Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. U.S., s. 83-1581
| Decision Date | 29 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | 83-1761 and 83-1973,Nos. 83-1581,83-1740,s. 83-1581 |
| Parties | , 53 USLW 2473 CENTRAL & SOUTHERN MOTOR FREIGHT TARIFF ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Regular Common Carrier Conference, Inc., American Trucking Associations, Inc., Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association, Inc., Interstate Carriers Conference, Groendyke Transport, Inc., Intervenors. HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS' BUREAU, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Groendyke Transport, Inc., Intervenor. The EASTERN CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and the Regular Common Carrier Conference, Inc., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., et al., International Transport, Inc., Refrigerated International Cargo Haulers, Inc., Groendyke Transport, Inc., Youngblood Transportation Systems, Inc., Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., Central Transport, Inc., Fresh Express, Inc., et al., Allstate Carriers, Inc., et al., Schneider Transport, Inc., et al., DSI Transports, Inc., Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Association, Inc., et al., J.R.S. Leasing Charter, Inc., L.R.C. Truck Lines, Inc., Carnaco Transport, Inc., Riverside Transportation, Inc., Quality Operations, Inc., R.B.C. Transportation, Inc., Southern Motor Carrier Rate Conference, Clearfield Transportation Company, Inc., Miller Transporters, Inc., Allied Van Lines, Inc., Intervenors. The EASTERN CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Donald E. Cross, Thomas Auchincloss and Elliott Bunce, Washington, D.C., with whom Bryce Rea, Jr., Washington, D.C., John W. McFadden, Jr., Arlington, Va., John C. Bradley, J. Curtis Bradley, III, Kim D. Mann, Great Falls, Va., and Kevin M. Williams, Washington, D.C., were on the joint brief, for petitioners/intervenors in Nos. 83-1581, 83-1740, 83-1761 and 83-1973. Patrick McEligot, William Kenworthy, F.H. Lynch, Jr., William W. Pugh, Robert A. Wilson and Leo C. Franey, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioners/intervenors.
Craig M. Keats, Atty. I.C.C., Washington, D.C., with whom John Broadley, General Counsel, and Ellen D. Hanson, Associate General Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, and Robert B. Nicholson and John P. Fonte, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents.
Charles H. White, Jr., Washington, D.C., for intervenor Refrigerated International Cargo Haulers, Inc. in No. 83-1761.
Alvin J. Meiklejohn, Jr., Denver, Colo., was on the brief for intervenor Groendyke Transport, Inc. in Nos. 83-1581, 83-1740, 83-1761 and 83-1973.
Edward J. Kiley, William H. Shawn, Alan J. Thiemann and Robert R. Harris, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenors Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., et al. in No. 83-1761. Robert R. Harris entered an appearance for intervenor Allied Van Lines, Inc. in No. 83-1761.
Thomas A. Callaghan, Jr. and Frederic D. Houghteling, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor Interstate Carriers Conference in No. 83-1581.
William H. Borghesani, Jr., Michael F. Morrone and Timothy Brown, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenors Carnaco Transport, Inc., et al. in No. 83-1761.
Daniel C. Sullivan and Vyta P. Ambutus, Chicago, Ill., were on the brief for intervenors Schneider Transport, Inc., et al. in No. 83-1761.
E. Stephen Heisley and Lester R. Gutman, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenors Central Transport, et al. in No. 83-1761.
Richard B. Felder, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for intervenor International Transport in No. 83-1761.
Marshall Kragen, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for intervenors Allstate Carriers, et al. in No. 83-1761.
Harold D. Miller, Jr., Jackson, Miss., was on the brief for Miller Transporters in No. 83-1761.
Nelson J. Cooney and Kenneth E. Seigal, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor American Trucking Associations, Inc. in No. 83-1581.
Charles Ephraim and James F. Flint, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Youngblood Trucklines in No. 83-1761.
Leonard R. Kofkin, Chicago, Ill., entered an appearance for intervenor Central Transport, Inc. in No. 83-1761.
Ronald N. Cobert and Robert L. Cope, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for intervenor Fresh Express, Inc., et al. in No. 83-1761.
Joseph Winter, Atlanta, Ga., entered an appearance for intervenor J.R.S. Leasing Charter, Inc. in No. 83-1761.
Mark J. Andrews, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor Clearfield Transportation Company, Inc. in No. 83-1761.
Kevin M. Williams, Arlington, Va., entered an appearance for intervenor Regular Common Carrier Conference, Inc. in No. 83-1581.
Before WRIGHT and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and WILKEY, * Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
This appeal consolidates four petitions to set aside, in whole or in part, orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission exempting motor contract carriers of property from the Motor Carrier Act's requirements to file tariffs. We uphold the Commission's statutory authority to relieve motor contract carriers from the tariff-filing requirements. We also find reasonable the Commission's use of that authority to exempt all such carriers of property. Because we affirm the Commission's decision to exempt all such carriers, we do not separately examine the Commission's orders relating to exemptions of individual carriers.
Under the Motor Carrier Act as amended, 1 motor contract carriers are required to file tariffs stating their actual and minimum rates. 2 3
The Motor Carrier Act also authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission to exempt contract (but not common) carriers from the tariff-filing requirements. The exemption available to contract carriers appears in title 49 of the United States Code as follows:
The Commission may grant relief from ... [this section or subsection to contract carriers] when relief is consistent with the public interest and the transportation policy of section 10101 of this title. The Commission may begin a proceeding under this section [or subsection] on application of a contract carrier or group of contract carriers.... 5
Although Congress has amended the original Motor Carrier Act several times since 1935 (as will be discussed in more detail below), the tariff-filing requirements and the Commission's accompanying exemption power have remained intact.
In order to keep separate the four petitions consolidated in this action, we present the factual material under the case caption to which it relates.
In 1981, following passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, the Interstate Commerce Commission demonstrated a marked change in its attitude toward exemption of motor contract carriers from the tariff-filing requirements. The Commission had addressed the scope of its exemption authority only three times between 1935 and 1980. 6 In the following three years, however, it exercised its long-dormant power more often than it had in the first forty-five years of that provision's existence. 7
As the pace of tariff-filing exemptions quickened, the demands for exemption extended to broader, class-wide relief. In June 1982 the staff of the Federal Trade Commission asked the Commission to institute a rulemaking proceeding to consider eliminating the tariff-filing requirements for all motor contract carriers. 8 On 29 July 1982 the Contract Carrier Conference of the American Trucking Association (now the Interstate Carriers Conference) applied for the same class-wide relief. 9
The Commission responded by initiating a legislative-type rulemaking proceeding in a notice issued 12 December 1982. 10 In that notice the Commission tentatively decided to promulgate an exemption for all motor contract carriers, both of property and of persons. 11
After considering initial and reply comments on its analysis in January and February of 1983, the agency served a final decision on 27 May 1983. 12 That decision exempted motor contract carriers of property from filing rate schedules with the Commission. 13 Petitioners and intervening petitioners in No. 83-1581 challenged the statutory authority and record support for the Commission's broad exemption by filing a petition in this court on 3 June 1983. 14 The Household Goods Carriers' Bureau filed a separate petition, denominated No. 83-1740, to remove carriage of household goods from the broad exemption even if the Commission's decision is otherwise upheld. 15
The Commission's new attitude toward granting exemptions from the tariff-filing requirements did not go unnoticed. After the spring of 1982, when the agency granted a final exemption to UTF Carriers, Inc., 16 the Commission was inundated with hundreds of exemption applications from individual motor contract carriers. In order to cope with the flood of applications, the Commission streamlined its decisionmaking process by abbreviating the notice given, by shortening the pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
......, New York, for The Shippers National Freight Claim Council, Inc. . Appeal ... instituted an action to collect interstate motor common . Page 1018 . carrier freight ... the published rate contained in the tariff filed by West Coast and the rate . Page 1019 . ...853 (1915); see also Southern Pac. Transp. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 U.S. ...v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, 65, 44 S.Ct. 441, ......
-
Maislin Industries Inc v. Primary Steel, Inc
...... The Interstate Commerce Act (Act) requires motor common carriers to publish their rates in tariffs ... From 1981 to 1983, Quinn Freight Lines, a motor common carrier and a subsidiary of ... defenses to collection of the filed tariff, see, e.g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 ... with §§ 10761 and 10762 is utterly central to the administration of the Act, and, by ... This case requires us to determine the validity of a policy recently ... See Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. . . Page 121 . ...Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Assn., Inc. v. United States, 244 U.S.App.D.C. 226, ......
-
E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 940078
...... judgment denying it collection of unpaid freight charges from Menard, Inc. (Menard). Because ... a contract with Wylie, an interstate motor carrier based in Fargo, to transport the lumber ...Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, 70, 44 S.Ct. 441, ... him for the unpaid balance of the lawful tariff rate. Although the consignor and consignee had ... proper charges for services performed." Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 456 ......
-
Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25 v. Smith, 84-5859
...... submitted by aliens from Latin American, Central American, and Caribbean countries is a former ... of the challenged action.' " Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Ass'n v. United States, 757 ... are "without adequate shape or form to permit us to judge the potential dispute." The opinion ......