B-151820, NOV. 25, 1964

B-151820, NOV. 25, 1964

TO THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY:

WE HAVE CAREFULLY STUDIED THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 2, 1964, FILE 5 GB-27346, ASKING FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 2, 1964, B-151820, SUSTAINING THE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 29, 1961, IN CLAIM TK-703818, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $45.44 ON YOUR BILL 27346. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY SOUND REASON FOR REVERSING OR MODIFYING OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 2, 1964.

THE CHARGES IN QUESTION ARE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF 4,455 POUNDS OF "TRAINING MATERIAL" FOR THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN A GOVERNMENT-OWNED CAR FROM MORRIS (BOSSIER BASE, SHREVEPORT), LOUISIANA, TO ROCKY, COLORADO, WITH A STOPOVER AT KILLEEN, TEXAS, ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AT-171356, DATED APRIL 24, 1959. THE BILL OF LADING WAS NOTED:

"ROUTE: IC-MS TO SHREVEPORT, T AND P TO FT. WORTH, ATSF TO TEMPLE, ATSF- GCF TO COPPERAS COVE, ATSF TO KAYS SPUR (STOPOVER) ATSF TO KILLEEN, ATSF TO FT. WORTH, FWD-CS TO DENVER, D AND RGW-LOCAL TO ROCKY FLATS.' AND SHOWED AS AUTHORITIES:

"AUTH: "JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT, SEC. 25 AND AEC SEC. 22 DATED JULY 1, 1951.'" IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, THE CHARGES WERE SETTLED ON A COMBINATION OF FIRST-CLASS LESS CARLOAD RATES TO AND BEYOND COPPERAS COVE, TEXAS. YOUR CLAIM FOR $45.44 IS BASED UPON YOUR POSITION THAT CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE LOCAL FREIGHT RATE OF $1.02 PER 100 POUNDS FROM DENVER TO ROCKY MUST BE PAID IN ADDITION TO THE CHARGES ALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT.

WE HAVE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE LOCAL RATE BETWEEN DENVER AND ROCKY ON SHIPMENTS OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION TRAINING MATERIAL IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUESTS FOR OUR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH OTHERS OF YOUR BILLS. SEE YOUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 11, 1962, AND SEPTEMBER 27, 1963, YOUR BILL 27443, AND OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 15, 1962, AND FEBRUARY 28, 1964, B-147976; YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 27, 1962, APRIL 30, AUGUST 15, OCTOBER 11, AND NOVEMBER 19, 1963, AND JANUARY 17, 1964, YOUR BILL 27639, AND OUR DECISIONS OF MARCH 29, AUGUST 5, OCTOBER 2, OCTOBER 29, AND DECEMBER 16, 1963, AND FEBRUARY 11, 1964, -149821; YOUR LETTERS OF MAY 21 AND AUGUST 26, 1963, AND FEBRUARY 11, 1964, B-149821; YOUR LETTERS OF MAY 21 AND AUGUST 26, 1963, YOUR BILL 26278, AND OUR DECISIONS OF JULY 22 AND OCTOBER 18, 1963, B-151850; YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 18, 1963, BILL 27442, AND JULY 26, 1963, BILL 27445, AND OUR DECISIONS OF JANUARY 2, 1964, B-152083 AND B-152163; YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1963, YOUR BILL 27447, AND OUR DECISION OF MARCH 31, 1964, B-152602; AND YOUR LETTERS OF MARCH 20 AND JULY 23, 1964, YOUR BILL 25573, AND OUR DECISIONS OF JULY 17 AND SEPTEMBER 17, 1964, B 153793. SEE, ALSO, 42 COMP. GEN. 203, INVOLVING THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. IN EACH OF THESE INSTANCES WE TRIED TO ANSWER YOUR CONTENTIONS AS COMPREHENSIVELY AS POSSIBLE, AND WILL UNDERTAKE TO DO SO IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.

