carrier's service in the past but have not used it for many months or even years; some have tried existing services to a very limited extent. A few were even unaware, until informed, of service offered by one or more of the protestants. We have consistently stated that it is the duty of supporting firms conscientiously to seek to inform themselves of existing services before seeking additional motor carrier authorization. Cf. Warren Transport, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.C. 241, 246-247 (1956); Mobile Home Express, Ltd., Extension-12 States, 112 M.C.C. 765, 771-772 (1971), affirmed, sub nom. Mobile Home Express, Ltd. v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 701, 707-708 (W.D. Okla. 1973); and Pre-Fab Transit Co., Ext.-Mt. Sterling, Ohio, 119 M.C.C. 32, 37 (1973). Correspondingly, it is well settled that a mere lack of solicitation of the shippers by the existing carriers does not evince on the part of said carriers a disinterest or an unwillingness to handle the involved traffic. See the Warren Transport and the Mobile Home cases, supra. This is particularly so here since many of the supporting firms are receivers which might not normally be contacted by a carrier wishing to provide it service. In addition to considering shippers' needs and the adequacy of existing service, consideration must also be given to the effect which a grant herein would have on protestants. See Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co., Inc., Extension, 112 M.C.C. 124 (1970); and PanAmerican, supra. Although generally the Commission favors the existence of sufficient carrier capacity to encourage competition and to provide incentives for real innovation and improvement to the public, it will not approve the creation of excessive capacity and needless duplication of services which would tend to affect adversely the continuance of efficient operation by existing carriers. M. R. & R. Trucking Co., Ext.—Birmingham, 105 M.C.C. 69, 80 (1967); and Mayfield Sons Trucking Co. Extension-Kentucky, 108 M.C.C. 651, 657 (1969). Much of the involved territory is sparsely populated and rural in nature. Most of the considered points are already served by several carriers. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that the pooling agreement recently approved by this Commission in MC-F-12268, The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company-Pooling-IllinoisCalifornia Express, Inc., Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., (not printed) decided March 30, 1976,' may 'Section 5(1) of the act requires that, before the Commission can give its approval to any pooling application, must find the operations under the proposed pooling arrangements will result in better service to the public or economy of operation to the carriers, and will not unduly (footnote continued on next page) represent the only feasible means of assuring adequate service for the shippers located in New Mexico on Interstate Highway 85 between and including Las Vegas and Raton. Compare TexasOklahoma Express, Inc., Ext.-Oklahoma Points, 110 M.C.C. 769, 784 (1969). Under the circumstances, we view it highly improbable that authorization of applicant's additional operations would result in an overall improvement of service at these points. The evidence of record indicates that the preponderance of the considered traffic is one-directional moving from Denver to the points sought to be served. Little outbound traffic of the type which regular-route, motor common carriers normally handled is generated within the involved territory. Under these circumstances, we are convinced that authorization of the proposed additional motor carrier service would lead to destructively competitive rivalries among carriers and to the eventual deterioration of motor service in the involved area. Thus, a grant of the instant application would result in the wasteful duplication of existing services and in the creation of excessive capacity without any concomitant benefit to shippers or receivers, and would impair the ability of existing carriers to continue to provide a responsive service in the involved area. In these premises, we must conclude that the application should be denied. (footnote 7 continued) restrain competition. See T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.-Investigation & Revocation of Certifs., 123 M.C.C. 274, 288-289 (1975). Under the pertinent terms of the approved pooling arrangement ICX, Navajo, and Red Ball (collectively referred to as multi-state carrier applicants) will transfer to Santa Fe all of their inbound traffic, not otherwise shipper routed, destined to Arriba, Bernal, Glorieta, Ilfeld, Las Vegas, Maxwell, Pecos, Raton, Romeroville, Rowe, Sands, San Jose, Serafina, Springer, Tecolote, Wagon Mound, and Watrous, N. Mex.; the points of transfer for ICX and Navajo will be Denver, Colo., for all traffic originating in the east, and, Albuquerque, N. Mex., for all traffic originating in the southwest and west, Red Ball will deliver its traffic at Amarillo, Tex.; that outbound traffic from said pool points which has been shipper-routed by way of the multi-state carrier applicant shall be picked up by Santa Fe as agent for the multi-state carrier applicant and tendered to the multi-state carrier applicant at its respective terminal point mentioned above; that traffic not routed by the shipper, but tendered by Santa Fe to a multi-state carrier applicant for line-haul movement shall be documented as ordinary interline traffic; that shipper routings on inbound traffic specifying delivery by a carrier other than Santa Fe will be honored by tender to that carrier; that Santa Fe shall provide and maintain adequate facilities at Albuquerque, Raton, N. Mex., and Denver, Colo., for transferring freight from and to the multi-state carrier applicants; and that Santa Fe will deliver the freight it receives from the multi-state carrier applicants at least five (5) days per week and will undertake to deliver the following morning all freight received from the multi-state carrier applicants prior to midnight of the previous day 125 M.C.C. FINDINGS We find that applicant has failed to establish that the present or future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operation; 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; and that the application should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER GRESHAM, dissenting: Applicant proposes to expend over $400,000 to provide the public with a service not now available from existing carriers. The facts show, and the majority does not dispute, that applicant proposes to offer the public: new terminals and agency stations proximately located to shippers' facilities in both urban and semirural areas; new equipment needed to provide scheduled overnight or second-day service; expeditious and reliable pickups and deliveries; single-line service with loss and damage accountability; weekend service; and acceptance of c.o.d. shipments. The facts further show, and the majority again does not seriously dispute, that protestants fail to offer services comparable to those proposed. While over 130 shippers vouch for these facts and express a need for improved services, the majority blithely concludes that improved services are "merely preferred." The majority has inexplicably determined that the public interest will not be served by authorization of a service service superior to that available from protestants. It appears to me that the majority confuses the public interest with the interests of protestants. As I understand it, the majority decision rests primarily on a determination that destructive competition will result from an institution of a new and better service. Whether the majority believes this true as a general proposition or merely in this particular instance, I do not know, but, in either event, I cannot agree. In addition to its own responsive service, it is likely that applicant would have provided a competitive stimulus to protestants, prompting them to bring their service on a par with applicant's. I perceive nothing economically unhealthy or destructive in the spur of reasonable competition. The majority apparently disagrees. Administrative Law Judge Hopkins concluded that present service "is below the level of quality to which the affected shipping and receiving public reasonably is entitled." I fully agree and embrace the remainder of the Administrative Law Judge's Discussion and Conclusions (reproduced as appendix B to this report). The majority should be asked what incentive protestants have to improve their present poor services. Unfortunately, that question remains unanswered, save to say that a fit, willing, and able regulated carrier will not be permitted to provide that needed incentive. 125 M.C.C. 3. (212) Engine Supply, Inc., Origins, destinations, volume, type, and frequency of traffic Receives four or five truckloads, Receives average of 20,000 pounds of Utilizes private carriage once every 5 Receives from Denver, Colo., ship- ver. Refers to page number testimony appears in transcript of oral hearing. Existing services Service from southern Califor- Riteway's service from Den- Uses T.I.M.E.-DC, Navajo, and ments. Brisson's service is satisfactory; Asserts generally that existing Complains that ICX's transit times Believes applicant's proposed 2-day |