Bowman is a general-commodities carrier holding no authority to transport size-and-weight commodities, (c) George and Ace Doran hold authority essentially the same as that already held by applicant but do not have sufficient equipment available for moves outbound from Virginia, and (d) Home based its opposition on its machinery. authority. Applicant Daily submits that in light of the extensive authority it already holds, approval of its proposal throughout the entire territory sought will not adversely affect the protestants. It further argues that the Administrative Law Judge illogically fragmented the grant of authority by granting six Northeastern States and nine Southern States while overlooking several others. It also avers that the decision herein is inconsistent with an allegedly similar case decided by the same Administrative Law Judge.* Furthermore, this applicant contends that although the grant as phrased permits the transportation of parts and attachments. incidental to the commodities authorized, shippers have demonstrated a need for separate shipments of parts and attachments including some items which require the use of special equipment not available from general-commodities carriers. Finally, Daily asserts that, inasmuch as the application as published disclosed the tacking potentialities of applicant, and inasmuch as protestants failed to show any material and adverse effect of an unrestricted grant, the restriction against tacking imposed by the Administrative Law Judge was unwarranted.

On exceptions applicant Gregory argues that contrary to the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge both Lockwood Brothers and Munck Systems have demonstrated a need for additional service. Applicant avers that although protestants hold authority to provide service to the shippers, the Administrative Law Judge improperly concluded that the holding of authority was equivalent to providing expeditious service. Gregory further avers that due to the requirement to observe various gateways and due to shortages of appropriate equipment, protestants do not provide such service. Furthermore, applicant Gregory excepts to the denial of authority to serve various States which were granted to applicant

No MC-29886 (Sub-No. 294). Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., Inc.. Extension-Power Cranes and Construction and Earth Moving Machinery and Equipment, has become final by operation of law and a certificate has been issued.

In addition to its exceptions Gregory also filed a motion to consolidate its application with the above-footnoted Dallas & Mavis proceeding. In their replies to Gregory's exceptions International. George, and Ace Doran argued that the motions to consolidate should be denied. Inasmuch as no sufficient or proper cause has been shown for such consolidation, and inasmuch as that proceeding is administratively final, and a certificate has been issued therein, the motion will be denied.

Daily merely because Gregory's application was filed several months later. In conclusion, while applicant does not contest the restriction imposed, it maintains that the commodity description should be broadened to include machinery, and parts and attachments, and the origin and destination territories should be expanded to the original scope of the application. It asserts that such modifications are (a) justified by the record, (b) would promote efficient and economical two-way operations by applicant, and (c) would not impair or endanger the operations of existing carriers. Protestant Home in its exceptions disputes the Administrative Law Judge's recitation of its pertinent authority. Home agrees with the denial of authority to those States where protestants' services are available. It asserts that had its authority been properly construed the Administrative Law Judge would have recognized its ability to serve points in Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and in light of the aforementioned rationale would have denied applicants' proposals to serve those States. Protestant Bowman's exceptions are of a similar nature. It argues that it can provide service to points in South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee, and that shippers have not been faced with actual, substantial, service failures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our review of the evidence of record and the subsequent pleadings lead us to reach some of the same preliminary conclusions. as were reached by the Administrative Law Judge. Neither Lockwood Brothers nor Munck Systems has presented sufficient probative data so as to persuade us that they have an actual need for additional service. Lockwood Brothers' presentation consists of vague allegations which do not show that available service is deficient or that shipper's reasonable transportation needs are not being satisfied. Munck has not advanced any reason why it could not more fully utilize existing available services. In our opinion Munck has not fully investigated the availability of existing service before supporting this application, compare Warren Transport, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.C. 241, 246 (1956). Furthermore, we agree that the articles sought to be transported on behalf of Liebherr-America and Liebherr Crane have in the process of manufacture lost their identity as items of "machinery" and have been transformed into new and different articles, namely power cranes, tractors, backhoes, et cetera, which have names, characters,

and uses separate and distinct from the general category of "machinery" as that term is generally understood in transportation parlance. Knight-Revocation of Certificate, 63 M.C.C. 643, 648 (1955).

