erated Transport has acquired numerous additional operating rights which should make mechanically refrigerated equipment that is unloading in Pennsylvania and the surrounding States available to this supporting shipper at distances less than 400 miles. Consideration of all these facts renders very dubious Refrigerated Transport's claim to deadheading expense and its further claim that its flow of traffic dictates abandonment of service on shipments terminating in the involved four-State area.

If Refrigerated Transport is serious in its request of this shipper to abandon certain traffic terminating in the involved four-State area this attitude is wholly inconsistent with its pending application (Sub-No. 434) seeking authority to transport foodstuffs from Milton, Pa., to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, and seven other southern States because Milton is about 70 airline miles further north in Pennsylvania than Chambersburg and that means about 100 more road miles to "deadhead" equipment beyond Chambersburg using the same reasoning as was presented to the shipper by Refrigerated Transport. The record is clear that although Refrigerated Transport has expressed the desire to abandon service from Chambersburg to points in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia with respect to shipments where final deliveries would occur in one of those States, it has not yet refused such shipments but is continuing to accept them. What is more incongruous about this entire picture is that it is proposed that Refrigerated Transport will continue to serve points in Virginia east of U. S. Highway 15 even though final deliveries would be made in the involved four-State area. That question arose during the hearing. The Watkins' application originally included the entire State of Virginia and was amended at the hearing at the suggestion of the shipper because he asserted that he did not need Watkins' service east of U. S. Highway 15. The shipper asserted this in spite of the fact that according to his own survey of shipments during the 10-month period from April 1962 through January 1963, almost twice as much of the shipper's tonnage was delivered to points in Virginia east of U. S. Highway 15 than to points in that State west of U. S. Highway 15. The tonnage was 806,490 pounds to Virginia points east of U. S. Highway 15, and 436,321 pounds to Virginia points west of U. S. Highway 15.

After considerable questioning the shipper witness finally admitted that the nub of this proceeding and the real reason he is supporting three applicants for authority that would, if granted, duplicate Refrigerated Transport's existing authority, is his need for particular trailers, usually 40-foot reefers "so as to tailor the equipment to the shipments we have." He asserted that he must ship the products when the orders are received, that he specifies the size of trailers required for the consolidated less-than-truckload shipments and when asked what had been the instances during the preceding 6 months in which the trailers furnished were less-than 40-feet in length, the shipper replied: "I think we have had at least one a week during the past six months." The shipper also asserted that failure once a week to furnish a 40-foot trailer "happens with all existing carriers-that is, with the exception of Zimmerman usually." Zimmerman's terminal is located across the street from the shipper's plant and this applicant has only one 40-foot trailer. Why Zimmerman, with only one 40-foot trailer, is the only carrier who can always furnish a 40-foot trailer when asked can only be explained by assuming that whenever that one 40-foot trailer is in use, the shipper of course knows it and does not ask

Zimmerman for another such trailer until the 40-foot one shall have been returned to Chambersburg.

The shipper offered no detailed information to explain his arbitrary opinion that 40-foot reefers are essential, but the record is clear that some 38-foot high cube trailers can load more than some 40-foot trailers, and that the capacity of various trailers is a relative matter, depending on how they are constructed. In any event, protestants have 40-foot trailers available.

After an extended discussion in the record concerning the service offered by existing carriers the shipper asserted, "as far as we are concerned there is no problem (of service), with the exception of tailoring the trailer requirements to the orders we have." Now, the orders the shipper has (similar to that described in Refrigerated Transport's Sub-No. 296 Hearing Transcript) are dropoff shipments with final deliveries in a 10-State area which includes the involved 4-State area. When the shipper was asked how much traffic he would tender if these applications were granted he replied that he had no idea because "the destinations and stop-offs are so involved that it would be impossible, unless you could sit down and work-up the proportionate rating * * * insofar as the routing is concerned." In other words the shipper witness came to the hearing requesting the services of three additional motor common carriers to an overall 10-State area, but was wholly unprepared to give the commission any details concerning volume, routing, or destinations, other than in the involved four-State area, yet this same witness testified he is the very person whose duties are to make up consolidated truckloads of less-than-truckload shipments, prepare routings, and order trailers. When asked how many shipments were involved to each destination city in West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina in the survey of traffic he made from April 1962 through January 1963, he did not know. If 90 percent of the shipper's traffic is consolidated loads of less-than-truckload shipments with from 2 to 10 dropoffs en route in a 10-State area, its witness presented no testimony or documentary evidence to show the pattern of this traffic. The tonnage he presented which moved into the involved four-State area is only a part of the overall picture.

