(10) Cement, in bulk from the plantsite of the Lehigh Portland Cement Company located at Plainfield, Ill., to points in Indiana and Wisconsin. (11) Cement, in bulk from the plantsite of the Lehigh Portland Cement Company located at South Beloit, Ill., to points in Wisconsin. (12) Cement from the plantsite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company located at Fargo, N.D., to points in 41 described counties in Minnesota and 16 described counties in South Dakota. (13) Cement, in bulk from the plantsite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company at Baltimore, Md., to points in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. (14) Cement from the plantsite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to points in Wisconsin and Illinois. (15) Cement from the plansite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company at Anderson, Ind., to points in Ohio and Kentucky. (16) Cement from Metaline Falls, Wash., to points in 6 described counties in Idaho, 9 counties in Montana and Umatilla County, Oreg. (17) Cement from Spokane, Wash., to ports of entry on the United States-Canada international boundary line in that part of Washington on and east of U.S. Highway 97 and to points in Umatilla County, Oreg. (18) Cement from the plantsite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company at Mason City, Iowa, to points in Dakota County, Nebr. (19) Cement, in bulk, in tank vehicles from the plantsite of Lehigh Portland Cement Company at Pasco, Wash., to points in Wasco, Sherman, Jefferson, Gilliam, Wheeler, Morrow, Grant, Umatilla, Union and Walloua Counties, Oreg. 124 M.C.C. EX PARTE No. MC-19 (SUB-NO. 26) PRACTICES OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF (USE OF VEHICLE-LOAD MANIFEST) Decided February 13, 1976 On petition, amendments to certain regulations governing the operations of motor common carriers of household goods found to be in the public interest. Appropriate order entered. Russell S. Bernhard and Charles C. Coon for petitioner. George M. Austin, Jr., Donald Goldwasser, and J. B. Meyers for motor common carriers of household goods. David Brodsky, Carroll F. Genovese, Thomas R. Kingsley, Clifford C. Knowles, and Francis L. Wyche for certain carrier and warehousemen associations and organizations. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION BY THE COMMISSION: By petition filed June 4, 1975, American Movers Conference, an association of motor common carriers of household goods, requests this Commission to institute a rulemaking proceeding for the purpose of amending section 1056.11 of the Commission's General Rules and Regulations (49 CFR 1056.11) to eliminate the use of the vehicle-load manifest and to substitute therefor a prescribed driver's weight certificate. Notice of the filing of the petition, containing a copy of the proposed form and the proposed language for a new section 1056.11 was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1975. Representations in support of the petition were filed by petitioner, three motor common carriers of household goods (Austin Moving & Storage, J. B. Meyers Transfer & Storage, and Security Van Lines, Inc.), four carrier and warehouse man associations and organizations (Household Goods Carriers' Bureau, Movers Round Table, Movers' & Warehousemen's Association of America, Inc., and the National Furniture Warehouse men's Association), and one company which uses the services of household goods carriers to transfer the belongings of its personnel (Cities Service Company). FACTUAL BACKGROUND Section 1056.11 of Part 1056 of Chapter X of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR § 1056.11), presently requires each motor common carrier of household goods in interstate or foreign commerce to maintain for each vehicle operated a document described as a vehicle-load manifest. Each vehicle-load manifest must be carried in the vehicle transporting the shipments identified thereon and must be maintained by the carrier as a part of its permanent records for shipments entered thereon. Under subsection 1056.11(b), a carrier must enter on the vehicle-load manifest certain specified information including the date of pickup and delivery of each shipment transported on the vehicle, the tare weight of the vehicle prior to the loading of each shipment, the gross weight of the vehicle after the loading of each shipment, and the net weight of each shipment, which is determined by deducting from the gross weight, after loading, the tare weight prior to the loading of each shipment. The concept underlying the use of the vehicle-load manifest is that the gross weight of each shipment loaded can be used as the tare weight of the next shipment loaded, thus providing a continuous record of the weights of the shipments transported on the vehicle, which record is available for inspection by the shipper to verify the weight of his shipment. Petitioner asserts that the concept of the vehicle-load manifest has proven to be impractical and ineffective in actual operations, and has resulted in a cumbersome and burdensome obligation for the carriers and drivers, as well as a serious source of inadvertent error and technical violation of this Commission's rules. Petitioner contends that the proposed change will result in the presentation of a simpler document to the shipper, and at the same time will eliminate the unnecessary multiplicity of documents required by use of the vehicle-load manifest. 