views. These parties contend that under existing interpretations of the Superhighway Rules service performed at intermediate points on superhighway routes under the so-called "25-mile" rule is not conducive to the pickup and delivery of less-than-truckload (LTL) traffic. These parties believe that the requirement of the Superhighway Rules that vehicles depart from and return to a carrier's underlying regular service route forecloses the utilization of a terminal situated at a point on the superhighway route, because in providing a local pickup and delivery service at points on a superhighway route utilizing vehicles stationed at a terminal on the same superhighway route these vehicles would not meet the requirement of departing from and returning to the carrier's underlying regular service route. Provision of pickup and delivery service for LTL shipments at points on a superhighway route utilizing line-haul tractor-trailer equipment is viewed as impractical by these parties. Campbell and Gordon in their joint representations argue that if a carrier is providing service at intermediate points under the "25-mile" rule on a superhighway route and is not using the superhighway route merely as, in effect, an alternate route for the movement of through traffic, then such carrier should be relieved of the necessity of observing the requirement that the vehicle picking up and delivering freight at freight at intermediate points on said superhighway route depart from and return to that carrier's underlying regular service route. Overnite, in addition to joining in the foregoing arguments, asserts that the existing interpretation of the rules, by "hampering" the provision of LTL service at intermediate points on superhighway routes, tends to defeat the main purpose of the Superhighway Rules which it believes is to conserve fuel resources.

Johnson is of the opinion that the matters under consideration herein are of such importance as to warrant an oral hearing. In our opinion, however, there are in dispute here no arguments or issues of fact material to the disposition of this proceeding which cannot properly be resolved on the basis of the present evidence which has been submitted in the form of verified statements without recourse to oral hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no need for oral hearing herein and that Johnson's request for oral hearing should be, and it is hereby, denied. Compare Theatres Service Co. Ext.-Duluth, Ga., 113 M.C.C. 744, 746 (1971); and Boat Transit, Inc., v. United States, (not reported) (E.D. Mich., civil action No. 31899, 1970), affirmed 401 U.S. 928 (1971).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Petitioner Roadway requests a ruling as to whether certain contemplated operations summarized at the outset of this report may lawfully be conducted under the Superhighway Rules. Assuming that petitioner does, in fact, hold regular-route, generalcommodities authority to serve all intermediate points on U.S. Highway 1 between Philadelphia and the District of Columbia, it clearly may serve all intermediate points on the above-described superhighway (Interstate Highway 95)-nonsuperhighway "connecting" highway route under the "25-mile" [section 1042.3(a)(1)] and "intermediate point service" [service 1042.3(b)] provisions of the Superhighway Rules. The "intermediate point. service" provision allows a carrier conducting superhighway operations under the "25-mile" rule, which carrier is authorized to serve all intermediate points (without regard to nominal exceptions) on its underlying certificated regular service route between the points of departure from and return to the said service route, to serve intermediate points on and within 1 airline mile of the said superhighway route (including connecting highways) in the same manner and subject to corresponding service limitations as described in the pertinent certificate or certificates of public convenience and necessity. Petitioner's contemplated terminal operations at Newark must be examined in light of the requirement of the rules that operations be conducted between a point of departure from and return to a carrier's underlying regular service

route.

The salient feature of petitioner's contemplated Newark terminal operations is the utilization of separate vehicles (1) to provide pickup and delivery service between points on the involved superhighway route and the Newark terminal, which vehicles would not depart from or return to petitioner's underlying regular service route, and (2) to transport shipments between the Newark terminal and points on petitioner's underlying regular service route. For a carrier to comply with the provisions of the Superhighway Rules it must, as part of the superhighway operation, depart from and return to points on the carrier's underlying regular service route. In this regard the Superhighway Rules specifically relate to vehicular operations. The very concept of "departing from and returning to" the underlying regular service route, which is an essential and inherent element of the Superhighway Rules, of course, refers to the operation of the involved departing and returning vehicle itself. This

4

is abundantly clear from the language of the rules and from cases which have interpreted the rules. See, for example, Associated Truck Lines, Inc. v. Wolverine Exp., 123 M.C.C. 206 (1975); Puget Sound Truck Lines, Inc. Invest. and Revoc., 120 M.C.C. 892 (1975); Great Lakes Exp. Co., et al. v. National Transit, 117 M.C.C. 735 (1973); Lafayette, Ind., Superhighway Operations, 117 M.C.C. 660, 666 (1972); Burggrabe Truck Lines, Inc. v. Beaufort Transfer, 117 M.C.C. 567 (1972); Property Motor Carrier Superhighway Rules, 117 M.C.C. 119 (1972); and Motor Service on Interstate Highways Passengers, supra. Therefore, in order to comport with the Superhighway Rules the same vehicle that departs from the underlying regular service route to perform operations pursuant to the rules must also return to said route.

