outbound from Alabama to the remaining States and traffic handled moving between points in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee is shown to be essential to counterbalancing the traffic flow by moving loaded equipment closer to Alabama origins. As seen, such traffic handled by applicant between points in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee requires operation by applicant via gateways in Alabama and applicant's continued service in this respect has been placed in jeopardy by the Commission's Gateway Regulations, which preclude future tacking of irregular-route authorities unless authority is granted enabling direct service. Applicant has taken appropriate steps to obtain such direct authority, including the filing of a gateway elimination application in No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 57G), which is pending before the Commission. In the interim, applicant may continue to provide service via its Alabama gateways and a grant of the authority sought herein would assure its continued service via Alabama gateways.

The supporting evidence is this respect is convincing of a continuing need for applicant's service for these supporting companies. Applicant has been shown to render a superior service on this traffic and loss of such service would have serious adverse effects upon the supporting companies who rely upon applicant for providing a major portion of motor common carrier service within the four-State area and have no suitable alternative. Protestants will not be affected in any significant sense by applicant's continued service on this traffic. Indeed, among opposing carriers only Bowman and Thurston hold any extensive authority to provide such service and neither of them participates to any degree in the traffic of the supporting companies. Bowman requested one of them (Beaunit) to take its traffic elsewhere and Thurston admitted that it regards applicant as competitor on textile traffic.

Respecting nontextile traffic the connecting motor carrier and 8 shippers and receivers support expansion of the scope of applicant's commodity coverage. Their evidence is concerned almost entirely with LTL shipments. Except for applicant, Sparton Exp. has no available connecting carrier for the handling of such traffic. Among the supporting shippers and receivers, two (Gilman, Syntex) are located in Chattanooga, the remainder at Alabama points. Six presently use applicant's service to the extent authorized and six engage in private carriage because of deficiencies in existing service.

The three supporting companies at Sylacauga, Ala., use applicant inbound from Atlanta and/or Chattanooga; two also use applicant outbound to textile mills but cannot use its service to other destinations. These companies need locally available service inbound and outbound, one to points in counties including and adjacent to Sylacauga. The only other carrier available locally is North Alabama and its service, always joint line outside Alabama, was shown to be highly deficient, including long transit delays, tracing problems, combination of local rates, and failure to follow routings. One of these shippers (Southern Alloy) routed traffic via North Alabama care of applicant but ceased such routing when it learned that applicant was not receiving the traffic and has recently begun using its own vehicles to take shipments to applicant at Vincent, Ala., from whence applicant can serve the four-State area. The transportation problems encountered at Childersburg, Ala., are similar to those at Sylacauga, the receiver there resorting to use of its own vehicles to pick up at applicant's dock in Sycamore when overnight service is needed from Atlanta. The problems exhibited at Oneonta and Winfield, Ala., and Chattanooga, Tenn., are like those already described, difficulties being encountered in obtaining suitable service, resulting in the use of private carriage by three of these companies. Overall the evidence showed service needed between Sylacauga, Childersburg, points in the areas

surrounding Sylacauga and Childersburg, and Winfield and Oneonta, Ala., on the one hand, and, on the other, points in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Also, service was shown to be needed from Chattanooga, Tenn., to points throughout the four-State area."

The only oppsoing carriers evidencing any interest in the four-State area were Bowman, Baggett, Thurston, Hiller, and Campbell. As indicated, Bowman and Thurston hold extensive authority within this area; the remainder all have limited pertinent authority. The evidence shows that none of them, individually or collectively, provide the service proposed and shown as needed. Specific deficiencies were cited respecting Bowman, Baggett, Thurston, and Hiller.

As indicated, applicant is already participating in the traffic involved and the major thrust of a grant in this respect would be continuation and improvement of applicant's service. The joint board concludes from the evidence that such continuation and improvement is needed and that opposing carriers will not be adversely affected in any material sense by such continuation and improvement. Moreover, a grant of authority in this respect is shown to be important to the continued conduct of efficient and economical service by applicant. Incursions of private carriage, extensions by other regulated carriers (Thurston and Sharron both have applications pending to serve additional points in this area) limitations on present service, and the Commission's Gateway Regulations all threaten applicant's continued viability. Textile traffic handled by applicant between points in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee and "bridge traffic" handled to Alabama points is essential to counterbalancing applicant's traditionally heavy overflow of outbound Alabama traffic. The route of movement via Alabama gateway and interline points involves varying circuity of operations dependent upon origin and destination and such circuity would continue under a grant of authority here. However, the alternative to circuity here is increased dead head mileage and resulting inefficient overall service, including inefficient use of fuel. Moreover, the fragmentation of applicant's present authority produces confusion in differentiating between traffic which applicant may and may not handle and a grant here would eliminate such confusion. Compare J. A. Garvey Transp., Inc., Extension-General Commodities, 71 M.C.C. 767 (1957).

