California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and (2) empty containers between points in the above-named seven States, restricted in (1) and (2) against tacking, joining, or combining with any authority presently held by Mitchell. Its vehicle fleet includes several 40-foot flat-bed trailers. It stores containers at Portland, and has moved more than 5,000 containers between the Pacific coast and points in the involved area. It has handled container traffic for about eight of the supporting shippers, and, although it has handled little of the involved traffic to and from the Ports of Seattle and Portland, it expresses its willingness to meet the supporting shippers' requirements for container movements to the extent of its authority.

C & H Transportation holds authority to transport heavy-hauler commodities between points in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In No. MC-83539 (Sub-No. 282), it was granted authority to transport the same commodities, with the same exceptions and subject to the same restrictions, between points in the same States, except in Utah, as in the authority granted in No. MC-32882 (Sub-No. 50) to Mitchell. It has terminals at Federal Way, Wash., and Portland and operates equipment suitable for containers. It handles containerized shipments of “heavy-hauler" items and expresses its willingness to serve the supporting shippers to the extent of its authority. It handles traffic to destinations in the involved area and must deadhead an unspecified number of empty vehicles to Pacific coast points for reloading.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Applicant proposes to offer a coordinated truck-barge container operation including (1) the pooling of container equipment at convenient points in the authorized service area, (2) broad commodities authority embracing all of shippers' traffic, and (3) irregular-route, all-points service. First of all, it must be observed that the protestants, individually as well as collectively, fail to hold the operating authorities necessary to provide the complete service proposed. Second, they appear somewhat disinterested in the promotion of containerized truck-barge movements within the proposed service area. While protestants make much of the fact that few of the supporting shippers document specific instances of unsatisfactory service by protestants, they lose sight of the ample evidence of record indicating shipper difficulty in obtaining responsive service for intermodal container traffic. Furthermore, it appears clear that these difficulties will be compounded by the

'Certificate issued October 25, 1974.

125 M.C.C.

expected barge traffic increase on the Columbia and Snake. Shippers almost unanimously project an increase in container traffic, and we believe it incumbent upon this Commission to assure when possible that sufficient equipment to handle this special traffic is available from carriers willing to adapt their operations to meet the public need.

We have no doubts that applicant will present added competition for existing carriers; however, we do not share protestants' apparent belief that that fact alone is reason for denial. The facts here seem to merit the stimulus of additional competition in the market. Indeed, it has been recognized by this Commission from the outset that competition is "the best-known spur" to produce "initiative in experimentation and development of new types of service." See Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190, 208 (1936). Moreover, it has always been the policy of this Commission to encourage the development of intermodal transportation, and we believe that containerization is a useful, innovative tool in that development. The services proposed in this and other recent applications* offer numerous benefits directly to the shipping public. Among these benefits are: a reduction in packaging requirements; increased shipment integrity resulting in a reduction in loss, damage, and pilferage; less handling and warehousing; avoidance of terminal congestion and interchange delays; faster transit times; energy conservation; and more efficient use of equipment. The bottom-line benefit is, of course, less costly transportation of goods for the public at large. With this in mind, we believe that the public convenience and necessity dictates a grant of the amended application.

Although applicant's financial condition is less than robust, we believe that applicant has established its ability, financial and otherwise, to provide the proposed service. It is highly probable that the new operation will enable applicant to increase its financial resources. Compare Brown's Connecticut Airport Service, Inc., Conversion, 103 M.C.C. 6, 11 (1966). Applicant's violations of the Commission's credit regulations do not warrant a conclusion that its conduct is indicative of a flagrant and persistent disregard for the

See Service Transfer, Inc., Contract Carrier Application, 117 M.C.C. 506, 514 (1972); IML Freight, Inc., Ext.-Containerized Freight, 118 M.C.C. 31, 32 (1973); Marine Stevedoring Corporation Com. Car. Applic., 119 M.C.C. 514, 521 (1974); and AAA Transfer, Inc., Ext.-Cargo Containers, 120 M.C.C. 803, 820 (1974).

'See also Air-Land Transport, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 120 M.C.C. 530 (1974); Daily Exp., Inc., Ext. Intermodal Container Traf., 123 M.C.C. 343 (1974); and Berry Transport, Inc., Ext.-Containers, 124 M.C.C. 328 (1976).

law. Applicant is cautioned, however, that it must comply with the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder. A carrier which proves unable or unwilling to conform to applicable statutory and regulatory standards may lose its authority to operate in interstate

commerce.

The limitation in the authority sought, "either unmounted or mounted on chassis," serves no useful purpose and will not be employed in our grant of authority herein. However, to the extent applicant's proposed service involves movement of freight in containers attached to removable chassis, such movements are "in trailers," for when the chassis is attached to a container this complete unit is classified as a "trailer," and such movement of freight in trailers," in Commission parlance is not classified as a movement of freight "in containers." The service authorization will be otherwise reframed so as to accord with the principles usually employed in describing container operating rights. See AAA Transfer, Inc., Ext.-Cargo Containers, 120 M.C.C. at 822-823.

FINDINGS

We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, (1) of general commodities (except household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, petroleum products in bulk, and motor vehicles), in containers or in trailers, having an immediately prior or subsequent movement by water, and (2) empty containers, trailers, and trailer chassis, between points on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, and Whitman Counties, Wash., and Nez Perce County, Idaho, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, Whitman, Spokane, Adams, and Grant Counties, Wash., and in Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, Clearwater, Latah, Benewah, and Kootenai Counties, Idaho, subject to the condition that the authority herein granted and applicant's existing authority that it duplicates shall not be construed as conferring more than a single operating right; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder; that a

certificate authorizing such operation should be issued; 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 in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

125 M.C.C.

No. MC-C-3 (SUB-NO. 4)

CHICAGO, ILL., COMMERCIAL ZONE

Decided October 8, 1976

Petition for redefinition and enlargement of the limits of the zone which is adjacent to and commercially a part of Chicago, Ill., within the meaning of section 203(b)(8) of the Interstate Commerce Act, denied. Prior reports herein: 1 M.C.C. 673, 86 M.C.C. 735, 88 M.C.C. 329, 94 M.C.C. 138, 94 M.C.C. 568, and 115 M.C.C. 71.

Richard L. Dwyer, Eugene T. Liipfert, Paul V. Miller, John L. Richardson, John N. Shanks II, and Thomas G. Woodall for petitioners.

Dean H. Mitchell, George A. Nelson, W. A. Rouse, Gene Smith, and Richard G. Warren for interveners in support of the petition. Lester Asher, Peter J. Burns, Eugene L. Cohn, Bernard G. Colby, Harry Pohlad, Herbert P. Read, Richard L. Salamon, Donald W. Smith, Harrison Tyler, and Fred K. Zahrt for interveners in opposition to the petition.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

Review Board Number 2, Members Boyle, Eaton, and Liberman

BY THE BOARD:

By joint petition filed March 5, 1974, the Indiana Port Commission, the State of Indiana, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation (Midwest Steel Division), Continental Can Company, Inc., and Tri-State Terminals, Inc., seek enlargement of the present zone limits of Chicago as follows:

Beginning at a point where the boundary of the Gary city limits intersects with U.S. Highway 12; thence east along U.S. Highway 12 to the eastern boundary of the property of Northern Indiana Public Service Company, which is also a boundary of the eastern section of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Park; thence north and west along said property line to its intersection with the south shore of Lake Michigan, thence west along the south shore of Lake Michigan to the Gary city limits.