Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TO ALAMO MOTOR LINES: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 11. IS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER INSOFAR AS TRAFFIC TO OR FROM DEFENSE. IS CONCERNED AND. THE PROPER RATES FOR ASSESSING CHARGES ON THIS SHIPMENT ARE THE INTERSTATE RATES. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTION YOU HAVE FURNISHED EVIDENCE FROM THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS WHICH PURPORTS TO SHOW THAT THE STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. WAS INTRASTATE COMMERCE BY VIRTUE OF ITS RELATION TO THE STATE OF TEXAS. WE CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT AN INTERSTATE ROUTE WAS REQUIRED AND ACTUALLY EMPLOYED IN TRANSPORTING THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT FROM DEFENSE TO FORT BLISS. THE APPLICATION OF THE INTRASTATE RATE WAS PROPER.

View Decision

B-129520, JUN. 21, 1957

TO ALAMO MOTOR LINES:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1957, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF MARCH 13, 1957, WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, PER BILL NO. 8725-A, FOR $25 ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT FROM DEFENSE, TEXAS, TO FORT BLISS, TEXAS, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING WY-6,119,304, APRIL 13, 1956.

IN YOUR PRESENT SUBMISSION YOU CONTEND, AS YOU PREVIOUSLY CONTENDED, THAT THE ORIGINATING CARRIER, STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., IS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER INSOFAR AS TRAFFIC TO OR FROM DEFENSE, TEXAS, IS CONCERNED AND, SINCE THAT CARRIER REPORTEDLY DOES NOT POSSESS ANY INTRASTATE PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING IT TO SERVICE THAT POINT, THE PROPER RATES FOR ASSESSING CHARGES ON THIS SHIPMENT ARE THE INTERSTATE RATES. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTION YOU HAVE FURNISHED EVIDENCE FROM THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS WHICH PURPORTS TO SHOW THAT THE STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., THE ORIGINATING CARRIER, DID NOT POSSESS INTRASTATE AUTHORITY AS TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT.

IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 13, 1957, WE POINTED OUT THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THIS SHIPMENT ACTUALLY MOVED--- EITHER FROM CHOICE OR NECESSITY--- VIA A ROUTE PARTIALLY OUTSIDE TEXAS IN ORDER TO REACH THE FINAL DESTINATION, WHICH WOULD BRING THE SHIPMENT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ,INTERSTATE COMMERCE," AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 203 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. 303; THAT SO FAR AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION MOVED VIA AN INTRASTATE ROUTE AND, THEREFORE, WAS INTRASTATE COMMERCE BY VIRTUE OF ITS RELATION TO THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE RATES; AND THAT THE CHARGES SEEM PROPER FOR DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TYPE OF COMMERCE ACTUALLY INVOLVED--- IN THIS CASE A SHIPMENT TRANSPORTED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE--- RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF THE TYPE OF COMMERCE FOR WHICH THE CARRIER POSSESSED OPERATING AUTHORITY, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF COMMERCE INVOLVED. OUR DECISION REFERRED YOU TO PERTINENT COURT CASES IN SUPPORT OF OUR POSITION, AND WE CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT AN INTERSTATE ROUTE WAS REQUIRED AND ACTUALLY EMPLOYED IN TRANSPORTING THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT FROM DEFENSE TO FORT BLISS, THE APPLICATION OF THE INTRASTATE RATE WAS PROPER.

AS YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INTERSTATE ROUTE WAS REQUIRED AND ACTUALLY EMPLOYED IN TRANSPORTING THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT BETWEEN THE POINTS INVOLVED, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION FROM THAT REACHED IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 13, 1957. ACCORDINGLY, THAT CONCLUSION IS REAFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts