move various food products, including meat, through northeastern and southern gateways for service to the area in the South and Southwest it principally served. The Subler authority was purchased by applicant in 1972 and the Taylor interchange within the New York-Philadelphia area is no longer utilized. The Harper interchange is thus the principal one involved here and by utilization of that, applicant is able to transport general commodities as well as certain specified commodities from points in the Northeast including Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York City through Sanford, N.C. where the traffic is interchanged to serve virtually all southern and southwestern points it is authorized to serve. Applicant considers the necessity for inspections, placarding and intercarrier communications to be unnecessary, time consuming, and disruptive to its schedules in providing a direct service for the shippers involved. Moreover, inasmuch as it can handle some types of shipments on a more direct basis, it considers the manner of handling the LTL traffic tendered under the interline agreement to be burdensome. However, it does presently handle some shipments under its interline arrangements that it is authorized to move more directly for operational reasons. It further considers the diversity of gateways and interchange points in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Georgia to be an operational problem. Applicant has also attempted to generate traffic through interline service at Norfolk which it serves under temporary authority but finds that some import shipments arrive through nearby Portsmouth, Va., which it is not authorized to serve, and that in any event it cannot service Virginia points from Virginia seaports. It contends that the carriers previously serving the Norfolk-Portsmouth area are either in financial difficulty or have closed their facilities and do not handle container traffic. Applicant submitted certain representative shipments handled by it which reflect the transportation of regulated commodities during the weeks of December 4, 11, and 26, 1972. This exhibit reflects all of its single-line shipments handled during these weeks as well as multiple-pickup and delivery service during this period. Without indicating the particular certificates or gateways used, or definitively establishing the time in transit, this exhibit shows that during the 3 weeks involved, it transported almost 1,500 shipments from the points in the origin territory involved here to points in the destination territory. There are frozen seafood and poultry shipments shown in this exhibit but they uniformly reflect shipments of insufficient size to move independently on any regular basis. While some could have moved under the exemption with other exempt shipments, the quanity is such that most must reasonably be considered as having moved together with other regulated traffic, thus removing their exemption. Indeed some were shown to move in this manner. This exhibit reflects both truckload and LTL movements, with a majority being LTL and generally of a smaller size. It should also be noted that certain of the North and South Carolina shipments indicated moved through interchange arrangements and that a significant amount of circuity was involved in their movement to Georgia and backhaul to Carolina points which is related to operating necessities. Applicant takes the position that all of the traffic reflected on this exhibit could be handled on a direct basis without the necessity for observance of various gateways if the authority sought here were granted, thus eliminating a certain amount of circuity, particularly in peddle service. Moreover, it contends that if it could utilize its newly designated terminals at such points as Greensboro, N.C., the traffic would move more directly to the consignees involved. It feels this would be a better and more effective service. Applicant also submitted an abstract of shipments moving during the billing days of December 14, 27, and 29 which were originated under its Harper interchange and evidently moved through the interchange point of Sanford, N.C. It points to these particular days as representative of its normal traffic to this gateway and also to the fact that the equipment used was that of applicant under lease interchange arrangement with Harper. This traffic also entails some direct movement to applicant's Doraville, Ga., terminal and backhauling to the Carolinas and Virginia. It also points out the traffic moving to southwestern points must gateway through other points involving some circuity in routing. A substantial portion of the traffic handled during these days consisted of LTL traffic weighing under 2,000 pounds. Applicant points to certain managerial changes in the Harper Motor Line organization which have significantly increased percentagewise the division of revenue for that carrier and also to the fact that another carrier, Brown Transport Corp., has received temporary authority to manage and control Harper. It contends that its present concurrence with Harper would be canceled when that acquisition takes place. Applicant does not feel that it could realistically continue to invest substantial sums of money in facilities and equipment dependent upon interline service whose continued existence it questions. Applicant also points out that it is handling some traffic reflected in its interline traffic exhibit which it could handle directly but which operationally it handles through its interline arrangements so as to avoid what would otherwise be an extensive period of time in accumulating sufficient quanities to move economically under its own direct authority. This is particularly true of traffic originating at points outside the New York City commercial zone but within a short distance of its Kearny, N.J., terminal. In support of this latter contention it submitted an abstract of certain shipments moving on December 13 and 14, 1972, which involved commodities it could have moved directly together with commodities requiring an interchange, and it demonstrated it all moved under an interchange agreement. Applicant also points out that a number of shippers of regulated commodities in Connecticut and Massachusetts presently bring their shipments to its Kearny, N.J., facility in private carriage for tender to applicant at this point, as well as to its Doraville, Ga., facility