In a factual situation similar to this the Commission held that, since one of the protestants could handle the shipper's traffic to Alabama, in the absence of a clear showing of inadequacy of protestant's service its authority should not be subjected to duplication. In that same opinion the Commission further stated:

"Although the shipper claims that it requires a for-hire motor-carrier service able, authoritywise, to render multiple deliveries at combinations of points in Alabama and the other two destinations States, only casual mention of specific points was made, and no estimate of the volume of traffic which would so move was given. While obviously for a shipper to have a single motor carrier authorized to serve its entire destination or market area would be a great convenience, this convenience to a shipper must be balanced by the need of motor-carrier protestants for protection from undue dilution of their traffic, both that now handled and that which can be handled if tendered to them." Textile Motor Freight Inc., Extension-Foodstuffs, 82 M.C.C. 605, 608-609. Although Refrigerated Transport, Inc., is not a protestant here, the same reasoning applies, and no valid reason appears in the record why its authority under Sub-No. 296 and the respective authorities of the protestants should be duplicated by a grant of any of these applications.

Where, as here, the shipper has presented tonnage figures which disclose only a small fraction of the overall proposed operation and he presented no documentary proof or testimony concerning the balance of the operation, his testimony as a whole is characterized by vagueness and the lack of specificity with regard to his present marketing patterns and the instances in which he has allegedly been unable to obtain adequate for-hire motor carrier service. Compare Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. Ext.-Frozen Foods, 83 M.C.C. 421, 423.

Preston Trucking Company Inc., as stated, has a concurrence with applicant Watkins and opposes a grant of the Watkins application. Its notices of protest to the other two applications were not timely filed. Preston offers direct service to a portion of Virginia and in joint-line service with Watkins under Watkins' existing authorities, it (Preston) can serve all of the involved fourState area. Trans-Cold Express also opposes only the Watkins' application because its notices of protest to the other two applications were not timely filed.

Trans-Cold Express can serve Louisiana and Kentucky which are two of the States not mentioned in these applications but to which the shipper wants service. Trans-Cold opposes the Watkins application on the ground that if it is granted Watkins could, under its existing authorities, tack at Crozet, Va., and at points in Georgia and serve numerous States for which no need has been shown.

In addition to these carriers, applicant Colonial also opposes the application of Watkins on the ground that under Colonial's existing authority it can either on a direct or interline basis, serve the involved four-State area and all of the other States in which the shipper is interested. If the Watkins application were granted Colonial's interest would be protected if interchange and tacking restrictions were imposed upon Watkins both at the origin and destination areas.

Protestant, Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation, has not been tendered any of the shipper's traffic, but has authority to serve the involved origin and is ready, able, and willing to transport the shipper's products to all points in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, and to that extent opposes the granting of the Zimmerman and Colonial applications.

Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation is an untried protestant and should be given an opportunity to serve this shipper within the scope of its certificates in the absence of any showing of material inadequacy in its service. Arnold and Ahrenstorff Ext.- Fertilizer, 81 M.C.C. 633, 634, 635. The shipper made no inquiry prior to the hearing concerning available service from motor carriers other than those now serving it, and its support of these applications stems primarily from a desire to have available the service of particular applicants, rather than from a real and substantial need for additional motor carrier service. Telischak Trucking Inc., Ext.-Concrete Commodities, 82 M.C.C. 109, 115. Furthermore, no definite or serious complaints have been made against existing motor carrier service and it is apparent that such service will continue to be used with the possible exception of a portion of Refrigerated Transport's Sub-No. 296 authority which allegedly it intends to abandon but has not done so. Because of this allegation of proposed abandonment the shipper desires to have the services of three additional motor carriers (from the standpoint of new territory) available

to handle anticipated increased traffic, the volume of which was wholly an estimate or opinion with no factual details. On the present record services duplicative of the services presently offered by existing carriers are not warranted. Compare, Robertson Tank Lines, Inc., Ext.-Petroleum to Louisiana, 82 M.C.C. 723, 725. Applicant Watkins and protestant Preston are serving the shipper under a concurrence and that service has been satisfactory. If the Watkins application were granted this joint-line service would be discontinued. The shippers are not entitled as a matter of right to singleline motor carrier service between all points from and to which traffic might move. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Extension-Bartow, Fla., 78 M.C.C. 563, 566; Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Ext.-Canned Goods-Iowa, 74 M.C.C. 787, 796.

