B-144650, MAY 24, 1962
Highlights
LTD: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 24. SUSTAINING THE SETTLEMENT WAS AFFIRMED IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 15. ADVISING THAT THE CONTAINERS HERE INVOLVED WERE 10 FEET. WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE AFORESAID HEADQUARTERS CONFIRMING THAT INFORMATION. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR VIEW THAT THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE CHARGE IS APPLICABLE UNLESS THE VEHICLES ARE FILLED TO FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY. IS THAT WHEN A VEHICLE IS SO LOADED THAT NO MORE OF THE SHIPMENT IN THE SHIPPING FORM TENDERED CAN BE LOADED ON THE VEHICLE. IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. THE APPLICABLE CHARGES ARE THOSE COMPUTED UNDER THE TRUCKLOAD (OR VOLUME) RATE AND MINIMUM WEIGHT PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE TARIFFS.
B-144650, MAY 24, 1962
TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 24, 1962, YOUR FILE G- 01717, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 9, 1961, WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 21, 1960, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE ON A SHIPMENT OF STEEL CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED FROM MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, TO DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, TUCSON, ARIZONA, ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING AF 5216892 AND AF 5216893, DATED MAY 18, 1956. THE DECISION OF JUNE 9, 1961, SUSTAINING THE SETTLEMENT WAS AFFIRMED IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 15, 1961, B-144650.
WITH YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 24 YOU ENCLOSED A COPY OF A LETTER FROM HEADQUARTERS, WESTERN TRAFFIC REGION, DEFENSE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, ADVISING THAT THE CONTAINERS HERE INVOLVED WERE 10 FEET, 1 1/4 INCHES LONG BY 5 FEET, 2 1/2 INCHES WIDE BY 5 FEET, 2 1/2 INCHES HIGH. YOU URGE THAT THE THREE CONTAINERS LOADED ON EACH 40 FOOT TRAILER WOULD NOT FILL THE VEHICLE TO ITS FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY. WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE AFORESAID HEADQUARTERS CONFIRMING THAT INFORMATION. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR VIEW THAT THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE CHARGE IS APPLICABLE UNLESS THE VEHICLES ARE FILLED TO FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY.
AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF YOUR LETTER AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE ADVICE, WE FIND NO BASIS TO WARRANT ANY CHANGE IN OUR OPINION AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. OUR POSITION, BASED ON THE DECISION IN CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATE TRUCK LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576, IS THAT WHEN A VEHICLE IS SO LOADED THAT NO MORE OF THE SHIPMENT IN THE SHIPPING FORM TENDERED CAN BE LOADED ON THE VEHICLE, IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY, AND THE APPLICABLE CHARGES ARE THOSE COMPUTED UNDER THE TRUCKLOAD (OR VOLUME) RATE AND MINIMUM WEIGHT PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE TARIFFS, RATHER THAN THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE PROVISIONS.
HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF THE APPLICATION OF TARIFF RULES FOR EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICES IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LOADED TO CAPACITY WITH THE ARTICLE SHIPPED (NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME SMALLER SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN THE VEHICLE) IS PRESENTLY PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS AND IN SEVERAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. SHOULD THESE CASES BE FINALLY DECIDED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WE WILL, UPON YOUR REQUEST, RECONSIDER OUR PRESENT CONCLUSION.