We, therefore, conclude that the above-described superhighway operation contemplated by petitioner, which operation involves the provision of pickup and delivery service between points on the involved superhighway route and a terminal at Newark, Del., by utilizing vehicles which in performing such service do not, in fact, depart from and return to petitioner's pertinent underlying regular service route, are not within the ambit of the provisions of the Superhighway Rules. Our conclusions, however, does not affect the ability of petitioner or other similarly situated motor carriers to perform local pickup and delivery service at intermediate points on superhighway routes in a practical and efficient manner. For example, if petitioner were to operate from a terminal at Philadelphia it could perform a portion of the considered service at intermediate points on Interstate Highway 95 by operating over U.S. Highway 1 (perhaps in conjunction with the performance of a normal peddle run operation) to junction U.S. Highway 222, traversing and utilizing U.S. Highway 222 as a nonsuperhighway "connecting" highway as part of the superhighway route, and returning to Philadelphia over Interstate Highway 95. In such a manner petitioner could perform full LTL service at intermediate points on the involved portions of U.S. Highway 222 and Interstate Highway 95, while concomitantly complying with the requirement of the Superhighway Rules that the vehicle performing such local pickup and delivery service "depart from and return to" petitioner's 'Furthermore, it is clear from the Superhighway Rules and from the cases that the rules focus upon the manner of operation of the involved departing-returning vehicle over the superhighway route; that the only operations lawtul under the rules are those which the said departing-returning vehicle may properly perform within the scope of said rules; and, moreover, that such superhighway operations must, in fact, be performed by use of said departing-returning vehicle.

underlying regular service route. The above example is merely meant to be illustrative, and we wish to make it clear that a carrier is free to establish its terminal facilities wherever it chooses and to operate in any manner it deems best so long as the vehicles utilized in performing superhighway operations actually depart from and return to its pertinent underlying regular service route or routes and said operations in all other respects also meet the requirements of the Superhighway Rules.

FINDINGS

We find that certain regular-route motor common carrier operations, in interstate or foreign commerce, as described in detail in this report, are not within the purview of and may not be conducted under this Commission's Superhighway Rules-Motor Common Carriers of Property, 49 CFR 1042.3; 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, seeking a contrary determination, should be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER CORBER, dissenting:

The Superhighway Rules were promulgated in an effort to make greater and more efficient use of the superhighway system in the interests of providing better and more responsive service to the traveling and shipping public. Motor Service on Interstate Highways Passengers, 110 M.C.C. 514, 515. It was recognized that the construction of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways created new service requirements for traffic necessitating adequate motor transportation, ibid., p. 533. To this end, carriers of property operating under 49 CFR § 1042.3(9)(1) are permitted to serve intermediate points on and within 1 airline mile of the superhighway route and connecting route in the same manner and subject to corresponding service limitations as described in the pertinent certificate of public convenience and necessity. These operations must be conducted between the point of departure from and point of return to the carriers' authorized service route. While truckload traffic is effectively handled in this manner, the petitioner and supporting carriers raise a serious question as to whether LTL traffic originating at or destined to intermediate points on the superhighway can be similarly handled.

Consolidation of freight after pickup is a major component of an LTL operation. By requiring each vehicle to depart from and return to the authorized service route, carriers must utilize line-haul vehicles for pickup services or forego LTL traffic along the superhighway. As the Superhighway Rules were never intended to fuel the small shipments problem, a formal rulemaking should be instituted to coordinate the proposed peddle operations with operations that depart from and return to the authorized service route, and to examine the effect of the proposed peddle operations on service along the authorized service route.

125 M.C.C.