix Express, Inc., and J. B. Montgomery, Inc., to file exceptions to the grant of authority recommended by the Administrative Law Judge is indicative of some lack of continuing interest in the involved traffic and detracts from the weight that their opposition normally would be accorded. Although their evidence will not be further discussed in this report, it remains in the record and has been considered by us in reaching our decision. AAA Transfer, Inc., Ext.-Cargo Containers, 120 M.C.C. 803, 804 (1974).

EXCEPTIONS of the PartiES

Arrow, argues that testimony similar to that of several of the supporting witnesses' herein was presented in No. MC-128279 (SubNo. 22), Arrow Freightways, Inc.-Removal of Restriction (not printed), decided April 1, 1974, in which proceeding Arrow sought removal of a service restriction from points on its authorized regular routes within 200 miles of Albuquerque, N. Mex., and that inasmuch as that application was denied, the instant application should also be denied. Arrow also asserts that the Administrative Law Judge failed to accord proper consideration to the services of several protestants and of numerous nonprotesting existing carriers, that a grant of the sought authority could result in so much diversion of traffic from Arrow that its operations could not be continued, and that the recommended grant of authority should at least have included a restriction against the provision of service for a number of specified shippers which Arrow now serves in order to protect its interest. In its exceptions, Riteway argues that its service has not been shown to be inadequate to meet the public's reasonable transportation needs and that the recommended grant of authority is based upon mere allegations either of a need for additional or faster service or upon a preference by a number of shippers for applicant's service. Riteway assigns numerous specific errors in the Administrative Law Judge's statement of facts and contends that none of the supporting firms specify any deficiencies in its service which for the most part has not been tried by these firms. Riteway asserts that inasmuch as the involved Arizona area is primarily a consumer market, a substantial imbalance of inbound over outbound traffic exists and that applicant's proposed operations between points in Arizona, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Colorado and New Mexico would involve excessive deadheading of equipment and would, therefore, not be economically feasible.

In 1973 and 1974, Riteway sustained net operating losses, due assertedly to the lack of sufficient volume of traffic moving between Phoenix and Denver. Riteway contends that the authorization of the proposed service between these two points should divert its existing traffic, further exacerbate the imbalance in its operations, and impair its continued ability to provide a responsive public service.

Arrow's Sub-No. 22 application was, in fact, supported by 11 shippers of so-called "size-andweight" commodities (i.e., commodities which, because of size or weight, require the use of special equipment).,