for subsequent delivery. It points out that it would be able to handle such traffic directly in the Massachusetts and Connecticut area if the authority sought here were granted. Applicant further points out that it presently moves LTL shipments of exempt seafood from Massachusetts to its New Jersey terminal where it is combined with other shipments of regulated commodities and moves under its present authority. During the week of December 4, 11 and 26, 1972, it moved more than 100 shipments of this nature, principally those weighing less than 2,000 pounds. It feels that if it could transport regulated commodities which some shippers are presently moving to its New Jersey terminal in private carriage together with otherwise exempt commodities from the Massachusetts area in LTL quantities it could effect a more viable operation. The applicant also feels that the grant of the authority sought here would allow it to facilitate its transportation of refrigerated commodities to points in the Southwest and the West by interchange in the Southwest with such carriers as Zero Refrigerated Lines which supports the instant application. It feels that the elimination of presently existing three-line moves would be a benefit to its customers on LTL traffic as well as to it operationally. Applicant also anticipates the grant of the instant authority would allow it to provide a more direct service to a number of points without the necessity of moving the traffic it presently handles through its Doraville, Ga., facility. It considers that this more direct operation would be particularly applicable to points in the Southwest such as Texas and New Orleans as well as to Florida points and those located in Virginia and the Carolinas. With regard to truckload traffic it feels that it could provide multiple pickups and delivery, as required, more directly. It also feels that the grant of the instant application would allow it to improve its present service, particularly from port areas, on "roller" loads of bananas and meat which are started en route in a general direction and subsequently consigned to particular points as well as on its recently initiated transportation of intermodel containers. With the exception of the limited no-tacking restriction proposed, applicant seeks unrestricted authority. It has some certificates which would be duplicative and is willing to have them canceled and it has certificates as well as pending applications for authority which could be tacked with that sought here for service to other points, such as those in the Midwest. However, it indicates that it has no general desire to actually tack these certificates and points out that, in the absence of a strong shipper demand, it generally does not like to exceed a circuity of 30 percent. SUPPORT The evidence adduced by those supporting the application is summarized in appendix A, where it has been generally organized insofar as possible by the situs of the shipper or receiver. It should be noted however, that in many instances the support also relates to traffic not moving to or from the particular State with which the shipper or receiver is grouped. Briefly, those supporting the instant application in whole or in part are located at diverse points throughout the territory involved and many are presently served by applicant by tacking, interlining, or partial movement of their freight in private carriage. They generally express a need for a more expeditious and direct service than they are presently receiving in order to meet the requirements of their customers or facilities. While not noted in each specific instance, it is clear from the commodities named that many of them require various levels of temperature control and protective service for the products they handle such as meat and cheese. It should also be noted that references to the "Harper interchange" or "Harper concurrence" refer to the practice described previously by which applicant, utilizing its own vehicles under lease to Harper Motor Lines performs a service from northern New Jersey to Sanford, N.C., under a concurrence with Harper. At this Carolina interline point, the equipment is then turned back to applicant for delivery either directly or through its Doraville, Ga., terminal and breakbulk point. The record fails to raise any significant question as to the propriety of the manner in which this interline movement is conducted. Zero Refrigerated, a carrier, also supports the application. See appendix B. PROTESTANTS The authority, operations and positions of the carriers opposing the granting of the application are summarized in appendix C. Generally they consist of both generalcommodity regular-route carriers and special-commodity irregular-route carriers who collectively can and do transport a variety of foodstuffs between various points and areas in the territory involved here as more specifically described in the appendix. They express a desire to handle the traffic involved here which they are authorized to transport and fear the intrusion of the service of applicant which they regard as a large aggressive carrier will adversely affect their operations. BRIEFS In its brief, applicant objects to the consideration of any evidence of interline service available from protestants which is not substantiated by the appearance of the interline carriers, whether or not they were initially parties to the proceeding here, and further urges that such evidence is inadmissible if the protestants did not specifically indicate the nature of the interline service relied upon by a particular protestant. It also argues that objections to the appearance of its witnesses were hypertechnical and without reasonable basis, that protestants had advance notice of witnesses appearing for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination and rebuttal testimony, and that a good faith effort was made by applicant to transmit information identifying its witnesses as soon as possible to protestants. Applicant further argues that it is a substantial competitor in a significant portion of the area sought by virtue of its present tacking and interline arrangements, that it is presently serving a number of the supporting shippers here, and that the supporting shippers have demonstrated a need for the service proposed in order to improve their handling of all foodstuffs, with particular emphasis on LTL service, the furnishing