'Under subsection 1056.6(a), a household goods carrier is to determine the tare weight of each vehicle used by having it weighed prior to the transportation of each shipment, with the driver but without the crew thereon, by a certified weight master or on a certified scale, and when so weighed the fuel tanks on such vehicle are to be full and the vehicle must contain all pads, chains, dollies, hand trucks, and other equipment needed in the transportation of shipments to be loaded thereon. After the vehicle has been loaded, it must be weighed, with the driver, and the net weight of the shipment is obtained by deducting the tare weight from the gross weight. In the transportation of partial loads, the gross weight of a vehicle containing one or more partial loads shall be used as the tare weight of such vehicle as to partial loads subsequently loaded thereon. 124 M.C.C. REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PARTIES Petitioner contends that the concept that the gross weight of each shipment loaded can be used as the tare weight of the next shipment in order to provide a continuous record of the weight of the shipments transported has never been factually realistic. This, it asserts, is due to the manner in which numerous household goods shipments are handled. As an example, petitioner cites the "pickup and hold" type of shipment. When such "pickup and hold" service is rendered, only the one shipment moves on the pickup vehicle. A separate vehicle-load manifest must be prepared for that single shipment giving the tare weight of the pickup vehicle and the gross weight of that vehicle when loaded with the single shipment. This individual shipment is then brought by the agent to its terminal to await the arrival of an interstate van. In petitioner's view, this original vehicle-load manifest really serves no purpose because, when the interstate van arrives, it has its own vehicle-load manifest. The gross weight of the previous shipment on the interstate van becomes the tare weight for the "pickup and hold" shipment, and the net weight of the shipment (as previously determined) is simply added arithmetically to the gross weight of the previous shipment on the interstate van to create a new gross weight for the shipment. Thus, the gross and tare weights of the shipment shown on the original vehicle-load manifest of the pickup vehicle (which the shipper could have examined at origin) are different from the gross and tare weights of the shipment shown on the vehicle-load manifest of the van, which the shipper can examine on delivery. This, according to petitioner, is a source of confusion to the shipper and in fact renders the vehicle-load manifest information meaningless to him. Petitioner states that a situation similar to that of "pickup and hold" arises in connection with shipments that are stored-in-transit at origin for ultimate movement to a prescribed destination. Again, a single pickup vehicle, with its own vehicle-load manifest and gross and tare weights for the shipment is required and may be examined by the shipper, but upon ultimate delivery at destination, entirely different gross and tare weights appear on the vehicle-load manifest of the van available for the shipper's inspection. Petitioner contends that, although the concept of the vehicle-load manifest was novel and ingenious, it has proven to be impractical and ineffective in actual operation, as well as excessively burdensome and susceptible to inadvertent error. In its view, the 248-348 O - 77 - 22 proposed driver's weight certificate, supported by the scale tickets, provides the shipper with a complete statement as to the net weight of his shipment. Moreover, it states that the preparation of the document will be simple for the driver, and will eliminate duplication of documents. Petitioner does not contend that the acceptance of its proposal will prevent all dishonesty in weighing practices, but it does believe that it will serve as a greater deterrent to dishonesty. It notes (1) that use of the proposed weight certificate will remove the opportunity for manipulation of the multiple entries covering several shipments, (2) that a single driver will be responsible for issuing the certificate showing all three weights, thereby increasing his awareness of the necessity for observing proper practices, and (3) that the new certificate will expedite auditing of weights and reweighing, permitting closer control by the carrier. Finally, petitioner notes that the elimination of the vehicle-load manifest, and the promulgation of the revised section 1056.11 will necessitate certain editorial changes in section 1056.6, primarily to eliminate those references to the vehicle-load manifest contained therein. The Movers & Warehouse men's Association of America, Inc., which represents approximately 600 household goods carriers, believes that the relief sought by petitioner is of vital interest to its members. It agrees that use of the vehicle-load manifest is indeed burdensome to the carriers as well as a source of error and misunderstanding. It concludes that the elimination of excessive paperwork serving little or no purpose can only tend to improve the service to the general shipper public. Movers Round Table (MRT), a trade association of the smaller independent motor common carriers of house hold goods, likewise supports the elimination of the vehicle-load manifest. However, MRT objects to the proposed driver's weight certificate. Instead, it favors the insertion onto the bill of lading of a simple notice to, and subscription by, the person who obtains and enters the tare and gross weights on, and attaches the tickets to, the bill of lading, to impress that the Bill of Lading Act' prescribes severe penalties for any false statement. MRT believes that the proposal to give the shipper an additional piece of paper would be of no particular assistance to him, inasmuch as the same information is already included on the bill of lading. Finally, MRT argues that the 249 U.S.C. $100, $101. 124 M.C.C. |