limited, however, to operations conducted in round trip, allexpense tours. On exceptions, protestant contends that the recommended grant of authority far exceeds the scope of the application; that the application was not truly supported by public testimony; and that a grant of authority herein would not be consistent with either the public interest or the national transportation policy. In reply applicant argues, in essence, that the examiner's findings are amply supported by the evidence of record and applicable law, and should be affirmed.

The evidence, the examiner's recommendation, the exceptions, and the reply have been considered. We find the statement of facts in the examiner's report to be correct in all material respects, and we adopt it as our own.

Applicant holds no authority from this Commission, but has had substantial experience in organizing and promoting tours on a global basis. Airline service has been the principal means of transportation between cities on such tours, but it appears that at least on one occasion applicant has arranged an interstate tour utilizing the services of protestant. Reference is also made to applicant's past, but limited, use of rail service, but the record is not clear on this matter. Applicant proposes here to organize trips and arrange for transportation in charter and special operations, originating at points in the involved origin States, for college students, professional groups, organizations in general, and persons in the "higher" income brackets. Applicant maintains offices or part-time employees at Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Norman, and Tulsa.

Four public witnesses support the application. One, of Oakland, is a retired United Air Lines Oakland district sales representative who indicates that applicant generated business for his former employer. Another is a senior sales representative for Trans World Air Lines at Oakland. While applicant has not generated much business for his company in the past, this witness represents that there is a need for the brokerage services here sought and that, if the authority requested is granted, certain trips could be worked out with his company. A professor of history at San Francisco State College, who engages part time as a tour leader and, in the summer of 1963, acted as a tour leader for applicant on a European trip, sees the proposed tours as of great educational benefit to the public, especially students and teachers. He has been questioned by members of the public concerning the

availability of educational trips, particularly for students, to points in the United States. The manager of the San Francisco sales office and vice president of the western region of Grey Line Sightseeing Companies Associated, an association of local sightseeing companies, indicates that he or his association has had successful arrangements with applicant regarding a Hawaiian sightseeing trip, and that association members look forward to any additional business with applicant which can be generated through a grant of the authority herein requested. He did not indicate complete familiarity with the proposed operation but expects it to generate traffic to his association's member companies.

Protestant holds extensive interstate authority to transport passengers and their baggage over regular routes, and, as here pertinent, its routes traverse the origin States involved. Such authority, in accordance with section 208(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, carries with it incidental charter rights. Additionally, protestant holds authority, but rather limited, to conduct special operations in the origin States herein. Protestant is affiliated with Greyhound Highway Tours, Incorporated, which holds unspecified interstate authority as a broker. However, that broker did not appear in opposition to the application and no evidence was submitted regarding its operations.

Before a license may be issued to any applicant, it must demonstrate that the proposed operation will be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy. In this connection, the Commission, in Carla Ticket Service, Inc., Broker Application, 94 M.C.C. 579, noted that consistent with the legislative history of section 211 of the act applicants for broker licenses are required to show "*** that their services will contribute something of value or be of benefit to carriers or the public ** Additionally, we must be cognizant of the competitive factors where new broker authority is requested, for the Commission, in the Carla case, said that consideration of existing broker service is relevant to avoid needless duplication of services, and, in Weidner Travel Bureau, Inc., Broker Application, 94 M.C.C. 644, it recognized that tour services rendered jointly by brokers and carriers authorized to provide charter operations are directly competitive with tour services offered by carriers under special operations authority.

Needless to say, unless the proposed operation will be of benefit to carriers or the public, it will only be a drain on the transportation system. Therefore, an applicant for a license to perform brokerage service in the transportation of passengers must establish that its proposed service will fulfill a "public need" which is not already being met. See White Rose Motor Club Broker Application, 95 M.C.C. 101. Normally an applicant would demonstrate such a need through the testimony of interested members of the general public, although, as pointed out in the White Rose case, it might be sufficient under some conditions for applicant, in order to meet its burden of proof, to offer a convincing plan of future operations, coupled with the supporting evidence of existing motor carriers. In this proceeding, applicant has shown that in the past it has made successful arrangements with airlines and local sightseeing bus companies for the provision of tours which have been international in scope. It seeks here to provide general motor carrier passenger brokerage services, arranging trips beginning and ending at points throughout the four origin States and extending throughout the continental United States. The application is thus broad in scope although, as we have noted, applicant is interested primarily in arranging educational tours for students and teachers, trips for professional groups, and luxury tours for high income individuals. Those supporting the application did not demonstrate with clarity a need for applicant's service to the entire extent proposed, and the record is uncertain as to whether applicant's proposed tour service would receive substantial public response in Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington. The nebulous and general assertions by the witnesses of a widespread need for the proposed service as it relates to tours originating at points in these States are unconvincing in the absence of more specific future plans and some indication of a foreseeable public response to such proposals either from prospective tour patrons or from the particular interstate carriers whose services would be utilized.

