In their jointly filed exceptions, Consolidated, et al., contend that the complaints presented against the services of existing carriers by the supporting witnesses do not support a conclusion that existing service is inadequate. Navajo especially questions the usefulness of the transit-time studies presented by 27 of the supporting witnesses, in comparison to its study, due to the selectivity of shipments which experienced longer than normal transit times. These exceptants also challenge several aspects of the feasibility of applicant's proposed service. They contend that contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions the evidence of record concerning traffic which applicant has interchanged with Navajo, demonstrates such transit times are wholly inconsistent (i.e., longer) with its operating proposal herein and that there is no sound basis for the conclusion that applicant will be able to offer a more consistently expeditious service than existing carriers between points in the involved, generally sparsely populated area. Exceptants also argue that there is not shown to be a sufficient volume of traffic available to make the proposed operation economically feasibile and that for the proposed operations to approach being financially feasible, applicant would have to divert a substantial amount of traffic from existing carriers. They also note that all carriers in the involved area are faced with similar operating and fuel utilization problems which would only be aggravated by applicant's entry. Exceptants request that the Commission take official notice of No. MC-F-12268, The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company-Pooling-Illinois-California Express, Inc., Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (not printed), decided March 30, 1976, in which proceeding ICX, Red Ball, and Navajo were authorized generally to pool their traffic to and from points in New Mexico on Interstate Highway 25 and U.S. Highway 85 which are north of Santa Fe, N. Mex., on the basis that an insufficient volume of traffic exists to enable the several involved existing carriers each to continue to serve such points individually.

In their joint exceptions, ICX, Rio Grande, and Santa Fe argue (1) that the evidence of record is lacking in substantial complaints against the service of existing carriers and fails to establish a real need for the proposed service, (2) that the Administrative Law Judge has made numerous incorrect statements of fact, (3) that a grant of the sought authority would be competitively destructive, (4) that the proposed operation is not economically feasible in view of

the limited volume and directional imbalance of traffic in the involved area, is wasteful of fuel resources, and is impractical in light of the nationwide speed limit of 55 miles per hour, (5) that the Administrative Law Judge failed to recognize that in preparing transit-time studies supporting witnesses obviously selected those examples requiring longer service, (6) that the diversion of traffic which would result from authorization of the proposed service would materially adversely affect exceptants' operations, (7) that such an extensive grant of authority is, in fact, a "major Federal action affecting the quality of the human environment" and as such the environmental effects which a grant of the sought authority would produce should have been considered by the Administrative Law Judge, and (8) that in making his recommendation in this proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge failed to consider the recent issuance of a certificate of regular-route authority to O.N.C. Freight Systems to serve certain of the involved points in Arizona, and the grant of authority to Riteway to serve certain of the involved points in Arizona and Colorado.

Oakley and Thunderbird contend in their joint exceptions that applicant failed to establish that the public convenience and necessity require applicant's proposed service between certain specified points in Arizona and New Mexico. Each exceptant argues that the diversion of traffic which it would experience if the application were granted would seriously impair its ability to continue operations; and in order to protect their interests, they request that any grant of authority made herein be restricted "against the transportation of shipments moving between points in Arizona, between points in New Mexico, and between points in Arizona, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in New Mexico." In reply, applicant avers basically (1) that the evidence of record establishes that the transit times of existing carriers are too long and that a need has been shown for its proposed overnight service between Albuquerque and Denver, and second-day service between Denver and Phoenix, (2) that the proposed operation would be both operationally and economically feasible, having an expected overall operating ratio of 89.2, which would in large part be attained by the

"In this context it is sufficient to note that the Commission has stated that in the ordinary individual operating rights application proceeding any environmental impact which this Commission's action would have, will generally be insignificant and that in view of the large number of such applications filed and adjudicated each year, the Commission's determination in any single such proceeding generally cannot be said to constitute a major Federal administrative action. Jones, Inc., Ext.-Antipollution Control Commodities, 118 M.C.C. 253, 265-270 (1973) and Milne Truck Lines, Inc., Ext.-San Francisco, 121 M.C.C. 149, 158-160 (1975).

balancing effect which would result from transporting truckload traffic on return movements to Denver, (3) that the evidence in support of the application indicates a need for service at all intermediate points on the proposed route between Phoenix and St. Johns, Ariz., (4) that the service restrictions proposed by exceptants Oakley and Thunderbird would prevent applicant from rendering a complete service, (5) that the above-noted pooling agreement among certain of the protestants has had the effect of reducing the number of carriers serving Raton, Springer, and Las Vegas from four to one and that these communities are entitled to have available the service of an alternative carrier in competition with that of protestants, (6) that none of protestants' operations would be materially adversely affected by a diversion of existing traffic to applicant if the application were granted, and (7) that the granting of the instant application does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The evidence, the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision, the exceptions, and the reply to the exceptions have been considered. In the circumstances we believe an expansive report of the facts is necessary for a complete understanding of the issues herein.