Liebherr-America and Liebherr Crane are young companies, with rapidly and provably expanding transportation needs into geographically expanding areas. The type of commodities transported require a number of loads for each shipment, and though the shippers did not refer to any instance where a sale was lost due to an inability to obtain transportation, they did allege a number of instances of delay through inability to obtain a sufficient quantity of the proper equipment from the entire community of authorized specialized carriers, including the equipment available from applicants here through tacked or interlined service. Such a situation is not acceptable to the supporting shipper and is not in the public interest. These shippers have presented sufficient evidence of their marketing operations, traffic patterns, and equipment requirements for grants of the destination territory. sought. Liebherr-America's products are of such dimension that it cannot depend upon the termination in the area of a limited number of lowbed trailers. Likewise Liebherr Crane's requirements of up to 15 trailers of some shipments cannot be met by any individual carrier or small number of carriers. We recognize that protestants can provide the proposed service and have appropriate equipment to do so, but these carriers would at times be sorely taxed to meet the reasonable transportation requirements of the shippers involved. Furthermore, Daily and Gregory, to a lesser extent, have been participating in shipper's traffic for a period of several years. We are persuaded, therefore, that applicants' services in addition to those now available, will be needed if these shippers are to be assured of a comprehensive transportation service responsive to their needs and able to provide sufficient quantity of appropriate equipment. The evidence establishes that there will be sufficient amounts of the involved traffic available for movement to support the additional operations authorized herein. Whatever slight effect additional competition from applicants may have upon the protestants is thus outweighed by the needs of the shippers involved. Onley Refrigerated Transp., Inc.-Foodstuffs and Drugs, 118 M.C.C. 715, 721-723 (1973).

The Administrative Law Judge correctly found that there exists a need for authority for the movement of the involved commodities from the port of Norfolk to the shippers' plantsite at Newport News.

248-348 O - 77 - 8

There are occasions when commodities arrive by vessel at Norfolk and must be moved to the plantsite by motor vehicle because intraport movement by water involves excessive delays. Under the circumstances presented here, such transportation is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of this Commission.

The Administrative Law Judge also imposed an "originating-at and destined-to" restriction on the authority recommended. The usual purpose of such a restriction is to preclude tacking and interlining, but in the context of this proceeding the restriction in the recommended form may preclude a portion of the service for which a need has been shown, since some of the traffic consists of shipments which have an immediate prior movement by water in addition to shipments moving to or from Canadian points. Considering all of the evidence of record, including the nature of the shipper evidence and the interests of the protestants, we believe that appropropriate circumstances exist for a restriction which will preclude additional competitive operations not contemplated by our grants herein. Accordingly, we will rephrase the restriction in order to permit the service demonstrated to be needed on this record and to avoid conflicting opinions as to the meaning of the restriction, see Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Ext.-General Commodities, 114 M.C.C. 562, 567 (1971), and Central Transport Ext.-Mecklenburg County, N.C., 119 M.C.C. 236, 245 (1973).

It is understood that no specific authority is required for the transportation of component parts or attachments to an authorized commodity, when shipped in conjunction, and at the same time, with the authorized commodity, but only when such items are transported in connection with, and intended for installation on, one of the specifically authorized items being transported at the same time. Warren Transport, Inc., Ext.-Lodi, N.J., 119 M.C.C. 107, 116-117 (1973). Consequently, the phrase "with or without attachments" following the word "tractors" will not be included in the commodity description. However, the evidence of record in this proceeding indicates a distinct need for the independent transportation of parts and attachments, and accordingly the commodity description recommended by the Administrative Law Judge will be further modified so as to permit applicants to satisfy the need shown.

FINDINGS

We find in Nos. MC-117574 (Sub-No. 222) and MC-113495 (SubNo. 58), that the present and future public convenience and

necessity require the operation by each applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, (1) of power cranes, tractors (except truck tractors), self-propelled cranes, backhoes, and shovels, and (2) attachments and parts for the commodities described in (1) above, (A) from Norfolk, Va., to Newport News, Va., and (B) between Newport News, Va., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the United States in and east of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, restricted in each instance to the transportation of traffic which either (a) originates at or is destined to the facilities of Liebherr-America, Inc., and Liebherr Crane Corporation, at Newport News, Va., or (b) has an immediately prior movement by water; that each 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 to the extent that the authority granted in No. MC-117574 (Sub-No. 222) is duplicative of authority now held by Daily, such grant shall not be construed as conferring more than a single operating right; that appropriate certificates should be granted; 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 in each proceeding, with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, appropriate certificates will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER CLAPP did not participate.

124 M.C.C.