No. 36314 PETITION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDING TO AMEND Decided July 22, 1977 Upon investigation and consideration of the petition, the views. arguments and representations of the parties participating in this rulemaking proceeding, rule applicable to information required on receipts and bills of common carriers by motor vehicle subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission, modified to require indication of one carrier address. Appropriate order entered. R. E. Allish, Norman R. Benke, Pansy Beroth, Robert E. Born, Harvie A. Carter, Paul J. Conley, Jr., Robert C. Dryden, David F. Eshelman, William C. Harris, Thomas M. Hummer, Everett Hutchinson, Zane R. Johnsonbaugh, S. Harrison Kahn, Alfred G. Krebs, K. B. Langford, Wayland Little, Ralph B. Matthews, Elmer J. Maue, J. Michael May, Jay C. Miner, Thomas D. O'Connor, J. H. Orr, M. K. Paxton, James R. Ponsot, Wm. R. Power, John M. Records, C. A. Reed, Larry J. Schwarz, Irving R. Segal, Henry H. Sherrill, Jr., and C. H. Swanson for respondents. Nelson J. Cooney, Michael Gallagher, Robert L. James, F. H. Lynch, G. D. Michalson, George H. Mundell, Charles Munsch, Todd A. Peterman, and Norman Powell for participating carrier associations. O. E. Andersen, R. W. Bauer, Russell A. Maxfield, and C. F. Rowe for participating shippers. Raynard F. Bohman, Jr., and Myron Smith for participating shipper associations. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION BY THE COMMISSION: Upon petition by Emmett Allred, sole proprietor of Allred's House of Quality, a retail furniture store located in Cullman, Ala., this proceeding was instituted on April 28, 1976, by notice of proposed rulemaking and order, published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1976 (41 F.R. 19230), to determine whether the words "and the address of the principal place of business of each carrier" should be required following the phrase "the route of movement indicating each carrier" and preceding the phrase "participating in the transportation service," found in 49 U.S.C. 1051.1(b), or other regulation of similar purport applicable to common carriers of property by motor vehicle subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, and for the purpose of taking such other and further action as the facts and circumstances may justify and require. The petitioner (supported by 16 merchants of Cullman), did not file any pleadings beyond his petition. The petition alleges receipt of merchandise from Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. (Ryder), which was later found to be damaged. Ryder does not include on its freight bills the address of its principal place of business or any other address to which damage claims may be submitted. Petitioner asserts that he has been forced to absorb losses because he could not discover the address of the carrier in order to submit damage claims within the prescribed time limitations. According to petitioner, "[R]equiring carriers to print their name and principal place of business or address to which claims should be submitted on each freight bill would facilitate the prompt filing of damage claims, and would prevent recipients of freight from absorbing losses caused by the carrier." Petitioner prays for the amendment of 49 CFR §1051.1(b) to require, additionally, that "both the carrier's name and address appear on the freight bill so that the recipient of merchandise will be able to contact the carrier in the event that a damage claim must be filed." While, as noted, the petitioner has filed no further pleadings, the initial statement of the Southern Motor Carriers' Rate Conference contains, as appendix A-2, a letter of petitioner to one of the members of the Conference, stating: "All I am asking for is the address of the delivering carrier. I do not want the addresses of all contributing (or interchanging) carriers." REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PARTIES Thirty-six initial statements were filed, four of them by individual shippers, two by groups of shippers, five by motor carrier associations, and the balance by individual motor carriers. Seven reply statements were filed. The parties filing these statements are, for the most part, opposed to requiring the addresses of carriers other than the one issuing the freight bill. It is pointed out that under section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act and 49 CFR 1005.2 claims need not be made on any but the receiving or delivering carrier, and that no purpose would be served by including in the freight bill the addresses of any other carriers. The statements described the heavy burdens imposed by this requirement. Essentially, a freight bill is approximately one-third to one-half the size of a standard letterhead, with no room for the inclusion of the addresses of connecting carriers. Further, the identity of these carriers may not be known at the time of issuance. To change the size of the freight bill would, according to several of the parties, make it physically incompatible with electronic data processing. Addition of the connecting carriers' addresses would greatly increase clerical costs in billing. The American Trucking Associations, Inc., make the point that furnishing connecting carrier information may be postitively harmful: "Section 20(11) assures the claimant that his claim will be satisfied if properly filed with the originating or delivering carrier. This section does not compel the claimant to file against these carriers, nor does it preclude filing a claim with an intermediate carrier under common law principles. But if the claimant does file with an intermediate carrier, he must affirmatively show that that