We believe, however, that applicant has demonstrated to a sufficient degree that its proposed passenger brokerage operation, in which it will arrange for tours beginning at points in California, will be consistent with the public interest and national transportation policy. Applicant has demonstrated considerable familiarity and experience with the tour business, albeit its past tours have been of an international character. An educator who appears in support of the application has had experience as a tour leader

and asserts, generally, that students and teachers desire and would benefit from tours of an educational nature. He personally has been contacted by individuals seeking such tours beginning and ending particularly at San Francisco and extending to points in continental United States. Protestant does not provide educational tours in special operations as it does not appear to be equipped to provide this type of service, and its special operations authority is limited territorially. While protestant does not now enjoy this type of traffic, it is the very carrier which stands to benefit most from business generated by the brokerage services proposed herein should they meet with the success anticipated. In fact, protestant expresses an interest in utilizing applicant's service but only to the extent that applicant would act as an agent for protestant's broker affiliate, which, significantly, is not a party to this proceeding. Additional traffic undoubtedly will be generated for existing passenger carriers, and a grant to the territorial extent described in our findings will have no adverse effect upon protestant's operations. Accordingly, we believe applicant should be granted authority to originate round trip, all-expense tours at points in California.

Those supporting the application are interested primarily in tours having an educational purpose, and we have given some consideration to the advisability of restricting the authority to be granted to the conduct of "educational tours" or "tours available only to students and teachers." We conclude that such a restriction would not be in the public interest. In Kickert Common Carrier Application, 51 M.C.C. 1, former division 5 eliminated from a grant of authority to a motor carrier seeking to conduct charter operations a restriction, recommended by a joint board, limiting service to the transportation of "students and teachers." It noted that authority to transport adults when they are teachers but not otherwise would be confusing and difficult to police from a regulatory standpoint. Significantly, former division 5 in that case stated that: "The requirement that applicant *** transport only school children and school teachers, suggests an undue restriction not in keeping with applicant's status as a common carrier. Emphasis supplied. A limitation in the instant case to students and teachers would not be barred for such reasons inasmuch as applicant seeks authority as a transportation broker rather than as a motor common carrier. The inapplicability of the Kickert decision in broker proceedings is borne out by grants of authority in two recent decisions, All

American Excursions, Inc., Broker Application, 91 M.C.C. 67, and No. MC-12791, Meyer & Dietel Tours, Inc., Broker Application (not printed), decided July 31, 1963. In the All-American case, the applicant was granted broker authority to arrange for charter operations "restricted to youth groups accompanied by supervisors when engaged in educational and recreational pursuits." In the Meyer & Dietel case, division 1, on reconsideration, granted applicant broker authority to arrange for charter operations limited to students, their teachers, and chaperones. Hence, there is precedent for limiting the broker services authorized herein to arranging for round trip, all-expense tours on behalf of students and teachers. But it is clear that limiting the authority in this way might prevent applicant from including such persons as teachers' spouses, neighbors, alumini groups, or others who might reasonably want to be included in touring groups, even those with primarily an educational purpose. Such a limitation seems to us to be undesirable.

In No. MC-12862, Anthony Tour Service, Inc., Broker Application (not printed), decided April 7, 1964, division 1, by decision and order, adopted the findings of a hearing examiner who, instead of limiting service to a class of users, recommended granting authority to perform brokerage service "in educational tours.' And, in No. MC-12817 (Sub-No. 1), Education Through Travel, Inc., Broker Application (not printed), in which a recommended order became effective on September 6, 1963, by operation of law, brokerage authority for tours of "students" in "round-trip educational tours" was granted. In neither of these cases does it seem to us that the problem of how a so-called educational tour would be distinguished from any other general or special purpose tour is to be resolved. Indeed the name of the broker in the Education Through Travel case, itself, suggests that perhaps all tours could in some ways be considered educational.

We think that as a general rule, in grants of brokerage authority, limitations either as to a class of users or as to a type of tour should not be imposed. This is not to say that, where only specialized brokerage service, as for instance in the case of ski tours, is proposed or where the protection of existing services warrants appropriate limitation, such limitations are improper. Inasmuch as there are no circumstances present which warrant a narrowing of the service proposed by applicant here, no such 1See, for example, Olympic Travel Service, Inc., Broker Application, 76 M.C.C. 127.