B-144650, DEC. 15, 1961
Highlights
LTD: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 19. IN YOUR LETTER YOU AGAIN URGE THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED. EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE CHARGES ARE INAPPLICABLE WHEN THE VEHICLE INVOLVED HAS BEEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. IS THAT WHEN A VEHICLE IS SO LOADED THAT NO MORE OF THE SHIPMENT IN THE SHIPPING FORM TENDERED CAN BE LOADED IN OR ON THE VEHICLE. IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. YOU ADMIT THAT ANOTHER LIKE CONTAINER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LOADED IN THE VANS UTILIZED FOR THE TWO SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE IS REQUESTED AND THAT THERE IS A LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH TARIFF PROVISIONS COVERING EXCLUSIVE USE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE CARRIERS' ARGUMENT THAT "POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE LOADED OTHER FREIGHT IN THE VEHICLE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.'.
B-144650, DEC. 15, 1961
TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 19, 1961, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 9, 1961, B-144650, SUSTAINING THE SETTLEMENT ACTION BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE ON A SHIPMENT OF STEEL CONTAINERS FROM MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, PLANEHAVEN, CALIFORNIA, TO DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, TUCSON, ARIZONA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NOS. AF- 5216892 AND AF-5216893, DATED MAY 18, 1956.
IN YOUR LETTER YOU AGAIN URGE THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED, BUT AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION TO YOU, EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE CHARGES ARE INAPPLICABLE WHEN THE VEHICLE INVOLVED HAS BEEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. OUR POSITION, BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID- STATES FREIGHT LINE, 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 IN OR ON THE VEHICLE, IT IS THEN LOADED TO CAPACITY. YOU ADMIT THAT ANOTHER LIKE CONTAINER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LOADED IN THE VANS UTILIZED FOR THE TWO SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE PRECLUDES THE ALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES EXCEEDING THOSE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUCKLOAD RATE APPLIED TO THE TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE IS REQUESTED AND THAT THERE IS A LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH TARIFF PROVISIONS COVERING EXCLUSIVE USE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE CARRIERS' ARGUMENT THAT "POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE LOADED OTHER FREIGHT IN THE VEHICLE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.'
THEREFORE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHARGES AS COMPUTED BY OUR OFFICE ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUCKLOAD RATE AND MINIMUM TRUCKLOAD WEIGHT APPLICABLE ON THE COMMODITY INVOLVED, WERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, AND SINCE YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY MODIFICATION OF OUR POSITION, OUR DECISION DATED JUNE 9, 1961, WAS CORRECT AND IS AFFIRMED.