Zantop Air Transport, Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 21 December 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 25662.
• Citation: 250 F. Supp. 623
• Parties: ZANTOP AIR TRANSPORT, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Intervening Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

250 F. Supp. 623

ZANTOP AIR TRANSPORT, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Intervening Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 25662.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

December 21, 1965.

Arthur P. Boynton, Wilhelmina Boersma, of Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons & Prewitt, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff, Zantop.

Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Dist. Atty., Robert F. Ritzenhein, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for the United States.

Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, Leonard S. Goodman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.

John H. D. Wigger, Joe F. Nowlin, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Department of Justice.

Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and SMITH and MACHROWICZ, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal under provisions of Secs. 1336, 2321 through 2325 of Title 28, U.S. Code and Secs. 17(9) and 305 (g) and (h), Title 49 U.S.C. from the decision and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) in the matter of Zantop Air Transport, Inc. Investigation of Operations, Docket MC-C-3871 dated June 30, 1964. The matter was submitted to this Court upon facts which are not in dispute.

The Commission had previously instituted an investigation of the operations performed by the plaintiff company with its own motor vehicles between the Greater Wilmington Airport near Wilmington, Delaware, and two plants of General Motors Corporation in Baltimore, Maryland, a distance of fifty-seven (57) miles by air and sixty-five (65) miles by highway.

For approximately one (1) year prior to the commencement of the investigative proceedings, the plaintiff, an air contract carrier, had been operating its truck to deliver and pick up shipments at the Baltimore General Motors plants that were transported in plaintiff's aircraft to or from the Greater Wilmington Airport.

The investigation was for the purpose of determining whether or not plaintiff was engaged in the transportation of property in interstate commerce for compensation as a common or contract carrier by motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act in violation of Sections 206 (a) (pertaining to common motor carriers) and 209(a) (pertaining to contract motor carriers) of said Act.

The hearing was held before Joint Board No. 40 of the Commission, which found:

a. That transportation of property by motor vehicle, having a prior or subsequent movement by air, between the Greater Wilmington Airport, near Wilmington, Delaware, on the one hand, and, on the other, Baltimore, Maryland, is not within the partial exemption provided by Sec. 203(b) (7a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, but is a separate line haul motor carrier operation for which authority is required under the Act, and

b. That plaintiff has been and is engaged in the transportation of property between the Greater Wilmington Airport, near Wilmington, Delaware, and Baltimore, Maryland, in interstate or foreign commerce as a for-hire carrier by motor vehicle, without appropriate authority, in violation of Sec. 203(c) 206(a) and 209(a) of the Act.

Plaintiff filed with the Commission exceptions to this Report and Order of the Joint Board. The Commission subsequently issued its Decision and Order in effect affirming the decision of the Joint Board and adopting its findings but making no additional findings of fact. Plaintiff was ordered by the Commission to cease and desist operating its motor vehicles between the Wilmington Airport and Baltimore.

Plaintiff's petition for leave to file a petition for reconsideration of the decision and order, and for stay of the effective date thereof, was denied and these proceedings were then started. After this appeal was commenced the Commission issued an order staying the effective date of the decision and order indefinitely. This order is still in effect.

The issues raised by the pleadings, the briefs and the oral arguments, are as follows:

I. Does the Commission have jurisdiction over the motor vehicle operation of the plaintiff when there had been some prior or subsequent movement by aircraft?

II. Was the Commission required to make a finding as to whether plaintiff's operations were those of a common carrier or contract carrier?

III. Is the plaintiff's motor vehicle operation within the definition of the types of motor carrier required to obtain authority from the Commission?

I.

Plaintiff contends that Sec. 203(b) (7a), enacted as part of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, excludes economic regulation of motor transportation which is a minor activity incident to the main purpose of the main business of the plaintiff, it being conceded that the main business of the plaintiff, insofar as the operations here involved are concerned, is the shipment of goods between Detroit, Michigan, and the Baltimore, Maryland area. Plaintiff implies that the Civil Aeronautics Board has exclusive jurisdiction over motor service of an air common carrier.

In Air Dispatch, Inc. et al. v. United States, et al., U.S.D.C., E.D.Pa., 237 F. Supp. 450, decided December 22, 1964, the three-judge Court noted that

"It cannot conceivably be argued * * * that where railroads or buses are used in connection with air transportation the (Civil Aeronautics) Board would have the jurisdiction to regulate this movement of property."

It agreed with the Court of Appeals in City of Philadelphia v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 104, 289 F.2d 770, in which the Court

"cited with approval the Board's Order disclaiming jurisdiction and indicating the Commission should determine if the * * * haul is incidental and exempt."

Sec. 203(a) (10) of the Act provides as follows:

"The term `interstate commerce' means commerce between any place in a State and any place in another State or between places in the same State through another State, whether such commerce moves wholly by motor vehicle or partly by motor vehicle and partly by rail, express or water."

The Interstate Commerce Act has been characterized as remedial and exceptions thereto are to be narrowly construed. Crescent Express Lines v. United States, 320 U.S. 401, 409, 64 S.Ct. 167, 88 L.Ed. 127.

Though Congress did not specifically refer in Sec. 203(a)(10) to air service, it should be kept in mind that when this section was adopted, in the 1930's, air transportation was then considered essentially "express service".

It is the view of this Court that the Commission clearly has jurisdiction over the motor vehicle operations of the...