B-144935, SEP. 7, 1961
Highlights
INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 16. WHICH IN EFFECT IS A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 14. THE CARRIER MUST SUBMIT SOME EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE-OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS ACTUALLY PERFORMED. - YOUR POSITION IS THAT ADDITION OF THE WORDS "TO BE MOVED AT CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE" WILL NOT DEFEAT THE APPLICABILITY OF EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES SINCE THE TARIFF DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE EXPEDITED SERVICE. THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS ACCEPTED AND TRANSPORTED UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN ITEM 935. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE HAS BEEN PERFORMED. THAT THE EXCLUSIVE-USE REFERENCE MAY HAVE BEEN A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY NEEDED TO HANDLE THE LADING TENDERED RATHER THAN A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL SERVICE.
B-144935, SEP. 7, 1961
TO BELL LINES, INC.:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 1961, WHICH IN EFFECT IS A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 14, 1961, B-144935, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $1,512.08, WHICH YOU ALLEGE TO BE DUE BY THE APPLICATION OF EXCLUSIVE-USE-OF VEHICLE CHARGES ON A SHIPMENT OF SIX GENERATORS AND ENGINES, COMBINED, FROM NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, TO SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, SUMTER, SOUTH CAROLINA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. AF 3017549, DATED MAY 17, 1955. OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 14, 1961, WE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE A MOTOR CARRIER CAN BE CONSIDERED ENTITLED TO PREMIUM CHARGES FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF A VEHICLE TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED; NAMELY, THERE MUST BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE-USE OF-VEHICLE TARIFF REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE ANNOTATION OF THE BILL OF LADING, AND THE CARRIER MUST SUBMIT SOME EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE-OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS ACTUALLY PERFORMED.
REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ANNOTATION ON THE BILL OF LADING WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE EXCLUSIVE-USE-OF-VEHICLE TARIFF PROVISIONS--- NOTE 2, ITEM 935 OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU TARIFF NO. 20, MF-I.C.C. NO. 66--- YOUR POSITION IS THAT ADDITION OF THE WORDS "TO BE MOVED AT CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE" WILL NOT DEFEAT THE APPLICABILITY OF EXCLUSIVE USE CHARGES SINCE THE TARIFF DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE EXPEDITED SERVICE. YOU STATE, ALSO, THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS ACCEPTED AND TRANSPORTED UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN ITEM 935. AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE HAS BEEN PERFORMED. AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE WORDS "TO BE MOVED AT CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE," WHILE ITEM 935 DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS GENERALLY REQUEST EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE EITHER FOR SECURITY REASONS OR TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENTS, BUT THE ANNOTATION IN QUESTION TENDS TO NEGATE EACH OF THESE REASONS AS THE POSSIBLE UNDERLYING PURPOSE FOR A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSIVE USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ITEM 935. IT WOULD SEEM, THEN, THAT THE EXCLUSIVE-USE REFERENCE MAY HAVE BEEN A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY NEEDED TO HANDLE THE LADING TENDERED RATHER THAN A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL SERVICE. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED PROOF OF THE EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE YOU ALLEGE WAS PERFORMED, OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 14, 1961, IS AFFIRMED.