AS WE UNDERSTAND YOUR BASIC CONTENTION, IT IS THIS: ON SHIPMENTS TRANSPORTED IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE TO OR FROM ROCKY AND INTERCHANGED WITH ANOTHER CARRIER AT DENVER, THE LOCAL FREIGHT RATE BETWEEN DENVER AND ROCKY SHOULD BE PAID IN ADDITION TO THE RATES TO OR FROM DENVER BECAUSE CURRENT TARIFFS (AUTHORIZED TO BE USED IN SECTION 25 OF JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT NO. 29) PROVIDE THROUGH FREIGHT ROUTES IN WHICH ONLY PUEBLO, COLORADO, APPEARS AS THE POINT OF INTERCHANGE WITH YOUR COMPANY, WHEREAS THE SHIPMENTS ACTUALLY MOVED OVER PASSENGER ROUTES IN WHICH YOUR COMPANY PARTICIPATED ONLY BETWEEN ROCKY AND DENVER. IN SUBSTANCE YOU URGE THAT THE BILLS OF LADING IN THESE CASES CONTAIN ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS VIA DENVER, AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE FREIGHT RATES MUST BE COMPUTED VIA THE BILL OF LADING ROUTE, AND NOT VIA PUEBLO. WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE HELD THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, AND SECTION 25 OF JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT NO. 29, THE CHARGE BETWEEN ROCKY AND THE VARIOUS POINTS OF ORIGIN OR DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENTS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY ASCERTAINING WHAT THE CHARGE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE SHIPMENTS ACTUALLY MOVED IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE. IN OTHER WORDS, A SHIPMENT MOVING IN FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED VIA PUEBLO, COLORADO. UPON THIS BASIS, THE PASSENGER ROUTE ACTUALLY TRAVELED IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CHARGES.

WE ARRIVED AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION AS TO THE METHOD OF DETERMINING CHARGES FOR THIS TYPE OF SHIPMENT UPON OUR UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SECTION 22 QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, AND THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT, ALSO ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. 22. THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION QUOTATION ISSUED BY THE VARIOUS PASSENGER CARRIER ASSOCIATIONS ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEMBERS (INCLUDING THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY) OFFERED TO TRANSPORT IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE BETWEEN ANY UNITED STATES POINTS, ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 1951, SHIPMENTS OF ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION TRAINING MATERIAL IN CERTAIN GOVERNMENT--- OWNED CARS UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND AT THE SAME RATES AS THOSE AVAILABLE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE.

TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA IS ORDINARILY AVAILABLE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE AT CLASS RATES (FOR EXAMPLE: ITEM 69050, UNIFORM FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 4, PROVIDES A LESS-CARLOAD RATING OF FIRST CLASS AND A CARLOAD RATING OF THIRD CLASS, SUBJECT TO A CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 24,000 POUNDS). HOWEVER, THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT SERIES, ENTERED INTO BY WAY OF AN OFFER FROM THE AGENTS OF THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS TO THE MILITARY AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LATTER, MADE AVAILABLE, IN SECTION 25 THEREOF, THE PRIVILEGE OF SHIPPING MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA WITH TROOPS OR IN CONNECTION WITH TROOP MOVEMENTS IN MIXED FREIGHT-PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE OR IN REGULAR PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE. AS YOU POINTED OUT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IS NOT A PARTY TO JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT NO. 29. BUT THE CARRIER QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, OFFERED TO TRANSPORT THE TRAINING MATERIAL UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND AT THE SAME RATES AS THOSE AVAILABLE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA, THUS BRINGING INTO OPERATION THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT. FURTHERMORE, IN PRACTICALLY EVERY INSTANCE OF THE TYPE OF MOVEMENT HERE CONSIDERED THE BILL OF LADING, ON ITS FACE, MAKES SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT AND THE JULY 1, 1951 QUOTATION, AS AUTHORITY FOR THE CHARGE BASIS FOR THESE MOVEMENTS.

THE SUBPARAGRAPHS OF SECTION 25 WHICH GOVERN THE DETERMINATION OF CHARGES FOR SHIPMENTS SUCH AS THOSE UNDER DISCUSSION HERE, IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

"/E) THE PASSENGER DEPARTMENTS OF THE CARRIERS HAVE AGREED WITH THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES THAT WHEN MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA, OTHER THAN CERTAIN ARTICLES WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE FREE BAGGAGE ALLOWANCE UNDER THE BAGGAGE TARIFFS OF THE CARRIERS, IS TRANSPORTED IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE WITH TROOPS, OR IN CONNECTION WITH TROOP MOVEMENTS HANDLED IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES THEREFOR WILL BE THE SAME AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS AS WOULD APPLY IF THE SHIPMENT WERE MADE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE UNDER CURRENT TARIFFS AND AGREEMENTS WITH THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RULES COVERING LOADING AND PACKING, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO COLLECTION OF PASSENGER SWITCHING CHARGES, * * * (THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF THE PASSENGER SWITCHING CHARGES HAS NOT BEEN RAISED HERE; WE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE CHARGES WERE BILLED AND PAID SEPARATELY FROM THE LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.)

