with a minimum of delay. Shipper contends that a direct, single-line service in temperature-controlled vehicles is essential for the safe movement of its products, and enables it to exercise maximum control over the shipment. It, therefore, considers interline service unsatisfactory because of the required delays in transit, resulting in a greater risk in spoilage, and increased delivery times which make it more difficult to effect scheduled deliveries to its customers. Shipper states that its customers tend to maintain low inventories, and unless its products are delivered on schedule, they will stock their shelves with its competitors' products.

Shipper states that it produced 26.25 million pounds of candy and confectionery at its Bloomfield plant during 1971, amounting to a 25-percent increase over 1970. As part of its evidence, it includes a breakdown of total volume figures for each destination State and representative destination points within those States. Charms indicates that approximately 80 percent of its traffic consists of individual orders consolidated into truckload lots for delivery during one movement to customers at different points in pertinent destination States, that approximately 5 percent are truckload shipments moving to a single customer, and that the remainder are LTL shipments to individual customers. Shipper states that its new Covington facility will have a total production capacity of 20 million pounds a year, supplemented by a weekly truckload shipment from Bloomfield.

Shipper indicates that before supporting these applications, it thoroughly investigated the quantity and quality of motor carrier service available from Covington to the various destination States, and concluded that existing motor carrier service from Covington is inadequate to meet its reasonable transportation requirements. It argues that the presently authorized carriers providing service from and to these points have limited territorial authority and cannot offer it the type of service required to maintain its distribution program. It submits, therefore, that the flexible, multi-State motor carrier services sought in these applications is essential if it is to continue to expand its level of production and properly serve its existing customers as well as develop additional markets in these States.

THE PROTESTANTS

Protestant Dyersburg, which opposes the authority sought by Watkins, Colonial, and McAdams, and protestant Humboldt, which

opposes all four applications, are regular-route carriers with limited territorial authority. They oppose the authority sought in these applications from Covington to the pertinent destination States, and from Bloomfield to Covington on the basis of an interline service which they offer at Memphis in conjunction with a number of motor common carriers, including protestants Gordons, T.I.M.E.-DC, and Garrison. Gordons maintains trailer interchange agreements with Dyersburg and Humboldt, and interlines at Memphis shipments originating at Covington. T.I.M.E.-DC holds authority from Memphis to several large cities and expresses its willingness to interline at Memphis with Dyersburg and Humboldt. With those two protestants and other carriers, Garrison interlines at Memphis on a daily basis. Protestants state that they satisfactorily handle traffic originating at or destined to Covington-in conjunction with these carriers, which collectively operate over a network of regular and irregular routes throughout a substantial portion of the United States.

Hilt opposes (1) the authority sought in the Watkins and McAdams applications on the basis of authority which assertedly permits transportation of the involved commodities from Covington to points in California and Nebraska, and (2) the authority sought in the Curtis application on the basis of authority which, it contends, allows service from Covington to points in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Protestant admits, however, that the latter operation involves considerable circuity, and its opposition to the Curtis application appears to be based primarily upon a concern for overhead traffic which it currently handles from points in the Chicago commercial zone to points in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. Nevertheless, it requests that the authority sought by Curtis be denied to the extent that it seeks authority to serve points in California, Nevada, and Utah; or in the alternative, that any grant of authority in this proceeding be restricted to the transportation of traffic originating at the supporting shipper's plantsite.

Bowman opposes a portion of the authority sought in the McAdams application on the basis of authority which authorizes. service from Bloomfield to Covington and from Covington to points in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Colonial opposes the authority sought in the McAdams application from Bloomfield to Covington on the basis of authority to transport confectionery (except in bulk), in mechanically refrigerated vehicles, from Bloomfield to points in Tennessee, and the authority sought in the Curtis application on the

basis of its recently granted authority from the Charms facilities at Covington to points in a number of the involved destination States. All of the above protestants maintain that they are experienced in handling the involved commodities, and have equipment available for serving the supporting shipper. They contend that they are ready, willing, and able to provide service for the supporting shipper to the extent of their operating authority, and that the evidence of record fails to show a need for additional service which would duplicate their authority.

Protestants Midwest Emery, Trans-Cold, and Midwest Coast oppose the McAdams and Curtis applications. They do not hold authority which directly conflicts with the proposed operations, and their interest in these proceedings is limited to traffic which they are handling from other origin points, which might be subject to diversion by an unrestricted grant of authority. They request that any grant of authority in the McAdams and Curtis applications be restricted to the transportation of traffic originating at shipper's facilities and destined to the involved destination States.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Under the provisions of section 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act, the granting of motor common carrier authority must be based upon a finding that the operation proposed is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. In considering whether and to what extent this statutory requirement has been met, we must determine whether this new operation will serve a useful purpose, responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant without endangering the operations of existing carriers contrary to the public interest. Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190, 203 (1936).

