tour service at its Cleveland facility. Escorted tours, operated under fixed departure dates and itineraries, include hotels, baggage handling, some or all meals, sightseeing and other accessorial features in the per capita price. Independent tours permit freedom of travel in Greyhound scheduled services with travel and tour features prearranged to suit the precise travel preferences of the individual. World Tours offered in 1975 eight variously described escorted tours departing from Cleveland on numerous specified dates.

Greyhound maintains that applicant has offered no evidence tending to establish a dissimilarity between the proposed service and that presently available from protestants. It contends that applicant has focused much of her attention on preformed affinity groups which do not require the services of a broker and that otherwise the supportive evidence generally consists of little more than overly generalized assertions of need. Greyhound concludes that the paucity of evidence adduced by applicant in the face of protestants' available service, which, it urges, has not been shown to be materially inadequate in any regard, warrants a finding that no public need for the proposed service has been shown to exist.

American Bus lines and Edwards Motor Transit are wholly owned subsidiaries of Continental Trailways, Inc. American provides regular-route service extending generally between New York, N.Y., and identified California points, serving numerous intermediate points including Cleveland. Edwards provides regular-route service extending generally between New York City and Cleveland. Approximately one-half of their combined fleet of 121 vehicles is available for interstate charter and tour services. Both American and Edwards advertise their services in the Cuyahoga County area and employ salespersons and commission agents to solicit business. Trailways Travel Bureau Corporation (TTBC) offers comprehensive tour services between points in the United States, including Alaska but excluding Hawaii. It offers five diversified all-expense tour programs from the Cuyahoga County area. American and Edwards are sales agents for TTBC. Applicant is an agent of Continental Trailways which itself is an agent of TTBC. TTBC argues that applicant has gained substantial experience and has become acquainted with numerous tour patrons through her affiliation with TTBC and that it would, therefore, be inequitable to permit its agent to use the knowledge gained in apprenticeship to divert tour patrons. Additionally, TTBC states that applicant has not

shown that the proposed service would be other than duplicative of that presently available.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The standards of proof for a grant of broker authority are well established. The statutory criteria3 have been interpreted and construed in numerous decisions of both this Commission and the courts. Thus, consistent with the legislative history of section 211 of the act, this Commission has determined that a broker applicant is required to show that its services will contribute something of value or be of benefit to carriers or to the public. Carla Ticket Service, Inc., Broker Application, 94 M.C.C. 579, 581 (1964). Such a showing may be made (1) through the testimony of interested members of the general public, or (2) under certain conditions, through applicant's presentation of a plan of future operations together with the supporting evidence of existing carriers. White Rose Motor Club Broker Application, 95 M.C.C. 101, 104 (1964). Moreover, in establishing that its operation will be consistent with the public interest, an applicant's burden is not as strict as the public convenience and necessity criterion which governs the issuance of motor carriers' licenses. See Collette Travel Service, Inc. v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 302, 304 (D.R.I. 1966). Where, as here, support for a broker application is presented in the form of public testimony, we have recognized that the usual witness supporting such an application generally lacks experience in evaluating existing transportation services and oftentimes confines its testimony to such matters as leisure activities. See Cook Broker Application, 119 M.C.C. 709, 716 (1974). These inherent limitations must be borne in mind when an applicant's evidence is weighed and evaluated.

In the instant proceeding, applicant has demonstrated considerable familiarity with the tour business. Her ability to organize and conduct tours is well documented. Although a substantial portion of applicant's experience has been gained in arranging intrastate tours as an authorized agent of Continental Trailways, she also has acquired some proficiency in the interstate

Section 211(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, in terms of which all broker applications must be evaluated, requires a finding (1) that the application is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed service, and (2) that the proposed brokerage operation is or will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. We concern ourselves herein with the second criterion, the first having been resolved in applicant's favor by the joint board and not now in controversy.