"/G) THE ARRANGEMENT AND BASIS FOR CHARGES SET FORTH HEREIN FOR MOVEMENT OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE APPLIES OVER ALL LINES AND ROUTES VIA WHICH THE MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA MOVES IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE.'

THE UNDERSCORED LANGUAGE IN SUBPARAGRAPH (E) SPECIFIES THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGE FOR HAULING MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE: IT IS TO BE THE CHARGE COMPUTED AT THE FREIGHT RATE PROVIDED IN CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE FREIGHT TARIFFS OR AGREEMENTS FOR APPLICATION TO A LIKE SHIPMENT CARRIED IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE--- THE SAME AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS AS IF THE SHIPMENT WERE MADE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE UNDER CURRENT TARIFFS AND AGREEMENTS; IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME CHARGES AS WOULD APPLY ON A SHIPMENT IN FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE, WHICH WOULD BE VIA PUEBLO, COLORADO. MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REGULATION AR 55-355, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES, IN PARAGRAPH 214027/C), EFFECTIVE AT TIME OF THESE SHIPMENTS, THAT JUNCTION POINTS WILL NOT BE SHOWN IN ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING, EXCEPT IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT APPLICABLE TO LESS THAN CARLOAD SHIPMENTS. IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS THE CARRIERS' DUTY TO OBSERVE ROUTING VIA PUEBLO, OR TO PROTECT THE CHARGES VIA THAT ROUTE. THE UNDERSCORED LANGUAGE IN SUBPARAGRAPH (G) MAKES THIS CHARGE BASIS APPLICABLE VIA THE ROUTE THE SHIPMENT ACTUALLY MOVES IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE.

THE ONLY "REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE" (REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH (E) OF SECTION 25) IN WHICH A SHIPMENT COULD MOVE WOULD BE THAT PROVIDED VIA A DULY AUTHORIZED FREIGHT ROUTE PUBLISHED IN A CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE TARIFF AND APPLICABLE BETWEEN THE ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT. COMPUTE THE APPLICABLE CHARGE, THEREFORE, IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THAT THERE IS NOT ONLY A FREIGHT RATE BUT ALSO A FREIGHT ROUTE IN A CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE TARIFF OVER WHICH THE CARRIERS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT TO PROVIDE FREIGHT SERVICE BETWEEN THE ORIGIN AND DESTINATION. WHEN THAT RATE IS APPLIED TO THE WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT, THE RESULTING "AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS" IS THE CHARGE WHICH APPLIES "OVER ALL LINES AND ROUTES VIA WHICH (THE SHIPMENT) MOVES IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE.'

THUS, AS TO THE SHIPMENT OF 4,455 POUNDS OF TRAINING MATERIAL TRANSPORTED ON BILL OF LADING AT-171356 FROM MORRIS, LOUISIANA, TO ROCKY, COLORADO, WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO THROUGH FREIGHT ROUTE--- AND THEREFORE NO "REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE" FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION VIA THE STOPOVER POINT SHOWN IN IN THE BILL OF LADING. THERE WERE, HOWEVER, SEVERAL FREIGHT ROUTES--- AND THEREFORE "REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE"--- FROM THE ORIGIN TO COPPERAS COVE AND KILLEEN, TEXAS, AND FROM THOSE POINTS TO ROCKY. SOUTHWESTERN LINES FREIGHT ROUTING GUIDE NO. 292, I.C.C. NO. 4091, PROVIDES FIVE DIFFERENT FREIGHT ROUTES TO COPPERAS COVE AND KILLEEN AND THREE ROUTES BEYOND TO ROCKY. ACCORDINGLY, WE COMPUTED THE CHARGE FOR A SHIPMENT OF 4,455 POUNDS OF TRAINING MATERIAL MADE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE FROM THE ORIGIN POINT TO COPPERAS COVE AT THE FIRST CLASS LESS CARLOAD RATE OF $2.79 PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN SOUTHWESTERN LINES FREIGHT TARIFF NO. SW-1004, I.C.C. NO. 3998, SUPPLEMENT 85, AND IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE FROM COPPERAS COVE TO ROCKY AT THE FIRST LESS CARLOAD RATE OF $4.46 PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN SOUTHWESTERN LINES FREIGHT TARIFF NO. SW/W-1006, I.C.C. NO. 3999, SUPPLEMENT 93. DENVER IS THE BASING POINT FOR ROCKY UNDER NATIONAL RATE BASES TARIFF NO. 1-A, I.C.C. NO. 4211, AND SINCE BOTH A FREIGHT ROUTE AND A THROUGH FREIGHT RATE ARE PROVIDED IN THE TARIFFS FROM COPPERAS COVE TO ROCKY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDING THE LOCAL RATE OF $1.02 FROM DENVER TO ROCKY. THE RESULT OF THAT COMPUTATION, $322.99, IS "THE SAME AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS" AUTHORIZED AS THE CHARGE FOR TRANSPORTING THE SHIPMENT IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 25/E) OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT AND IT APPLIES OVER THE BILL OF LADING ROUTE, THE "LINES AND ROUTES VIA WHICH (THE SHIPMENT) MOVES IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE," AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 25/G).

ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE COMMENTED UPON OUR BASIS AS REQUIRING "EQUALIZATION OF ROUTING" AND STATE THAT IT IS A MISAPPLICATION OF SECTION 7 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT, CONCERNING EQUALIZATION OF LOWEST NET FARES VIA USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTES, THE ABOVE EXPLANATION SHOWS OTHERWISE. HAVE FOLLOWED THE LITERAL MEANING OF SUBPARAGRAPH (E) AND (G) OF SECTION 25, DETERMINING THE AMOUNTS IN DOLLARS AND CENTS WHICH WOULD APPLY HAD THE SHIPMENT BEEN MADE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE UNDER CURRENT TARIFFS AND USING THAT AMOUNT AS THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGE WHICH THEN APPLIES OVER THE LINES AND ROUTES THE SHIPMENT ACTUALLY MOVED IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE. THIS BASIS, HOWEVER, IS PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE TRAINING MATERIAL; FARES FOR ACCOMPANYING COURIERS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, NOR BY SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT. WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THIS IS THE MEANING OF SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT, REFERRED TO ON THE BILLS OF LADING, AND WE POINT OUT THAT OUR POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER FOR ACCOUNTING OF THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN A LETTER TO US DATED APRIL 5, 1963 (QUOTED ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF OUR DECISION TO YOU OF FEBRUARY 11, 1964, B- 149821, YOUR BILL 27639) THAT: "REGULAR TARIFF CHARGES APPLY TO THE FREIGHT CARRIED IN THE CAR AT THE STATED WEIGHTS. SCHEDULING DICTATES WHETHER A CAR MOVES IN PASSENGER OR FREIGHT SERVICE, BUT THE COST IS THE SAME UNDER EITHER MOVEMENT.' WERE WE TO FOLLOW THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE CHARGES WHICH YOU URGE, AND MAKE A COMBINATION OF THE FREIGHT RATES APPLICABLE VIA THE PASSENGER ROUTE THE SHIPMENT ACTUALLY MOVED, WE WOULD NOT BE FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (E) OF SECTION 25, BECAUSE SUCH A COMBINATION OF RATES VIA THE PASSENGER ROUTE ACTUALLY USED WOULD NOT BE "THE SAME AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS AS WOULD APPLY IF THE SHIPMENT WERE MADE IN REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE," THERE BEING NO REGULAR FREIGHT TRAIN SERVICE VIA THE PASSENGER ROUTE USED.

YOU ALSO CONTEND THAT PARAGRAPH (E) OF SECTION 25 SETS FORTH A BASIS OF CHARGES ON MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA ONLY WHEN SUCH IMPEDIMENTA IS MOVING WITH TROOPS, OR IN CONNECTION WITH TROOP MOVEMENTS. YOU SUGGEST THAT SINCE THE SUBJECT SHIPMENTS ARE NOT MOVING WITH TROOPS, OR IN CONNECTION WITH TROOP MOVEMENTS, THE BASIS PROVIDED IN SECTION 25 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THESE MOVEMENTS.