On the basis of the evidence of record in these proceedings, we are persuaded that protestant Colonial, to the limited extent that a need has been shown for service from Bloomfield to Covington, is capable of meeting shipper's need for service from and to those points sought. Colonial is experienced in handling shipper's traffic, and apparently has performed this service satisfactorily, since shipper is supporting its request for additional authority. It has the necessary authority, and, although shipper indicates that it requires the additional service proposed, its volume of traffic moving from

Bloomfield to Covington amounts to but a single truckload shipment a week. In the absence of evidence that Colonial cannot adequately meet this need, there is no justification in the authorization of additional service from and to these points. In addition, evidence submitted by the supporting shipper shows that it intends to terminate its operations at Bloomfield and move to another location in central New Jersey. It is clear that the review board properly denied that portion of the McAdams and Watkins applications which sought authority to transport the involved commodities from Bloomfield to Covington.

The supporting shipper has established at its Bloomfield plant a system of distribution which is ideally suited not only to the demands of its customers but also to the nature of its commodities. Its method of distribution is dependent upon the availability of a number of irregular-route, motor common carriers with broad territorial authority. By supporting these applications, shipper seeks to establish a similar distribution program at its Covington facility. With the exception of Colonial's recent grant of authority, existing service from Covington to the destination States is primarily an interline, regular-route operation. The record demonstrates that this type of service will severely hamper the supporting shipper in consolidating any number of individual LTL shipments in a single truckload for movement to any combination of points in the destination States, and that the added time required for the interline movements will increase the risk of spoilage. Although shippers are required, in establishing a distribution program, to take into consideration the nature of existing transportation services, we believe that in this instance the particular nature of shipper's operations and the commodities involved, as well as the demands of its customers, require the services of a number of motor carriers willing and able to effect scheduled multiple deliveries throughout a large distribution area. Protestants clearly cannot provide this type of service.

The supporting shipper has, therefore, adequately demonstrated that the particular attributes of single-line service are required in order to meet its reasonable transportation needs from its new facility at Covington. Charms has developed a distribution system based on the availability of numerous irregular-route, motor common carriers with broad territorial authority which has enabled it to greatly expand its operations. We believe that it is entitled to have the same type of motor carrier service available at its new

facility. Cf. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Extension-Textiles, 105 M.C.C. 310, 346-347 (1966).

Colonial presently holds authority from Covington to points in 14 of the involved States. It seeks here to expand its operations to two additional States. We believe the record supports such an extension, and such authority will be granted. We also believe that additional motor carrier service is warranted in order to meet the supporting shipper's expanding needs. Shipper's traffic moves to numerous customers located at points throughout the sought destination States. It would clearly benefit from the availability of numerous carriers willing and able to consolidate LTL shipments into a single truckload shipment in order to provide a flexible multiple-delivery service. See Behnken Truck Service, Inc., Ext.-East St. Louis, 117 M.C.C. 825, 833 (1973). The protesting regular-route carriers lack the territorial flexibility required. Although some of the protestants participating in a joint-line operation with Humboldt and Dyersburg hold irregular-route authority, their authorities are too fragmented to provide the complete transportation service required by the supporting shipper. The Covington facility is a new plant and the traffic generated at this point is new traffic not previously handled by existing carriers. Shipper indicates in addition that although these carriers cannot provide an adequate service on the majority of its shipments, it will tender approximately 5 percent of its total volume of traffic in LTL amounts to regular-route carriers. Therefore, it is likely that protestants Humboldt and Dyersburg, in conjunction with their interline carriers, will also share in this traffic. We conclude that a need has been shown for the services authorized below, that applicants have shown that they are experienced in the handling of perishable commodities, and that they operate suitable equipment which they will make available to the supporting shipper for movements from Covington to the destination States set forth in each application.

Several additional matters require consideration. The term confectionery includes candy, and the commodity authority granted below shall not include the term candy. In addition, Colonial and McAdams seek authority to transport advertising materials and supplies and advertising premiums. Specific authority is, however, not required for the transportation of such commodities when shipped in conjunction, and at the same time with the commodity being authorized, in amounts consistent with their being of an incidential nature. Thus, specific authority to transport these