APPLICANT

Applicant is a motor common carrier of general commodities with exceptions, holding certificated authority from this Commission generally to operate between Denver, Colo., on the one hand, and, on the other, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Trinidad, Colo. Of particular importance to the operations proposed herein is applicant's authority to provide service between Denver and Trinidad, Colo., over Interstate Highway 25, serving all intermediate points, which authority would be tacked or combined with the authority sought herein in order to provide the proposed service between Denver, on the one hand, and, on the other, Albuquerque and Phoenix.

Applicant's commonly controlled affiliate, North Eastern Motor Freight, Inc., holds general-commodities, regular-route authority to operate generally between Denver, Colo., on the one hand, and, on the other, certain points in northeastern Colorado and Cheyenne, Wyo. Another affiliate, Westway Motor Freight, Inc., holds pertinent general-commodities, regular-route authority to operate between Denver and Golden, Colo., and irregular-route authority

between Denver, Colo., on the one hand, and, on the other, all other points in Colorado.

Applicant and its affiliated carriers operate terminals at Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Durango, Sterling, and Fort Morgan, Colo., Cheyenne, Wyo., and Salt Lake City, Utah. In addition, an agency station is maintained at Trinidad, Colo. Administrative offices and a complete maintenance shop are maintained at applicant's Denver facilities. Applicant and its two affiliated carriers operate a total of 442 pieces of equipment, including 251 line-haul trailers, 24 line-haul tractors, 53 pickup and delivery trucks, and 57 pickup and delivery tractors. Included in applicant's fleet of equipment are 9 trailers equipped with mechanical refrigeration and 40 converta-van trailers, each 45 feet in length and capable of conversion to flat-bed trailers. Applicant submitted evidence of its financial status, and there appears to be no question of applicant's financial ability to institute the proposed operations.

In order to implement the proposed service, applicant would initially lease new terminal facilities each having from 8 to 10 doors for the handling of freight at Albuquerque and Phoenix. New agency stations are planned for Farmington, Las Vegas, and Santa Fe, N. Mex.; Flagstaff, Globe, and Show Low, Ariz.; and Alamosa, Colo. Applicant already has an agent at Trinidad and a terminal at Durango. This network of terminal and agency stations would be utilized to provide service to the involved points in the following

manner.

Points on Interstate Highway 25 as far south as Springer, N. Mex., would be served by the Trinidad agent. The Las Vegas agent would serve points from Wagon Mound to Rowe, N. Mex., and the Santa Fe agent would serve points between Rowe and Bernalillo, N. Mex. Service at Alburquerque and at points on Interstate Highway 25 between and including Bernalillo would be served by the Albuquerque terminal. Lupton, Houck, and Sanders, Ariz., would be served in a peddle operation by line-haul units moving between Albuquerque and Phoenix. The agency station at Show Low would serve points on U.S. Highway 60 between and including St. Johns and Carrizo, Ariz., with the agent at Globe serving points on U.S. Highway 60 as far west as Florence Junction, Ariz. The Phoenix terminal, in addition to serving Phoenix, would provide service to intermediate points on U.S. Highway 60 between Phoenix and Florence Junction.

After departing Walsenburg, Colo., applicant's line-haul units would serve Mutual, Colo., in a peddle operation. The agency

station at Alamosa would serve intermediate points on U.S. Highway 160 between and including Russell and Baxterville, Colo. Service on U.S. Highway 160 between and including Pagosa Springs and Cortez, Colo., and the off-route point of Dolores, Colo., would be provided by applicant's terminal at Durango. Those points on applicant's proposed service route between and including Teec Nos Pos and Cameron, Ariz., would be peddled from its line-haul vehicles. Flagstaff traffic would be handled by the agency station to be established at that point. Intermediate points on Interstate Highway 17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff, such as Black Canyon and New River, Ariz., would be served by pickup and delivery units from the Phoenix terminal. Service at points on U.S. Highway 550 such as Cedar Hill, Aztec, Farmington, Waterflow, Fruitland, Shiprock, and Biklabito, N. Mex., would be served essentially by a peddle operation from applicant's Durango terminal facilities.

on

Briefly, applicant proposes to provide overnight service between Albuquerque and Denver, including intermediate points Interstate Highway 25; second-morning service between Denver and Phoenix, including intermediate points on both the proposed northern and southern Arizona routes; second-day service between Albuquerque and Durango; and next-day service between Phoenix, on the one hand, and, on the other, Durango and Farmington. Pickup and delivery service would be provided on a 5-day-a-week basis with Saturday deliveries available for those receivers requesting such service.

In order to provide the proposed service applicant would acquire 8 line-haul tractors, 2 pickup and delivery tractors, 11 pickup and delivery trucks, sixteen 27 1/2-foot trailers, ten 45-foot converta-van trailers, and certain miscellaneous terminal equipment. Of this additional equipment four pickup and delivery trucks would be added to the Denver terminal and one to the Durango terminal; three would be stationed at Albuquerque and three at Phoenix. One additional pickup and delivery tractor would be stationed at Denver and another at Phoenix. The Albuquerque terminal would have available the use of two line-haul tractors, because of layovers at that point and, therefore, would not require any additional pickup and delivery tractors.

Applicant is of the opinion that its contemplated operations would be well balanced, due to its unique situation with reference both to equipment to be utilized and existing operations. It believes that any imbalance of traffic resulting from a greater volume of less