All applicants suggested in the form of amendments, origin plant site restrictions at the plant site of the Pet Milk Company. The Commission imposes plant site restrictions for various reasons, including a need for service and also to protect similar service to other shippers in the area, or they are imposed to identify the location where service is needed without granting countywide authority, or sometimes the restriction is applied to a single shipper located within the commercial zone of a large city so as to preclude service to the public far exceeding the limited proof of need for service shown by a single supporting shipper. These proposed plant site restrictions were not accepted by the examiner as amendments, and no valid reason appears in the record for a plant site restriction at the involved origin.

If on appeal from the examiner's report and order any one of the applications were granted, the grant of authority under the Commission's precedents would be limited solely to the destination areas applied for in the respective applications and such grant or grants of authority would involve tacking and interline restrictions imposed on Colonial and Watkins and would not meet or satisfy the alleged need of the shipper for service in a 10-State area. Considering Watkins' very extensive operations, as explained herein, with respect to the movement of meat, meat products, and meat byproducts, and numerous other commodities, the fact that all of its equipment that would be used in the proposed operation is equipped with meat rails, and the fact that Watkins made no effort in the light of its existing extensive authorized operations to show just what equipment would be available if the application were granted, the examiner is of the opinion that there is no adequate proof of record showing that Watkins has equipment available to serve the supporting shipper. When a motor carrier amasses so many operating rights and commitments as the evidence discloses here on the part of Watkins, a mere offhand estimate in the record of equipment unloading in the "origin area," is so very general in nature, that without more definite information as to just what equipment is and what is not already committed for return movement (or movement in another direction), is not at all convincing that equipment would be available at the involved origin if the application were granted, and applicant Watkins has not met its burden of proof in this respect, nor has it met its burden of proof in showing any real need for its service as proposed in the application.

So far as the commodity description is concerned, all of the supporting shipper's products were included within the term "frozen bakery products" in 1959 when this shipper supported the application of Refrigerated Trans

port Inc., No. MC-107515 (Sub-No. 296) and the evidence of record in the instant proceeding still includes no other commodities than those embraced within the term "frozen bakery products." Compare, Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., Ext. - Frankfort, Mich., 81 M.C.C. 127, 129.

Another matter of prime importance should be considered. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that persons entitled to notice of an agency hearing shall be informed, among other things, of the matters of fact and law in issue. This means, as explained in the legislative history of the act, that the parties should be fully apprised of the subject matter and must be given ample notice of the legal and factual issues with due time to examine, consider, and prepare for them. To make that possible the issues must be specified with reasonable particularity. This means, in the case of applications for public convenience and necessity, the notices must fairly indicate to existing motor carriers the territory as well as the commodities that are included in the proposed operations by one or more applicants. So far as these applications are concerned, the notices published in the Federal Register, as given by each applicant in its application, constitute a gigantic hoax, whether it was done intentionally or not. Neither the shipper nor any of the applicants proposed to limit the operations to the destination areas which each applicant specified in its application. If these applications were all granted each applicant intends to tack the new grant with its existing authorities and move traffic to an additional multiple-State area further south, for which the shipper has proved no need. For example, by granting the Colonial application which is to points in all of the involved four-State area, Colonial could, and intends to, tack at Lynchburg, Va., and serve all points in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. By granting the Watkins application to points in West Virginia and points in Virginia on and west of U. S. Highway 15, Watkins could, and intends to, tack at Crozet, Va., and serve all points in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Watkins could and intends to, tack at Richmond and serve all points in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Zimmerman under its existing authority can now serve all points in Virginia and West Virginia and would, if its application were granted, be tendered traffic to those States along with traffic to the two States published in the Federal Register (North Carolina and South Carolina), so it also would be moving traffic in dropoff movements to destinations in two States of which the public received no notice. Consequently, potentially interested parties were not given proper notice of applicants' true purposes in filing the applications or of the actual nature of the service proposed over irregular routes. Compare Blue Ridge Transfer Co., Inc., Extension-Sumter, S. C., 84 M.C.C. 239, 242, 243. While a carrier is allowed to join separate grants of irregular route authority, this is not the ordinary and accepted method of seeking an extension of an irregular route operation, and since there is a total lack of evidence of a public need for applicants' additional services from and to points actually named in the applications, the applications must be denied. DenverAlbuquerque Motor Transport Inc., Ext.-Arizona, 91 M.C.C. 582, 584; Bonanza Trucking Co. Extension-Gilsonite, 92 M.C.C. 220, 221, 222.

The errors in the notices which appeared in the Federal Register are attributable to applicants' wording of their applications. They were not