groups may be questionable. Applicant is cautioned that in the future all operations must be conducted in accordance with the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder. FINDINGS We find that applicant has failed to establish that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operation; 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 should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER CHRISTIAN. dissenting: Protestants, Doyle and Ottertail, do offer the same type of nonluxury charter service proposed by Holiday, but because their authorities overlap only to a very limited extent, there is only one small part of one county here involved where both carriers are able to provide service. This means that in the vast bulk of the territory covered by Holiday's application, persons seeking nonluxury-type service are dependent upon the service of a single carrier which has a monopoly on the type of service desired. A regulated monopoly is no substitute for competition, and I believe that the competition resulting from the introduction of an additional carrier into this particular market will be of significant benefit to the traveling public. Cf. Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, supra, at 208; Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., Extension-Boise-Salt Lake City, 44 M.C.C. 535, 548 (1945); Norfolk Southern Bus Corp. v. United States, 96 F. Supp. 756, 761 (E.D. Va. 1950), affirmed per curium 340 U.S. 802. Moreover, since neither Doyle nor Ottertail has served the supporting witnesses in the past, it does not appear that either is likely to lose such a great volume of traffic as to endanger its operations. Indeed, it is not even clear that Doyle and Ottertail together operate sufficient suitable equipment to ensure an adequate supply to those desiring service. Upon consideration of all these factors, I believe that additional charter service should be made available to the residents of the six 'The only common point of service is the city of Moorhead, located on the extreme western edge of Clay County, Minn. county origin territory involved herein. There is the possibility that some traffic might be diverted from Doyle or Ottertail, but this Commission has found in the past that existing carriers are not immune from competition. By a grant of authority herein the source of available economical motorbus transportation would be increased, which would assure that suitable motorbus service would be available to the population of the involved origin area. 125 M.C.C. No. MC-130223 PETER PAN WORLD TRAVEL, INC., BROKER APPLICATION Decided November 8, 1976 On reconsideration, findings in prior order of December 1, 1975 (not printed), reversed. Operation by applicant at Springfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Amherst, Mass., as a broker of transportation by motor vehicle, of passengers and their baggage, in special and charter operations, between points in the United States, subject to a restriction, found to be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. Issuance of a license approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions. Frank Daniels for applicant. Lat J. Celmins, Robert E. Goldstein, S. Harrison Kahn, and W. L. McCracken for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 1, ACTING AS An Appellate Division, CommissioneRS CHRISTIAN, Commissioner: By application filed November 21, 1973, Peter Pan World Travel, Inc., of Springfield, Mass., seeks a license authorizing operation as a broker in in interstate or foreign commerce, at Springfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Amherst, Mass., in arranging for the transportation of passengers and their baggage, individually and in groups, in special and charter operations, between points in the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. The application is opposed by Paragon Travel Agency, Inc., separately, Greyhound World Tours, Inc., and Greyhound Lines, Inc., jointly, and Manhattan Transit Company, Campus Travel, Inc., and Keri Tours, Inc., jointly. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING The modified procedure was followed, and the matter was submitted to a joint board. In its initial decision of June 11, 1975, the joint board recommended that applicant be granted a broker license substantially as sought. The joint board concluded that (1) the proposed broker operation would serve a useful purpose, and would be beneficial to the traveling public and to the motor carriers providing the actual transportation, (2) applicant's proposed service and the motor carrier operations of its affiliate, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., would be carried on exclusively independent of each. other, and (3) applicant's broker operation would not adversely affect the protestant Greyhound companies. In a decision and order (not printed), decided December 1, 1975, Review Board Number 3 reversed the joint board's initial decision. and denied the application. The review board found that the statement of facts of the joint board was correct in all material respects. But the review board concluded that applicant had not made a representative showing of an ability to generate special and charter operations, in round trip, all-expense tours, between all points in the United States, as for example, in the Northwestern, Southwestern, Southeastern, and Middle Atlantic States, and the northern tier of States. The review board further found that the application should be denied because of the fact that applicant's officers control and manage Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., a motor carrier which conducts interstate passenger operations in applicant's area of domicile, and which is authorized to conduct certain special operations, in sightseeing and pleasure tours, extending to points in the United States (except Alaska and Hawaii). The review board stated that here there is substantial opposition or competition and there are possibilities of preference and prejudice not shown to be overcome by public benefits of a measure so as to warrant the issuance of the sought broker license. Upon consideration of the record, of applicant's petition for reconsideration, and of protestants' replies, and for good cause shown, the proceeding was reopened for reconsideration on the present record by order entered May 14, 1976. In its petition, applicant contends, among other things, that the review board erred (1) in finding that applicant has not made a representative showing of its ability to generate special and charter tour operations between all points in the United States, and (2) in finding that there are possibilities of preference and prejudice herein, which are not shown to be overcome by public benefits of a measure so as to warrant a grant of authority. Applicant expresses its willingness to accept an appropriate condition upon a grant of authority to the effect that applicant shall comply with the final rules which may be prescribed by the Commission regarding duplicative authorities under Ex Parte No. MC-93. See Passenger Brokers Affiliated with Motor Carriers, 120 M.C.C. 656 (1974). In their replies, protestants maintain that the findings of the review board are correct and should be affirmed. The evidence, the joint board's initial decision, the exceptions, the review board's decision and order, the petition, and the replies thereto have been considered. We find the joint board's statement of facts to be substantially correct in all material respects; and, as supplemented herein, we adopt that statement as our own. Only certain facts necessary for clarity of discussion will be set forth herein. THE PERTINENT FACTS Applicant is a travel agency with offices at Springfield, Northampton, Holyoke, and Amherst, Mass. As the largest retail travel agency in western Massachusetts, its gross volume of business for the year ending September 30, 1973, was $3.3 million, including $1.5 million of airline sales. It represents all major scheduled airlines and steamship companies throughout the world. As agent for Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., applicant has arranged for and sold round trip, all-expense tours beginning and ending at Springfield and extending to points in (a) New England and upper New York State, (b) Pennsylvania, (c) Virginia, (d) Tennessee and Kentucky, (e) Florida, (f) Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina, (g) Michigan, (h) the west coast, and (i) Washington, D.C. During the year ending September 30, 1973, applicant operated 185 motor carrier tours, transporting approximately 7,000 passengers, for which its patrons paid a total of $1 million. The patrons were from locations throughout western Massachusetts and northern Connecticut. The two Massachusetts counties, Hampden and Hampshire, served by applicant have combined populations of approximately 600,000 people. There is no active licensed passenger broker in the Springfield area which opposes the application. Applicant maintains an active mailing list of over 6,000 names, many of whom have traveled previously on its escorted motor bus tours. Applicant's general manager has appeared before many groups and has given travel talks to their members, using color movies and color slides. Applicant does extensive advertising of motor carrier tours in its area. |