B-150364, APR. 17, 1963

B-150364: Apr 17, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 23. THIS BILL OF LADING IS ANNOTATED "EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE. EXPEDITED SERVICE OR OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN CARRIERS TARIFF ON FILE WITH THE ICC IS REQUESTED" AND SHOWS THAT THE SHIPMENT FULLY LOADED THE TRUCK USED. OUR ORIGINAL AUDIT WAS PREDICATED UPON THE "SPECIAL MILITARY SERVICES" PROVISIONS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. THIS BASIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH PIONEER FREIGHT. THAT A LOWER BASIS IS APPLICABLE BY USE OF TRUCKLOAD CHARGES UNDER AUTHORITY OF CURTIS LIGHTING. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE A VEHICLE IS LOADED TO CAPACITY A SHIPPER DERIVES NO BENEFIT FROM EXCLUSIVE USE AND.

B-150364, APR. 17, 1963

TO NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 23, 1962, AND MARCH 6, 1963, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM NO. 5802 FOR $856 ADDITIONAL IN FREIGHT CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTING A SHIPMENT OF BOMB BODIES FROM SAVANNA, OKLAHOMA, TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING A-1851120, DATED MARCH 30, 1960. THIS BILL OF LADING IS ANNOTATED "EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE, EXPEDITED SERVICE OR OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN CARRIERS TARIFF ON FILE WITH THE ICC IS REQUESTED" AND SHOWS THAT THE SHIPMENT FULLY LOADED THE TRUCK USED.

OUR ORIGINAL AUDIT WAS PREDICATED UPON THE "SPECIAL MILITARY SERVICES" PROVISIONS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION NO. 51 BUT, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 23, THIS BASIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH PIONEER FREIGHT, INC., THE INITIAL CARRIER. WE NOW FIND, HOWEVER, THAT A LOWER BASIS IS APPLICABLE BY USE OF TRUCKLOAD CHARGES UNDER AUTHORITY OF CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576 (1958), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE A VEHICLE IS LOADED TO CAPACITY A SHIPPER DERIVES NO BENEFIT FROM EXCLUSIVE USE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TRUCKLOAD RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVE-USE CHARGES WOULD BE FOR APPLICATION. WE REALIZE, OF COURSE, THAT THIS BASIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED BY MOTOR CARRIERS IN SEVERAL COURT SUITS INCLUDING NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6753, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO, WHICH HAS BEEN APPEALED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. IN VIEW OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE BEING UNDERTAKEN, AND UNTIL THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN FINALLY JUDICIALLY DETERMINED, WE ARE CONTINUING TO APPLY THE CURTIS LIGHTING PRINCIPLE IN OUR AUDIT.

ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE AUTHORIZING OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO ISSUE A REVISED SETTLEMENT REFLECTING CHARGES COMPUTED AT TRUCKLOAD RATES WHICH SHOULD REACH YOU IN DUE COURSE.