presented with regard to news and communications media, and shopping, recreational, and entertainment patterns common to Cincinnati and the proposed area. Additionally, there is a considerable area to the west of the shopping mall and east of Kentucky Highway 237 as to which no evidence whatsoever was adduced. There is no evidence as to what this land consists of (the Boone-Aire Country Club?) or its use. In fact, evidence of common business ties, employment practices, trade practices, and the flow of goods and services is wholly absent. These considerations, and the absence of specific data linking the commerce of the proposed area with that of the base municipality, lead us to conclude that redefinition of the commercial zone of Cincinnati is not justified and that the petition should be denied. FINDINGS We find that the proposed redefinition and enlargement of the zone adjacent to and commercially a part of Cincinnati, Ohio, contemplated by section 203(b)(8) of the Interstate Commerce Act, has not been shown to be warranted; 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 petition should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. APPENDIX Businesses and industries Shillito's, a division of Federated Department Stores, Inc. Richter & Phillips H. & S. Pogue, Co., a division of Associated Dry Goods Kentucky Jockey Club Sears, Roebuck & Company Greater Cincinnati Airport Boone Co. Businessmen's Association, Inc. West Shell, Inc. North American Management and Development Co. F. Krumpleman & Son Chelsea Moore Development Corp. W. P. Butler Co. Governmental agencies County of Boone, Kentucky City of Florence, Kentucky Northern Kentucky State College Northern Kentucky Area Development District Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments (Formerly O.K.I. Regional Transportation Advisory Board) Public utilities Cincinnati Bell, Inc. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Individuals Gene Snyder, U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District, Kentucky John B. Breckinridge, U.S. House of Representatives, 6th District, Kentucky 125 M.C.C. No. MC-92633 (SUB-NO. 22) ZIRBEL TRANSPORT, INC., EXTENSION-CONTAINERS Decided October 20, 1976 Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of general commodities (with exceptions) and empty containers between points on two rivers in certain named counties in Washington and Idaho, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in nine counties in Washington and Idaho, subject to certain restrictions and to a condition. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. J. G. Dail, Jr., Christopher J. Dietzen, and Donald A. Ericson for applicant. Russell M. Allen, Ben D. Browning, Michael D. Crew, and Earle V. White for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, GRESHAM, AND GRESHAM. Commissioner: CHRISTIAN Exceptions to the initial decision and recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge were filed by applicant, and certain protestants replied. Our conclusions differ from those recommended. By application filed January 8, 1973, as amended, Zirbel Transport, Inc., of Lewiston, Idaho, 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 (1) general commodities (except household goods, motor vehicles, petroleum products in bulk, explosives, and blasting supplies as defined by the Commission), in cargo containers, either unmounted or mounted on chassis, between Portland, Oreg., Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., and 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, and (2) on return, empty containers, either unmounted or mounted on chassis, each movement having a prior or subsequent movement by water. The application is opposed by Garrett Freightlines, Inc., Silver Wheel Freightlines, Inc., Richland Transfer & Storage Company, Inc., Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, and C & H Transportation Company, Inc., all hereinafter called by short names. All parties to this proceeding are motor common carriers. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that the application be denied in its entirety. He found, inter alia, that, although applicant's proposal to move ex-water container shipments directly to inland destinations without breaking bulk at ocean ports has merit, the inability of existing carriers to handle such traffic is not demonstrated by evidence of their failure to furnish equipment during periods of peak shipper activity; that, although applicant proposes to establish inland container pools, its evidence fails to establish either its willingness to do so or the number of containers it will acquire; that the volume of nonexempt container traffic in the involved area is too small to support an additional carrier; that no effort has been made to determine the feasibility of a proposed intermodal arrangement involving movements by barge between ocean ports and river ports and by motor between river ports and inland origins and destinations; that any agreement by the barge lines to handle such intermodal traffic is not now a serious possibility; that, although a coordinated barge-motor operation in the involved area will probably result in lower rates, applicant has failed to show that the present rates constitute an embargo; and that, although a greater volume of nonexempt container traffic might justify a future grant of authority, the instant proposal is premature. At the beginning of its exceptions, applicant moves to amend the application so as to remove Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma as proposed service points. Applicant avers that the purpose of the amendment is to remove from the application any proposal to perform all-motor service to and from those three ocean ports and to emphasize instead the barge-motor aspects of the proposed service. The amendment, being restrictive in nature, is accepted, and our consideration will hereinafter be limited to applicant's proposed participation in an intermodal barge-motor operation. In its exceptions, applicant argues that the proposed intermodal service is operationally feasible; that the recently completed Lower Granite Dam will make barge movements between Portland and Lewiston more economical and competitive with other modes as to transit time; that applicant's willingness and ability are evinced by the large percentage of flat-bed trailers in its vehicle fleet and its handling of containerized freight within the limits of its present authority; that a motor carrier need not acquire containers in order to handle containerized traffic; that applicant is financially fit notwithstanding certain part-year operating losses; that a need for the proposed service is established by the wide variety of public support for the application; that the findings of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the traffic of certain supporting shippers are either inaccurate or incomplete and do not include several nonexempt commodities; that a grant of the authority sought will enable applicant to better serve shippers of exempt as well as nonexempt commodities by developing a pool of empty containers; that applicant's handling of exempt in conjunction with nonexempt commodities is relevant to the issue of public need and will facilitate coordinated two-way motor movements; that the development of intermodal containerized traffic is consistent with Commission policy; that the proposed truck-barge service will make possible fuel conservation and environmental improvement by lengthening the water portion of the intermodal movement and will serve to reduce the delay, congestion, and equipment shortages involved in transferring containers to land carriers at ocean ports; that the existing rates of another transportation mode need not constitute an embargo before the inherent advantages of that mode can be considered; that existing carriers are either unauthorized or unwilling to participate in the proposed intermodal service and would not be materially affected by granting applicant the authority sought; that certain of the protestants have an insufficient amount of flat-bed equipment; that equipment shortages occur at times other than peak activity periods and are a continuous problem in the handling of containerized shipments; that certain protestants have manifested a continuing disinterest in the involved traffic; and that the inadequacy of existing service need not be established where an improved service is proposed. C & H and Mitchell filed a joint reply as did the other three protestants. C & H and Mitchell urge that their primary interests will be satisfied by the Commission's acceptance of applicant's amendment and argue that the barge traffic in the involved area is not sufficiently developed to justify additional motor carrier service; that, even if the amendment is accepted, C & H and Mitchell can handle some of the involved traffic under their existing authorities; and that those commodities they are authorized to handle should be |