THIS POSITION LOSES SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES FIRST REACHED AN AGREEMENT IN THE SECTION 22 QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, THAT THE TRAINING MATERIAL WOULD BE TRANSPORTED UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND RATES APPLICABLE TO MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA. SINCE THIS IS PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA IN PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE MUST BE PROTECTED. THE ONLY ARRANGEMENT MADE FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION SEEMS TO BE THAT SET FORTH IN SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REFERENCE TO MOVEMENTS OF MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA WITH TROOPS OR IN CONNECTION WITH TROOP MOVEMENTS, THE QUOTATION OF JULY 1, 1951, EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE MILITARY IMPEDIMENTA CHARGE IS APPLICABLE TO TRAINING MATERIAL. TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT THAT SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THESE MOVEMENTS, THE BILLS OF LADING IN EACH INSTANCE DESCRIBE THE SHIPMENTS AS TRAINING MATERIAL AND SPECIFICALLY REFER TO THE JULY 1, 1951, QUOTATION AND SECTION 25 OF THE JOINT MILITARY PASSENGER AGREEMENT AS AUTHORITY FOR COMPUTING THE APPLICABLE CHARGES.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST AGAIN CONCLUDE THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS CORRECT AS MADE AND THE DECISION OF JANUARY 2, 1964, IS AFFIRMED.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR POINT THAT ON SHIPMENTS IN FREIGHT SERVICE, YOUR COMPANY PARTICIPATES IN THROUGH RATES TO ROCKY ONLY WHEN IT RECEIVES THE TRAFFIC AT PUEBLO, WHEREAS ON THE PASSENGER ROUTE TRAVELED, YOUR COMPANY IS SHORT-HAULED, PERFORMING SERVICE ONLY BETWEEN DENVER AND ROCKY. POINT OUT THAT THIS SHORT-HAUL IS COMPENSATED BY THE CHARGE OF $280 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN ROCKY AND DENVER AUTHORIZED IN YOUR QUOTATION OF JANUARY 1, 1959; ALSO, A MINIMUM OF 10 FARES IS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH EACH CAR, EVEN IF NO COURIER ACCOMPANIES THE SHIPMENT AT ALL. IF MORE THAN SIX COURIERS ARE ABOARD, ONE FARE (IN ADDITION TO THE TEN FARE MINIMUM) IS CHARGED FOR EACH COURIER OVER SIX, AND YOUR COMPANY RECEIVES ITS PORTION OF THESE FARES.

YOU ALSO INQUIRE, IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 2, 1964, CONCERNING THE APPLICATION TO THIS CASE OF PROCEDURES EXPLAINED IN OUR LETTER TO YOU OF FEBRUARY 15, 1962, B-147976. THAT LETTER REPLIED TO YOURS OF JANUARY 11, 1962, FILE 5 GB-27443, REQUESTING OUR REVIEW OF AUDIT ACTION IN OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION WHICH RESULTED IN THE ISSUANCE TO YOUR COMPANY OF A NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE (FORM 1003). WE INFORMED YOU THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DOES NOT ORDINARILY REVIEW STATEMENTS OF EXCESS CHARGES AND DEDUCTIONS; THAT WE WERE REFERRING YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 11, 1962, TO OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FOR FINAL ACTION THERE; AND WE ADVISED YOU HOW TO PROCEED TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF SUCH FINAL ACTION, SHOULD YOU BE DISSATISFIED. YOU LATER REQUESTED REVIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION AND WE ADVISED YOU OF OUR CONCLUSIONS THEREON IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 28, 1964, B-147976.

IN THE PRESENT CASE, YOU WROTE TO US JUNE 13, 1963, FILE 5 GB 27346, ASKING US TO REVIEW THE OVERCHARGE ON BILL OF LADING AT-171356, CLAIMED ON A NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE ISSUED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION MARCH 29, 1960, WHICH YOU REFUNDED AND THEN LATER RECLAIMED IN PART. YOUR CLAIM HAD BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE IN CLAIM TK-703818, DATED JUNE 29, 1961 (SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 1 OF YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 13, 1963). THAT SETTLEMENT CONSTITUTED FINAL ACTION BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION; UNDER OUR PROCEDURES, YOU WERE ENTITLED TO THE REVIEW REQUESTED; WE PERFORMED THAT REVIEW AND ADVISED YOU OF OUR CONCLUSIONS IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 2, 1964, B-151820. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN B-147976 HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED AND OUR HANDLING OF YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 13, 1963, IN THIS CASE, WAS CONSISTENT WITH SUCH PROCEDURES.