carrier caused the loss or damage. It is not difficult to imagine the uninitiated claimant, given a list of numerous carriers which participated in the movement, filing a claim with an intermediate carrier only to subsequently discover that he cannot carry his burden of proof." This party then concludes: "The regulated motor carrier industry is a practical industry which owes much of its success to its ability to respond and solve the problems encountered in moving goods throughout this Nation. The industry has been greatly assisted in its endeavors to solve problems by rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission which recognizes the practical-operational characteristics of the industry. Rules and regulations which seek to balance the interests and desires of interested parties are generally both reasonable and helpful to carriers and those whom they serve." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The record does not support a requirement that connecting carriers addresses appear on freight bills. Accordingly, that aspect of the proposal will not be considered further. According to the representations of the parties, 90 percent of the carriers issuing freight bills indicate either the address of their own principal place of businesses, or a "remittance address," generally that of a local or regional terminal, or, occasionally, both addresses. Among the carriers not furnishing addresses are those using bank plans in their credit collections. Most of the parties feel that the use of one address, either the principal place of business or a remittance address, is sound business practice. A few parties would welcome, additionally, a telephone number, and the shipper's control number. We have no objection to this information being included on the freight bill. However, a need to prescribe these additional requirements has not been established. A telephone call is not a valid substitute for a written claim, notice, since 49 CFR §1005.2(a) requires claims to be in writing. The parties indicate that the form generally used to acknowledge claims pursuant to 49 CFR $1005.3 usually includes a telephone number. As to the shipper's control number, a need therefor has not been established on this record. It has been suggested that the effective date of any requirement herein be extended to 180 days after the date of service, to allow exhaustion of current inventories of freight bills. Since we conclude that the freight bill should not be required to show more than one address, either a remittance address or a principal place of business, at the issuer's choice, since this represents the practice of 90 percent of the carriers, and since the requirement can be met by the use of a rubber stamp, we see no necessity to postpone the effectiveness of the addition to the rule for such an extended period of time. FINDINGS We find that part 1051 of Chapter X of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations should be amended by modifying section 1051.1(b) as set forth in the order; that such rules are reasonable and necessary to effectuate the public interest and to the effective enforcement of part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and that such rules are otherwise lawful; that except to the extent granted herein, the petition of Emmett Allred for modification of section 1051.1(b) should be denied; and that this decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. An appropriate order will be entered. At a General Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 22nd day of July 1977. No. 36314 PETITION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDING TO AMEND It appearing. That by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dated April 28, 1976, as amended, the Commission instituted a proceeding, upon petition of Emmett Allred, to determine whether 49 CFR $1051.1(b) should be amended as described in the attached report; and that notice of the filing of this petition was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1976, inviting all interested persons to submit written statements on the subject or any other subjects pertaining to this proceeding; And it further appearing. That investigation of the matters and things involved in this poceeding has been made and that the Commission has made and filed its report herein containing its findings of facts and conclusions thereon, which report is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; It is ordered, That part 1051 of Chapter X of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations be, and it is hereby, amended by modifying section 1051.1(b) thereof as follows: By adding as the words, between the words "shipment moved;" and "and a record", the following: "either the address where remittance must be made or the address of the principal place of business of the issuer of the freight or expense bill, or both, at the issuer's option:". It is further ordered. That the petition of Emmett Allred, except to the extent granted herein, be, and it is hereby, denied. And it is further ordered. That this order shall become effective 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of this modification of the regulations and shall remain in effect until modified or revoked in whole or in part by further order of the Commission. And it is further ordered, That notice of this order shall be given to the general public by depositing a copy thereof in the Office of the Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission at Washington, D.C., and by filing a copy of the attached notice with the Director, Office of the Federal Register. (49 U.S.C. 301, 302, 304, 316, 317, 318, and 319, 5 U.S.C. 552, 553, and 559.) |