revocation. The contention of Thunderbird that the crucial date is the time of the acquisition of authority from Springer is without merit. Purchased certificates may be revoked only in the same manner as initially granted certificates. See On-Time Transfer Co. v. Buckingham, 44 M.C.C. 389 (1945). There remains to be considered the unusual position of opposing carriers that the intent of the "grandfather" certificate was to prohibit Springer, continually through time even as conditions changed, from competing with regular-route carriers of general commodities. If they were correct there would not be a partial revocation since the supposed right that would appear to be taken away by their interpretation did not exist in the certificate from the beginning. We conclude, however, that their position is untenable. The argument that the restriction is not made applicable to any point in time presupposes that the interpretation advanced by those carriers would prevail as a matter of course unless an express provision to the contrary were made. In our opinion, since no express statement was made incorporating the interpretation advanced by them, ordinary practice prevails. The latter certainly does not encompass the type of ever-changing authority envisioned by the opposing carriers. Contentions that the "historic character" of Springer's service and the "historic interests" of regular-route motor common carriers were preserved and protected by the restriction require separate analysis. Insofar as Springer's service during the "grandfather" operation period is concerned, such a statement is partially correct. By their very nature the "grandfather" application proceedings looked back at history. Their purpose was to enable carriers that had been engaged in motor carrier operations up to the time the new system of regulation was beginning to be formed to continue to perform the operations they had been conducting. This is consistent with the arguments of petitioner. The suggestion concerning protection of "historic interests" of regular-route common carriers, on the other hand, goes far beyond that. Instead of the "grandfather" applicant merely receiving operating rights in the "grandfather" proceeding founded, as to territorial scope, upon its operations prior to the inauguration of regulation, the opposing carriers would have us believe that Springer's future activities were controlled by the action taken in the "grandfather" proceeding. Such was not the case. The matter of future developments were simply beyond the scope of the "grandfather" proceeding. Springer's evidence as to the type of service it had performed was merely descriptive of its "grandfather" period operations. Springer had a vested right under the "grandfather" provisions of the Motor Carrier Act to handle the commodities it had earlier transported and to continue to serve the territory that it had been serving. No reasonable basis is established for the contention that the Commission contemplated in the "grandfather" proceeding the results that the opposing carriers herein argue were intended. We are fully cognizant of the undesirable enforcement problems that might occur given the interpretation proposed by petitioner. In Fox-Smythe Transp. Co. Extension-Oklahoma, 106 M.C.C. 1, 11, 12, 13, 19 (1967), the Commission took note of a variety of undesirable restrictions that were unclear, confusing, or difficult to police. However, the Commission in Southern, supra, did not find it unworkable for a carrier's area of operations to be defined by an outdated boundary. More importantly, we are faced here with the alternatives of partial revocation, or a somewhat undesirable restriction from a policing standpoint. The choice is clear that the statutory mandate of section 212(a) must be paramount to the inconvenience that might result. While it is improbable that the type of restriction imposed in the Springer "grandfather" proceeding would ever be repeated today, the fact remains that we are bound by the original terms of the certificate. We conclude, therefore, that in certificate No. MC-128279 (SubNo. 19), the restriction prohibiting service "to or from points on Federal or State highways" refers to those Federal or State highways designated thusly at the time of the issuance of the original certificate on November 3, 1942. FINDINGS We find that in certificate No. MC-128279 (Sub-No. 19), the restriction prohibiting service “to or from points on Federal or State Highways" refers to Federal or State highways designated thusly on November 3, 1942; 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 this proceeding should be discontinued. An appropriate order will be entered. 125 M.C.C. No. MC-138168 LOAD & GO TRUCK LINE COMMON CARRIER Decided October 15, 1976 Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, with exceptions, over a described regular route, between Phoenix, Ariz., and Grand Junction, Colo., serving Delta and Montrose, Colo., as intermediate points. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. William S. Richards, Irene Warr, and Thomas M. Zarr for applicant. Jerome Anderson and Morris G. Cobb for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 1, Commissioners Murphy, GRESHAM, AND CHRISTIAN GRESHAM, Commissioner: Exceptions to the initial decision and recommended order of the joint board were filed jointly by protestants Illinois-California Express, Inc. (ICX), Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc., Garrett Freightlines, Inc., and O.N.C. Freight Systems, and applicant replied. Our conclusions are in accord with those reached by the joint board. By application filed October 25, 1972, as amended, Load & Go Truck Line, of Provo, Utah, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities (except commodities in bulk, household goods as defined by the Commission, and commodities requiring special equipment), between Phoenix, Ariz., and Grand Junction, Colo., from Phoenix over Arizona Highway 79 (Interstate Highway 17) to Flagstaff, Ariz., thence over U.S. Highway 89 to junction U.S. Highway 160, thence over U.S. Highway 160 to junction U.S. Highway 666, thence over U.S. Highway 666 to Cortez, Colo., thence over U.S. Highway 160 to Durango, Colo., thence over U.S. Highway 550 to Montrose, Colo., and thence over U.S. Highway 50 to Grand Junction, and return over the same route, serving Phoenix, Ariz., and Delta, Montrose, and Grand Junction, Colo. The application is opposed by the exceptants set forth above, all motor common carriers. The proceeding was assigned for oral hearing. In an initial decision served June 7, 1974, the joint board recommended that service be authorized over regular routes between Phoenix, Ariz., and Delta, Montrose, and Grand Junction, Colo.; however, the joint board failed to describe any authorized routes in its grant of authority. It found that existing service to the three sought Colorado points was less than satisfactory and determined that a need exists for applicant's proposed direct, single-line service. On exceptions, protestants contend that the joint board committed reversible error (1) by finding that the public convenience and necessity require the proposed operation in light of weak public support there for and without any analysis or evaluation in the initial decision of the shipper testimony, (2) by finding applicant fit, financially and otherwise, properly to perform the service proposed, (3) by finding that sufficient traffic exists to make the proposed service operationally and economically feasible, and (4) by granting the authority sought based only on the supporting witnesses' mere preference for single-line service over existing interline operations. In reply, applicant submits that the initial decision is correct in all material respects and should be affirmed. It replies to each of exceptants' citations of error arguing that the evidence of support is clear and overwhelming, that it is financially fit to conduct the operation proposed, that substantial traffic exists to support the operation, and that the supporting shippers believe the existing joint-line service is inadequate and a new service is warranted. The joint board's recommendations, the exceptions and reply thereto, and the evidence of record have been considered. In light of the joint board's failure to analyze any of the supporting shipper's evidence in its initial decision, it is necessary to present a summary of this public testimony in an appendix hereto. A cumulative evaluation of the public testimony adduced in this proceeding is also set forth in the body of this report. The joint board's statement of facts concerning applicant and protestants is substantially correct, and, as modified herein, is adopted as our own. Pertinent facts have been restated only to the extent necessary for clarity of discussion. APPLICANT Applicant is a recently organized Utah corporation, holding no motor carrier authority in either interstate or intrastate commerce. It is not now an operating company and has neither employees nor facilities. The corporation owns one pickup and delivery vehicle and one intercity tractor. Three other tractors are available for lease by applicant and another will be sold to the corporation in exchange for stock. It owns two trailers, one insulated and the other equipped with a mechanical refrigeration device. Applicant has submitted evidence of a $150,000 line of credit available to it with which to purchase additional equipment. In the event this application is granted, applicant proposes to conduct a sleeper operation consisting of three weekly round-trip schedules between Phoenix and Grand Junction with intermediate stops in Montrose and Delta. This would afford shippers and consignees at Montrose and Delta overnight service from and to Phoenix. Grand Junction would receive second-morning service on shipments to or deliveries from Phoenix. Applicant intends to conduct this operation with a single tractor and trailer stationed at Grand Junction. In addition to this schedule, a call-and-demand service will be available. Open interchange for interline service will be maintained at Phoenix and Grand Junction. One potential connecting carrier, Svensson Freight Lines, supports the application. Applicant proposes to enter into a concurrence with Svensson and other carriers, at the interchange point of Phoenix, so as to provide through movements between the three Colorado points herein and points beyond Phoenix. Applicant has submitted a balance sheet and a projected income. statement. It has approximately $3,000 in cash and its directors plan to contribute an additional $10,000 in exchange for stock. Its income statement is an estimate of revenues to be earned based on the supporting shippers' volume of traffic as well as costs expected to be incurred. SUPPORTING WITNESSES The attached appendix contains a summary of the supporting shipper evidence adduced at the oral hearing. Collectively, the shippers and receivers appearing in support of this application express a need for an additional carrier offering a service that is |