of sufficient quantities of adequate equipment, frequently scheduled line-haul and pickup service, authority for the handling of all the types of foodstuffs involved, and split pickups and deliveries. It further states that the protestants individually and collectively either lack the authority or the interest in providing the quantum of service required from and to a number of points and that there is insufficient evidence to support the imposition of any tacking restriction. Applicant also disputes any adverse evidence adduced which questions, the legality of its interchange arrangement with Harper Motor Lines and affirmatively notes that an alleged deterioration in the availability of its Harper interchange arrangement should be affirmatively considered in support of its application here. Applicant argues that certain emergency temporary authorities granted since the hearing in this proceeding should be officially taken note of here. Lastly, applicant admits that there may be a problem in the interpretation of its present origin authority in the New Jersey portion of the New York City commercial zone but supports its prior service on the basis of its understanding as to the scope of the service offered by the previous holder of the certificate involved. In their joint brief protestants Colonial, Redwing, Coldway, Willis Shaw, Pilot, Carolina, Akers, and Curtis argue that applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for its proposed service which is not presently being met by existing carriers and that it has not met the established criteria for the elimination of gateways and interlines. They further urge that their collective interline arrangements should properly be considered at least to the extent that service provided pursuant thereto is of record, that applicant's past operations from New Jersey points in the New York City commercial zone were unauthorized because its terminal area is restricted to New York points in the commercial zone, that the evidence indicates that commodities for which transportation is requested by the supporting shippers constitute only a limited number of the vast number of commodities included within the commodity description sought in the instant application, that even these move only in restricted areas, that the evidence does not support any need for direct single-line service to replace existing interline or circuitous routings, that the exempt commodities transported by applicant should not be considered in this proceeding, that the change in control of applicant's present interline carriers, Harper, will not affect the continuation of its concurrence (and an affidavit is submitted in support thereof), that certain large truckload shippers in upper New York are chiefly interested in a lower rate structure which could not be provided by applicant, that applicant has failed to show that its proposed service will meet the statutory criteria for the grant of such authority, that in many cases the supporting shippers have not tried existing services presently available from protestants, that a grant of the authority proposed would have a significant adverse effect on the existing carriers, and if any authority is to be issued it should be restricted against tacking. Protestant Refrigerated Food Express argues that applicant has shown no need for service to Virginia and Kentucky which it serves directly and particularly urges the imposition of a "destined to" restriction to preclude applicant from utilizing any authority granted to serve points in the Midwest and east central portions of the country which this protestant is presently serving. Protestants Shaffer and Hess argue that applicant has failed to show any need for its proposed service from origins in Pennsylvania and certain portions of New York and Virginia which these carriers serve and that these protestants would be adversely affected by a grant of the authority sought. More specifically, these carriers' analysis of the evidence relating to the points they serve convinces them that the shippers involved either do not route the traffic or have failed to show any need for the proposed service, and they assert that they would suffer great injury from the competition of a large carrier which they do not presently consider to be a competitor. MOTIONS Various motions to strike have been filed by a number of parties to this proceeding. Initially, most of the protestants move to strike the whole of applicant's brief or alternatively to strike certain portions thereof by specifically subscribing to the motion filed by a number of protestants who subsequently withdrew from the proceeding. This motion is based principally on applicant's alleged failure to comply with the Commission's General Rules of Practice relating to specific references to the record and the use of material not of record. These remaining protestants also move to strike specific references in applicant's brief to grants of emergency temporary authority to applicant and the alleged reasons therefor, which grants took place subsequent to the hearing herein, as well as applicant's request that these matters be considered in the disposition of this proceeding. Protestant Colonial also moves to strike other portions of applicant's brief dealing with (a) alleged quotations from evidence introduced by that protestant in another proceeding without the introduction of a certified copy of the portion of the transcript of that proceeding in accordance with the Commission's General Rules of Practice, and (b) an appendix to applicant's brief which Colonial alleges improperly and incompletely analyzes one of its traffic exhibits so as to distort the purported effect of the whole exhibit; and it tenders a complete analysis it has prepared with substantially the same format for consideration. In reply to these motions, applicant takes the general position that they fail to recognize the context in which legitimate arguments and statements were made and are an attempt to reply to a concurrently filed brief. More specifically, it argues that it has complied with the Commission's rules relating to record references and that the motion to strike premised on a violation thereof misconstrues and incorrectly attacks the style and format it utilized in the presentation of its arguments. It has no objection to striking references to certain emergency temporary authorities but feels others |