out of 180 when all units at Gallup were busy. In October-December 1974, there were 4 days out of 90 when all units at Gallup were busy. Protestant Hatch holds pertinent authority to transport dry chemicals, in bulk, between points in New Mexico, Colorado, and Coconino County, Ariz. It urges that dry petrochemicals be excluded from any authority granted. In its cross-examination of shipper witnesses, Hatch established that none of the supporting firms have any need for the transportation of dry petrochemicals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS New Mexico is a producer of crude oil and contains numerous facilities for the refining of petroleum into finished products. On the other hand, Arizona and Colorado produce little of such products. They import much of their consumption from New Mexico, as well as from west Texas and southern California. The transportation of petroleum products from New Mexico to these neighbor States is accomplished largely by rail and pipeline, but also by truck. Within the portion of that traffic moving by truck there is a major segment which is handled through private carriage. The available motor common carrier service for shipping points in the northern portion of New Mexico primarily is provided by WTL, ATL, and PIE. From southern New Mexico the carriers are primarily WTL and Law. There are some points and certain commodities that can be served only by WTL. The joint board is mindful that multiple application proceedings require particular care in disposition to avoid the proliferation of operating authorities not needed by the public and detrimental to existing carriers. Both applicants are capable carriers. There is little to choose from between them and each studiously avoided introducing evidence that might be a basis for selecting one over the other. If the record of public need supported issuance of new authority, it would be unreasonable to grant one application and not the other. In our judgment, however, the record fails to establish that the public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations, and the applications should, therefore, be denied. First, with respect to petroleum per se, not one shipper expressed any need for the transportation by motor carrier of that commodity. Although there is some crude oil moving into New Mexico refineries, no showing has been made that any commodity other than petroleum products is moving from New Mexico to points in Arizona. With respect to petroleum products, protestants are authorized to perform the complete service sought. WTL holds completely duplicative authority, and also has authority which would enable it to obtain backhaul traffic. Collectively, the other protestants also hold authority substantially duplicating that sought herein. Protestants operate large fleets of suitable equipment, and have vehicles available to serve the supporting firms. The supporting shippers interested in supply points in southern New Mexico receive, for the most part, satisfactory service, and are supporting these applications merely to increase the number of available carriers and to make motor carrier services "more competitive." However, the desire or preference of a shipper for the service of a particular applicant or to have more than one carrier available does not equate with proof of need nor of inadequate service. Commercial Oil Transport Extension-Memphis, Tenn., 77 M.C.C. 81, Colorado-Arizona-California Express. Inc., v. United States (D.C. Colo.), 244 F. Supp. 894. Petroleum products moving from southeast New Mexico origins move primarily by rail. Famariss, Southern Union, and Anamax do not use motor carrier service to Arizona and Colorado. While Southern Union and Anamax may have a need for such service in the future, testimony in relation thereto was highly speculative, and we are unable to ascertain any reasonable plan by which such traffic may move. Moreover, there has been no showing that existing carriers would be unable to handle such traffic. Navajo Refinery at Artesia has found existing motor carrier service to be satisfactory, and describes broader territorial authority for applicants as a convenience. While it appears that Arrow has had some difficulty securing LPG equipment when shipping volumes are abnormally high, WTL's evidence establishes that it is a very rare occasion when that carrier does not have LPG units sitting idle. Moreover, when Arrow revised its pattern of proprietary carriage so that it could utilize common carriers on other traffic, its problems were largely alleviated. We also note that the Commission has often stated that the shipper has a duty to arrange its traffic in such a manner as to effectively utilize existing motor carrier service, Gra-Bell Truck Line, Inc., Ext.-Coloma, 115 M.C.C. 872 (1972). The typical shipper witness interested in northern New Mexico supply points operates its own truck fleet, utilizes common carriers on an overflow or emergency basis, and has experienced some service failures. On many of the failures mentioned, the testimony was less than specific, and it appears that many of shipper's complaints result from expecting carriers to supply equipment with little prior notice, for example when a proprietary unit breaks down. We can perceive no consistent pattern of service deficiencies attributable to protestants. To the contrary, their service has been reasonably adequate, sometimes despite the lack of cooperation afforded by shippers. The applicants have the burden of establishing that their proposed new operations will be responsive to a public need, that this purpose cannot or will not be served as well by existing carriers, and that authorization of the new service will not endanger or impair the operations of existing carriers. The evidence of record does not satisfy this burden. FINDINGS AND ORDER Upon consideration of all the evidence of record, the joint board finds that applicants have failed to show that the present or future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations; 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 applications should be denied. It is ordered, That each application be, and it is hereby, denied. And it is further ordered, That in the absence of a stay or postponment 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. 125 M.C.C. No. MC-95540 (SUB-NO. 898) WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., EXTENSION- Decided October 21, 1976 On reconsideration, findings in prior order (not printed), decided October 14, 1975, reversed. Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by ápplicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of foodstuffs (except in bulk), from Jacksonville, Ill., to points in nine States, subject to a restriction. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions. Clyde W. Carver for applicant. Mark L. Horne, Alan E. Serby, and Mike Smith for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 1, ACTING AS AN APPELLATE Division, CommissionERS MURPHY, Commissioner: By application filed March 24, 1974, Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of foodstuffs (except in bulk) from Jacksonville (Morgan County), Ill., to points in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, restricted to the transportation of traffic originating at the plantsite of Anderson Clayton Foods (Anderson Clayton), located at or near Jacksonville, Ill., and destined to the named destination points. Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. (Refrigerated), Argo-Collier Truck Lines Corporation (Argo-Collier), and Frozen Food Express, Inc. (FFE), oppose the application. The modified procedure followed. By order of the Commission, Review Board Number 2 (not printed), decided October 14, 1975, it was found that existing service had not been shown to be inadequate and, inasmuch as existing carriers normally are entitled to transport all the traffic they can handle adequately, efficiently, and economically before another carrier is permitted to enter the field, the application was denied. Upon applicant's petition for reconsideration and protestants' replies, and for good cause shown, the proceeding was reopened for reconsideration on the present record by order of the Commission, Division 1, Acting as an Appellate Division, entered May 25, 1976. In its petition, applicant contends that the review board erred (1) in denying the application solely on the grounds that existing services had not been demonstrated to be inadequate, (2) in failing to find that inasmuch as it is currently transporting some traffic for the supporting shipper to specified destinations, a grant of the application would allow it simply to institute an expanded service for shipper rather than to inject a new carrier into the territory, and (3) in failing to find that a grant of the instant application would create desirable competition for shipper's traffic, which would inure to the benefit of the shipping public. In reply, protestants argue that the review board properly denied the application. Protestants Refrigerated and Argo-Collier maintain that they have provided the supporting shipper with a substantial amount of service and contend that if this application is granted, they will suffer diversion of needed traffic. Protestant FFE argues that its services should be tried before a new competing service is authorized. All protestants argue that a grant of this application will enable applicant to institute a new service for which no need has been shown. The evidence, the review board's order, and the pleadings have been considered. Although we disagree with the review board's ultimate findings, we find its statement of facts, as supplemented and modified herein, to be correct in all material respects, and we adopt that statement as our own. Certain facts will be restated for clarity of discussion. FACTS Applicant is an experienced foodstuffs carrier and operates a large fleet of mechanically refrigerated equipment. Since 1960, applicant has held authority to transport dairy products, as defined in section B of the appendix to the report in Modification of Permits-Packing House Products, 46 M.C.C. 23 (1945), from points in Illinois (except Chicago), to eight specified points in Florida. Pursuant to that authority, applicant has transported oleomargarine for Anderson Clayton, the supporting shipper. Applicant also holds numerous grants of authority from this Commission authorizing the transportation of various commodities from the Southeast United States to the Midwest, and presented evidence in the form of a traffic abstract indicating that in a 12-week period in 1974, it terminated 242 vehicles suitably equipped for handling the involved commodities, at points in Illinois. Applicant believes that it is in an excellent position to provide service from Jacksonville to the Southeastern United States, and avers that a grant of this application will enable it to provide a more complete service for the supporting shipper. Anderson. Clayton operates a large production facility within the Jacksonville, Ill., commercial zone, at which it refines vegetable and animal fats, and produces oleomargarine, shortenings, lard, tallow, salad oils and dressings, and other foodstuff items. Shipper maintains an active research and development program for the addition of new products to its line, and, consequently, the commodities it ships change from time to time. Shipper's business is extremely competitive and its success is measured in large part by its ability to keep supermarket shelves stocked. As its customers have limited storage facilities and maintain small inventories, they need frequent shipments and service on short notice. Shipper must also satisfy seasonal and adverstising demands. To meet these customer requirements Anderson Clayton currently maintains public warehouse inventories, which are supplied by both motor and rail service, at four locations, Miami, Fla., Forest Park, Ga., Charlotte, N.C., and Memphis, Tenn. Shipper is planning to modify its present distribution system by reducing its utilization of rail service and dependence upon warehousing, and the attendant expense, additional handling, and attention to product shelf life involved in warehousing, by shipping more orders direct from factory by motor carrier to customer. To accomplish this shipper needs broad area multiple-delivery service from motor carriers able to handle its complete product line from a single vehicle. Service must be prompt and transit times dependable. As previously noted, shipments from Jacksonville move by rail and motor common carrier. In using rail service, shipper has experienced slow transit times, difficulty in obtaining mechanically refrigerated cars, stopoff inflexibility, and demands of some customers for delivery by motor carrier. While motor carrier service has generally been superior to rail, needed motor carrier equipment |