tour business. The evidence of record reveals the distinctive quality of applicant's highly personalized service features which include provision for suburban pickup service, individualized attention to the special needs of her tour patrons, and a willingness and an ability to cope with unexpected eventualities even at personal expense. These and other service features have attracted for applicant a loyal clientele composed in large measure of persons, such as the elderly and the infirm, who generally require extra care or special attention. Many have grown to rely upon applicant's personalized service to the virtual exclusion of all other available services which, some witnesses intimate, are not as well suited to their particular needs. The nature of applicant's proposed operation, which is patterned largely after her previous intrastate tours, coupled with the magnanimous response which such tours have evoked from her tour patrons, convinces us that authorization of the proposed service will contribute something of value to the public in the involved area. We recognize that other services are available in the region which applicant proposes to serve. Nevertheless, we conclude that applicant's proposed service is distinguishable from other available services and not needlessly duplicative of them. The very same features which distinguish applicant's proposed service, however, also will tend to limit her ability to encroach unduly upon the operations of existing brokers in the area. For example, given the highly personalized nature of applicant's service, it would be extremely difficult for her to operate multiple tours concurrently. Additionally, the particular segments of the community from which applicant intends to draw much of her clientele are somewhat distinct from those to which protestants direct their efforts. In fact, Greyhound has indicated a certain disinterest in the so-called "preformed affinity groups" which applicant has served, claiming that such groups do not require the services of a broker. Although applicant's proposed operation will be focused primarily upon limited classes of users, we believe that the five-county area which she proposes to serve is sufficiently populated (in excess of 2.1 million inhabitants according to the 1970 Census) to make the operation feasible. We do not believe, however, that the public interest and the national transportation policy would best be served by restricting the grant of authority either as to a class or classes of

"We are aware that no supporting statements were filed by persons residing in Medina or Wayne Counties. However, we believe that the witnesses who did file statements in support of the application are sufficiently representative of the involved area, especially in view of the nature of the proposed service, as to warrant a grant of the entire authority sought.

users or as to a type of tour. Cf. Howard Tours, Inc., Broker Application, 95 M.C.C. 405, 410 (1964).

We are certain that our grant of authority herein will introduce a beneficial competitive element in a marketplace which appears well able to support it without, at the same time, according applicant an undue competitive advantage over existing services. Furthermore, those common carriers opposing the application stand to benefit from the proposed operation to the extent that they can provide adequate and responsive service for applicant's proposed tours. Viewing the facts and circumstances as developed in the record before us in light of the applicable criteria, we conclude that applicant has amply demonstrated that her proposed service will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy.

FINDINGS

On reconsideration, we find that operation by applicant at Middleburg Heights, Ohio, as a broker of transportation by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in special and charter operations, in round trip tours, beginning and ending at points in Cuyahoga, Lake, Medina, Wayne, and Holmes Counties, Ohio, and extending to points in the United States (including Alaska but excluding Hawaii), will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; 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; that a license authorizing such operations should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 211 and 221(c) of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, an appropriate license will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER MURPHY, dissenting:

While I recognize that in proceedings of the type involved herein, the supporting testimony is often imprecise, I do not believe that the evidence presented in this proceeding is sufficient to justify a

grant of authority. Applicant has failed to present any specific information regarding proposed tours, and she has failed to introduce any supporting evidence from existing motor bus carriers. Applicant has presented no public witness from Medina or Wayne Counties, and there was no testimony from individuals representing minority groups and school children, two of the three groups which, according to applicant, have a need for her services. The supporting public witnesses have failed to indicate the number of members who would utilize applicant's services, or any definite plans which they may have to take interstate tours in the future. No showing has been made that the services of protestants are inadequate. Finally, I am not convinced that the service proposed by applicant is distinctive in any material respect from the services available from protestants, or that applicant could contribute something of value which would not be a needless duplication of existing facilities. While the supporting public witnesses have a preference for applicant's service, this is no basis upon which a grant of authority should be made. For these reasons, I would affirm the joint board and deny this application.

125 M.C.C.