As already noted, certain protestants urge, however, that the matter of applicant's continued service on textile products and textile mill commodities should properly be left for the Commission's determination of applicant's gateway elimination application. The joint board does not agree with such contentions. Each of the cases presents different issues on different records and the disposition of one does not preclude separate and proper determination of the other. In the gateway elimination case the question is whether the evidence warrants a grant of direct authority under the tests of Childress-Elimination Sanford Gateway, 61 M.C.C. 421, 428 (1952). Here, the question is whether there is a continuing need for applicant's unchanged service via Alabama gateways, which the joint board has found to exist. The joint board is mindful that the Commission's purpose in adopting its Gateway Regulations was to eliminate circuitous operations and thereby to conserve fuel. However, as convincingly shown in the record herein and as found, termination of applicant's service via Alabama gateways would result, at a minimum, in substantial increased dead heading and consequent greater inefficiency in the utilization of fuel by applicant. Thus, the continuation of applicant's present service via Alabama gateways will serve better the purposes sought to be served by the Commission's Gateway Regulations than would termination of the service.

"Additionally, as already noted. Highway Exp. supported expansion of applicant's service at Mobile, Ala., for interline purposes to include general commodities.

Entirely apropos the total circumstances here are the Commission's statements in Transport, Inc. of S. Dak., Ext.-Sanborn LPG, 124 M.C.C. 435, at 439-40:

A complete denial of this application would result in an unwarranted maintenance of the status quo at the expense of efficiency, economy, and fuel savings. As was noted in Cassens Transport Co. Extension-Three States, 67 M.C.C. 410, 413 (1956). “The transportation industry should be dynamic, rather than static, and we would be remiss in our duty, if we hampered, rather than promoted, the free flow of commerce."

As noted, certain protestants question the operational feasibility of applicant's proposed service. In view of our exclusion of Mississippi points from the grant found warranted herein the questions raised concerning applicant's proposals respecting service at Mississippi points need not to determined. Respecting the four-State area, the joint board rejects the contentions of those protestants who urge that the service proposed would require unlawful conversion of applicant's irregular-route authority. There is no apparent reason why under its proposals applicant may not lawfully continue to perform irregular-route service under its irregular-route authority separately and in combination with the regular-route authority granted herein. As already noted, were it concluded otherwise, applicant has indicated its willingness to seek appropriate authority to convert its existing irregular-route authority.

The advantages otherwise of the proposed improved service will far outweigh any adverse effects existing carriers may feel as a result of the restricted grant made herein. As shown in appendix B hereto, protestants are all class I motor common carriers which collectively increased their net operating income (by $4,042,076) and ordinary income before taxes (by $3,817,900) in 1975 despite a significant decline ($18,232,024) in gross revenues, evidencing their ability to more than withstand any diversion of traffic and revenues which might occur as a result of the grant herein made. Moreover, those protestants who are participating in interline service with applicant on Mississippi traffic can be expected to increase their traffic and revenues. It is concluded that no significant factors have been shown on this record to indicate that a grant to the extent herein found warranted would have any significant effect on the quality of the human environment or upon the consumption of energy sources. Furthermore, the record shows that there is sufficient traffic in all respects to enable applicant to fully utilize its equipment and render the proposed service in accordance with the Commission's energy policy statement of November 28, 1973.

FINDINGS

Upon consideration of all the evidence of record, Joint Board No. 14 finds that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate and foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over regular routes, of the commodities, from and to the points, over the routes, to the extent and subject to the restrictions set forth in appendix D hereto; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service, and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder; that a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing such operations should be granted; and 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.

ORDER

It is ordered, That upon full compliance with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, a certificate be issued to applicant authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of the commodities described, and in the manner described in the findings in this decision. It is further ordered, That the application in all other respects be, and it is hereby, denied.

It is further ordered, That unless compliance is made by the applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act within 90 days after the date of service of a notice to the parties that this order has become effective as the order of the Commission, or within such additional time as may be authorized by the Commission, the grant of authority made in said decision shall be considered as null and void and the application shall stand denied in its entirety effective upon the expiration of the said compliance time.

And it is further ordered, That in the absence of a stay or postponement by the Commission, or the timely filing of exceptions, the effective date of this order shall be 30 days from the date of service thereof.

