B-126827, JUN. 27, 1956

B-126827: Jun 27, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST PER FILE GW 203952. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CHARGES FOR THIS SHIPMENT SHOULD BE ON THE BASIS OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES BECAUSE PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE WAS PERFORMED BY THE RAILROADS. OUR SETTLEMENT DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED. LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES AGGREGATING $15.13 WERE DETERMINED TO BE ALLOWABLE. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE WAS APPLICABLE AND NOT UNREASONABLE. APPARENTLY IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF LESS- THAN-CARLOAD CHARGES IN CERTAIN CASES WERE BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED APPROXIMATED THE MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHT.

B-126827, JUN. 27, 1956

TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST PER FILE GW 203952, FOR REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 12, 1955, IN CLAIM NO. TK-511729, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM, PER BILL NO. F-203952-A, FOR $252.39 ADDITIONAL TO THE AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. PC-16935, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1942, COVERING A SHIPMENT OF 21,615 POUNDS OF POLISHED PLATE GLASS TRANSPORTED FROM THE FRANKLIN GLASS CORPORATION, BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA, TO THE LOS ANGELES SUB-PORT OF EMBARKATION, WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA. YOU ALLEGE THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CHARGES FOR THIS SHIPMENT SHOULD BE ON THE BASIS OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES BECAUSE PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE WAS PERFORMED BY THE RAILROADS.

OUR SETTLEMENT DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED, IN PART, ON THE BASIS OF A CARLOAD COMMODITY RATE OF $1.64 PER 100 POUNDS AND A CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 50,000 POUNDS, LESS APPLICABLE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS. ADDITION, LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES AGGREGATING $15.13 WERE DETERMINED TO BE ALLOWABLE. IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU REFER TO CRANE COMPANY V. ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, 268 I.C.C. 511, STATING THAT IN THAT CASE THE ACTUAL WEIGHT APPROXIMATED THE CARLOAD WEIGHT AND THAT IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES, INCLUDING AMERICAN SALES BOOK COMPANY, INC. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, 263 I.C.C. 511, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE WAS APPLICABLE AND NOT UNREASONABLE.

APPARENTLY IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF LESS- THAN-CARLOAD CHARGES IN CERTAIN CASES WERE BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED APPROXIMATED THE MINIMUM CARLOAD WEIGHT, AND THAT THE SHIPMENT HERE IN QUESTION DOES NOT COME WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE COMMISSION DID USE WORDS TO THE EFFECT THAT SIMILAR RESULTS WOULD OCCUR WHENEVER PICK-UP OR DELIVERY SERVICE WAS PERFORMED ON A SHIPMENT COMPRISING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF A CARLOAD AND THERE WAS A LARGE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE CORRESPONDING CARLOAD AND LESS- THAN-CARLOAD RATES, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS DEPENDED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR SHIPMENT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CARLOAD, THERE BEING NECESSARILY FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CHARGES FOR SUCH A SHIPMENT WERE REASONABLE. THUS, IN THE CRANE COMPANY CASE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE LESS-THAN- CARLOAD CHARGES WERE APPLICABLE, BUT THAT THESE CHARGES WERE "EXTORTIONATE, UNJUST, AND UNREASONABLE" TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE CHARGE FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD, PLUS THE USUAL CHARGES FOR UNLOADING THE ACTUAL WEIGHT SHIPPED. IN THE AMERICAN SALES BOOK COMPANY CASE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LESS THAN-CARLOAD AND CARLOAD CHARGES WAS ONLY $36.48, WHEREAS IN THE CRANE COMPANY CASE, THE DIFFERENCE WAS $231.64.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE SHIPMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR IN SOME MATERIAL RESPECTS TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CRANE COMPANY CASE. IN THAT CASE, COMPARED WITH THE CHARGES FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD, THE COMPLAINANT PAID 87 PERCENT GREATER CHARGES FOR 39 PERCENT LESS WEIGHT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CHARGES CLAIMED BY YOU ARE ABOUT 51 PERCENT GREATER FOR ABOUT 57 PERCENT LESS WEIGHT. AS IN THE CRANE COMPANY CASE THE ACTUAL WEIGHT IN THIS CASE WAS CONSIDERABLY UNDER THE CARLOAD MINIMUM, AND IN BOTH CASES THE CHARGES FOR THE LESS THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN FOR THE SAME SHIPMENT IF COMPUTED ON A CARLOAD BASIS, PLUS ACCESSORIAL CHARGES. IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT IF, AS YOU URGE, PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE WAS RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SHIPMENT, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES CLAIMED BY YOU TO BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF SUCH SERVICES WOULD BE CLEARLY IN THE CATEGORY OF CHARGES WHICH ARE "EXTORTIONATE, UNJUST, AND UNREASONABLE," AS SAID IN THE CRANE COMPANY CASE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE CHARGES FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD AT THE CARLOAD RATE, PLUS REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH ACCESSORIAL SERVICES AS WERE RENDERED. AS INDICATED HEREINBEFORE, AN AMOUNT OF $15.13 WAS ALLOWED FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING IN ADDITION TO THE LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES COMPUTED ON A CARLOAD BASIS.