System Broker Application, 41 M.C.C. 411 (1942); Kerrville Tours, Inc., Broker Application, 100 M.C.C. 270 (1965); and T.N.M. & O. Tours, Inc., Broker Application, 100 M.C.C. 279 (1965). These cases, however, were generally not opposed by brokers or motor common carriers of passengers, and the issuance of a license in each case was approved after the evidence established that the public would best be served by the availability of broker service even though the broker was affiliated with a motor carrier.

Although the instant application is opposed by three passenger brokers, none of them has demonstrated that it is providing any real competition to applicant's proposed broker service for the traveling public in Hampden and Hampshire Counties. None of these brokers maintains an office to serve the traveling public in the involved area, and none has submitted data regarding any volumes of business transacted by it in this area, which would be subject to diversion under a grant of the sought authority.

We believe that the instant proceeding involves circumstances similar to those present in the above-mentioned Commission decisions, and that a grant of authority is warranted herein despite the common control relationship which exists between applicant and its affiliated motor carrier, Peter Pan Bus Lines. With respect to the possibilities of preference and prejudice, the problem of duplicating authority held by a broker and an affiliated carrier is currently being considered by this Commission in a rulemaking proceeding, Ex Parte No. MC-93. See Passenger Brokers Affiliated with Motor Carriers, supra. Applicant expresses its willingness to accept an appropriate condition so that any grant of authority made herein would comply with the final rules which may be prescribed by the Commission under Ex Parte No. MC-93. Nevertheless, in order to preclude operations under duplicative authorities, we will impose a restriction upon the broker license sought herein so as to prevent applicant from operating as a broker in arranging transportation beginning and ending at points in Berkshire, Hampden, and Hampshire Counties, Mass., for the same passenger tour operations of its affiliate, Peter Pan Bus Lines.

With the elimination of duplicative authorities in this manner, we conclude that applicant has fully met its burden of establishing that the important benefits accruing to the traveling public or to existing carriers from a grant of the sought broker authority overcome the possibilities of preference and prejudices, and that the application should be granted subject to the above-mentioned restriction.

FINDINGS

We find that operation by applicant at Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, and Amherst, Mass., as a broker in arranging for transportation by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of passengers and their baggage, in special and charter operations, between points in the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii), restricted against the arranging of transportation of passengers and their baggage, in tour service, beginning and ending at points in Berkshire, Hampden, and Hampshire Counties, Mass., and extending to points in the United States (including Alaska and 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; and that a license authorizing such operation should be granted, subject to the right of this Commission, which is hereby expressly reserved, to impose such terms, conditions, or limitations in the future, either in this proceeding or in the rulemaking proceeding in Ex Parte No. MC-93, Passenger Brokers Affiliated with Motor Carriers, as it may find necessary in order to insure that the operations of Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., are not duplicative of passenger broker operations conducted by applicant; 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:

I believe that the review board's decision to deny this application was correct, and should be affirmed. As the review board notes, while this application is supported by 158 public witnesses and nine bus carriers, applicant has failed to demonstrate its ability to generate special and charter operations in numerous sections of the country. Consequently, applicant has failed to show that a public benefit would result from a grant of the authority which it seeks. Furthermore, I disagree with the majority's imposition of a

restriction designed to preclude applicant from arranging transportation involving the special operations of its motor carrier affiliate. The proceeding in Ex Parte No. MC-93 was instituted for the purpose of considering the adoption of appropriate regulations designed to eliminate duplicative authorities between affiliated brokers and motor carriers by the imposition of appropriate limitations on the licenses of brokers so situated. In my opinion, it appears premature to grant authority of a nature now considered to be inconsistent with the public interest, based on the mere speculation that changes in regulatory policy will be in accord with applicant's proposal.

125 M.C.C.

EX PARTE No. 55 (SUB-NO. 19)

REVISED CONTENT REQUIREMENTS AND PAGE LIMITATIONS ON PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

Decided November 8, 1976

Rule 101(d) of the General Rules of Practice amended to require a 3-page preface on petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto, and in certain instances such petitions and replies limited to 10 pages. Appropriate order entered.

Richard R. Sigmon for the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners.

Louis A. Harris for Burlington Northern Inc.

Andrew T. Nelson for the Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association.

Gerald K. Gimmel, Harold G. Hernly, Lawrence E. Lindeman, Eric Meierhoefer, Fred H. Tolan, Steven L. Weiman, and R. Connor Wiggings, Jr. appearing pro se.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

BY THE COMMISSION:

By a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entered October 24, 1975, and served November 3, 1975, this Commission announced its intention to revise rule 101(d) of the Commission's General Rules of Practice [49 CFR 1100.101 (d)] so as to require (1) petitions for reconsideration to set forth specifications of alleged error, relief sought, and arguments in support thereof, in a preface to the petitions, which preface shall not exceed 3 pages, except in extraordinary circumstances, and upon leave granted, (2) replies to such petitions to address, point by point, in no greater number of preface pages, the specifications set forth in the preface to the petition to which they are directed, and (3) a 10-page limitation upon petitions wherein a division has already considered either exceptions or a prior petition for appellate review.

Rule 101(d) sets forth the manner and content of petitions for reconsideration. The rule provides as follows:

(d) Reconsideration. If relief under this section other than under paragraphs (b) and (c) is sought, the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the alleged errors or relief sought must be specified with the particularity respecting exceptions as outlined in Rule 96(a), as should also any substitute finding or other substitute requirement desired by petitioner.

The Notice of Rulemaking proposed to revise this subparagraph by adding the following:

Such specifications of alleged error, relief sought, and argument in support thereof must be summarized, in a preface to the petition, suitably paragraphed, which shall be a succinct, but accurate and clear, condensation of the matter raised on petition. Except in extraordinary circumstances, and upon leave granted, the preface shall not exceed 3 pages. Replies to petitions shall also contain a preface of no more pages than permitted in the petition's preface, and shall address, point by point, the specifications of alleged error, relief sought, and argument in the preface to the petition. In proceedings in which a division reverses, changes, or modifies a prior decision by a hearing officer or an employee board, petitions for reconsideration addressed to the division in an appellate capacity, and replies thereto, shall not exceed 10 pages, in addition to the preface required by this paragraph.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking set forth the purpose of the new provision as follows:

The proposed rule amendment is designed to encourage parties to organize their presentation better and to enable the Commission to identify the key issues in the

case.

All interested persons were invited to submit written views, arguments, or data either in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed action on or before December 23, 1975.

This proposal was developed after a staff study recommended that the General Rules of Practice be revised to limit to three pages every petition for reconsideration and reply thereto in instances where a division previously had acted upon a decision of an Administrative Law Judge, a joint board, or a review board.

REPRESENTATIONS

Public response to the proposed rule change was mixed. The portion of the proposed rule amendment which required petitions to include a preface summary of alleged error, relief sought, and supporting argument was generally well received. The preface in the petition and reply was recognized as a means by which the Commission could effectively focus on the issues raised by the parties. The three-page limit to be placed on the preface was