APPENDIX A

Supporting evidence

1. West Point Pepperell (WP or West Point).-WP is a major textile manufacturer (1974 sales of $580 million) with plants and distribution centers throughout the United States. WP manufactures industrial fabrics, nonwoven fabrics, carpets, towels. sheets, pillowcases, knit goods, seersuckers, and fancy dress goods.

WP operates 15 plants within the State of Alabama, including 2 at Lanett, I at Huguley (plus a mill store), 2 at Chatom, 3 at Fairfax, 3 at Opelika, and 1 each at Abbeville and Langdale. During March 1975, these plants shipped 18,741,698 pounds outbound from these plants to destinations outside Alabama. Of this total motor common carriers transported 5,407,525 pounds, of which Floyd & Beasley transported 1.558,611 pounds; Bowman 59,301 pounds; Baggett 396 pounds; and Roadway 639.082 pounds. Customer vehicles transported 3,097,780 pounds and WP's own private carriage transported 7,529,719 pounds. Rail was used for handling 2,706,674 pounds.

Although Floyd & Beasley's territorial reach is less broad than that of Bowman or Roadway. Floyd & Beasley is WP's primary carrier on shipments outbound from Alabama. The territory available to be served by Baggett is somewhat analagous to Floyd & Beasley's territory. WP utilizes Floyd & Beasley as its primary carrier in the 130 M.C.C.

South because of experience with that carrier and others. Floyd & Beasley is utilized because it gives good service and has been dedicated primarily to hauling textiles; it has performed well not only in terms of over-the-road service but also on tracing, claims, and any number of related areas. March 1975, traffic is representative but somewhat less than normal. At any other time Floyd & Beasley would be handling larger portions of the traffic than disclosed on the exhibits.

Over the years, private carriage has greatly increased, transporting a larger portion of the Alabama outbound traffic. From 1965 to 1975 WP's private fleet increased from 7 tractors and approximately 18 trailers to 103 tractors and 273 trailers, with an additional 7 tractors and 30 trailers on order. The private carriage increase has been at the expense of the common carriers. Floyd & Beasley is now transporting approximately one-third less then it did formerly.

WP's private carriage was instituted primarily for service reasons. However, WP in its private carriage must have a round trip loaded movement; otherwise operations are economically unfeasible. During March 1975, Floyd & Beasley transported 5,000 pounds inbound to Alabama points, primarily from the Greenville, S.C. area.

On shipments to Mississippi points, WP originates traffic at the Alabama points specified as well as its plants at Lindale and Dalton, Ga. These Mississippi shipments are primarily to customers such as small department stores and "Mom and Pop" stores, generally small LTL shipments. Time-in-transit is an important factor on this Mississippi traffic. Orders for carpet are made from a catalog or from a sample and customers demand expedited service. Items such as towels or pillowcases are to some extent inventoried by customers, but customers keep as little inventory on hand as possible, depending on expedited delivery.

During March 1975, WP had 87 shipments from its Alabama and Georgia origins to Mississippi destinations, including Meridian, Jackson, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, Maben, Laurel, Tupelo, Columbus, Starkville, Cleveland, Pascagoula, Philadelphia, Biloxi, Moss Point, Natchez, Durant, Bruce, Sardis, Canton, Corinth, Yazoo City, Quitman, Winona, and Shaw. Service was rendered for WP by protestants Bowman, Deaton, Highway Express, Sharron, Merchants, Robinson, Baggett, Roadway, Thurston, and Campbell, of which many served only in an interline capacity—e.g., Bowman (originating carrier) and Robinson (delivery carrier). Others, such as Baggett, provided service on a single-line basis. The exhibits showed 87 separate shipments during the month of March 1975, weighing a total of 45,540 pounds. The average time in transit for these shipments from origin to destination was 5.1 days, 73 percent of the shipments were in transit from 2 to 5 days while 21 percent were in transit from 6 to 10 days. The remaining 6 percent were in transit for over 10 days.

WP does not consider that Bowman's service is satisfactory insofar as transit time is concerned. On traffic originating at Dalton, Ga., although handled by Bowman, it is not picked up by Bowman. Bowman employs an agency (Mavity) to actually pick up the traffic. Bowman's average transit time is too slow.

Baggett's service from Lindale, Ga., is unsatisfactory. For example, one March shipment from Lindale to Jackson, Miss., care of Deaton took 8 days to reach its destination.

Direct service is also at times unsatisfactory. For example, in March Roadway transported a shipment from Lanett, Ala., to Gulfport, Miss. The shipment required 7 days in transit, being transported from origin to destination via Cincinnati, Ohio.