B-144503, APR. 24, 1961

B-144503: Apr 24, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

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

LTD.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 14. FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $2. THE CHARGES DEEMED ALLOWABLE ON TRUCKLOAD RATINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED OVER BALTIMORE. WHICH AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION. SINCE THE TRAILER USED IN TRANSPORTING THE SHIPMENT WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED. THE FACT THAT THE TRAILER WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE APPLICABLE CHARGES AND EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES ARE PROPERLY APPLICABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY. ONE OF THE VEHICLES AS HAVING BEEN LOADED TO CAPACITY WAS SEALED. THE COMPLAINANT IN THAT CASE ASKED FOR REPARATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE RATE AND CHARGES WERE UNJUST.

B-144503, APR. 24, 1961

TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 14, 1960, IN WHICH YOU ASK FOR A REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM (G-02555) FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES ON A SHIPMENT OF ORDNANCE STORES MOVING UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AF 8715208, DATED DECEMBER 21, 1958, FROM DOVER AIR FORCE BASE,DELAWARE, TO VINCENT AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA.

FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $2,036. IN OUR AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER WE DETERMINED THAT LOWER CHARGES WOULD RESULT FROM THE USE OF TRUCKLOAD RATINGS. THE CHARGES DEEMED ALLOWABLE ON TRUCKLOAD RATINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED OVER BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, USING FOR THE FIRST FACTOR A CLASS 70 RATING OF $1.12 PER 100 POUNDS AND 24,000 POUNDS MINIMUM WEIGHT AUTHORIZED BY MIDDLE ATLANTIC CONFERENCE TARIFFS NO. 7-G, MF-I.C.C.NO. A-877, AND NO. 10-M, MF-I.C.C.NO. A-870 AND A TRUCKLOAD RATE OF $7.15 PER HUNDRED POUNDS AND 24,000 POUNDS MINIMUM WEIGHT AUTHORIZED BY ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU TARIFFS NO. 21-A, MF-I.C.C.NO. 95 AND NO. 20-A, MR I.C.C.NO. 79 BEYOND. THE APPLICATION OF THIS RATE RESULTED IN AN OVERCHARGE OF $51.20, WHICH AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION, AS AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 66, FROM AN AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE YOU.

SINCE THE TRAILER USED IN TRANSPORTING THE SHIPMENT WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY, OUR OFFICE USED TRUCKLOAD RATES IN CONSTRUCTING THE CHARGES DEEMED APPLICABLE AND CITED THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576, AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF TRUCKLOAD RATES. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT SINCE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED, THE FACT THAT THE TRAILER WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE APPLICABLE CHARGES AND EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES ARE PROPERLY APPLICABLE.

THE SUBJECT BILL OF LADING BEARS THE FOLLOWING NOTATION: "SHIPPERS LOAD AND COUNT--- LOADED TO FULL VISIBLE CAPACITY.' IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE, AS HERE, THE VEHICLE WAS LOADED TO CAPACITY. THE ORIGINAL FREIGHT BILL THERE INVOLVED BORE A NOTATION TO THE EFFECT THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF A TRAILER HAD BEEN REQUESTED, AND ONE OF THE VEHICLES AS HAVING BEEN LOADED TO CAPACITY WAS SEALED. ON THE SEALED VEHICLE MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES BILLED ON THE BASIS OF EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE. THE COMPLAINANT IN THAT CASE ASKED FOR REPARATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE RATE AND CHARGES WERE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, AND OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 216 (D) AND 217 (B) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (49 U.S.C. 316 (D), 317 (B) ). THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HELD, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT REQUESTED EXCLUSIVE USE, SUCH SERVICE--- WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ACCORD EXCLUSIVE USE OF TRUCK TO LESS-THAN-TRUCKLOAD SHIPMENTS--- WAS NOT RENDERED ASIDE FROM ANY QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS. ALSO THE COMMISSION HELD THAT ONCE A VEHICLE IS LOADED TO CAPACITY, A SHIPPER DERIVES NO BENEFIT FROM EXCLUSIVE USE. IT WAS THEREFORE FOUND THAT THE EXCLUSIVE-USE CHARGES WERE INAPPLICABLE AND THE APPLICABLE RATE WAS THE TRUCKLOAD RATE.

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE COMMISSION'S HOLDING IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE IS CONTROLLING IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE INSTANT MATTER. SINCE THE SETTLEMENT ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULING IN ..END :