forwarders. Moreover, the number of these complaints which has accelerated in recent years suggests that the carriers and forwarders have done little to alleviate this growing problem. We also pointed out that similar problems related to the processing of loss and damage claims generally have been alleviated by the Commission's adoption of regulations in Ex Parte No. 263, Loss and Damage Claims, 340 I.C.C. 515, decided February 3, 1972.

All motor common carriers of property and freight forwarders operating in interstate or foreign commerce subject to the Interstate Commerce Act were made respondents to this proceeding, and all interested parties were invited to participate. The Bureau of Investigations and Enforcement (BIE) of this Commission was authorized and directed to participate in this proceeding for the purpose of developing the record.

In response to the NPRO, 111 initial and 43 reply statements were filed in behalf of motor carriers, motor carrier associations, freight forwarders, household goods movers, freight auditing services, shippers, shipper organizations, and the BIE. Appendix B lists the parties submitting statements. The rules adopted and a notice of this action are set forth in appendix D.

JURISDICTION

In Loss and Damage, supra, at page 539, we stated that a major question to be answered in that proceeding was whether this Commission had authority under the Interstate Commerce Act to promulgate and enforce procedures to be followed by regulated carriers, freight forwarders, shippers, and receivers of freight in the processing of loss and damage claims. We emphasized that we were not concerned with our jurisdiction to determine the merits of particular loss and damage claims since this Commission has consistently held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the merits or measure of damages of particular loss and damage claims, those being cognizable only in the courts. Rather, we indicated our concern involved this Commission's jurisdiction and authority to prescribe reasonable procedures for the timely and efficient processing and disposition of loss, damage and other similar claims. We concluded that we had the requisite jurisdiction.

A similar conclusion is warranted in this proceeding. This is based, not only upon the general powers expressly conferred in various sections of parts II and IV of the act, but also upon those powers which, when considering the act as a whole, may reasonably

be deemed to have been within the intention of Congress to confer upon the Commission when it enacted the statutes. Under sections 204(a)(6) and 417(a) of the act, 49 U.S.C. 304(a)(6) and 49 U.S.C. 1017, the Commission is empowered to enforce all provisions of part II and part IV of the act by adoption of appropriate rules and regulations. Section 204(a) of part II of the act reads as follows:

(6) To administer, execute, and enforce all provisions of this part, to make all necessary orders in connection therewith, and to prescribe rules, regulations, and procedure for such administration; (emphasis added).

It must be recognized that the Interstate Commerce Act is remedial legislation and the Commission may adopt regulations to carry out the policies of the laws which it administers where such regulations have a reasonable and rational basis. This is true even though no specific authority to promulgate regulations on the subject is contained in the law. See Greyhound Corp. v. U.S., 221 F. Supp. 440, 444 (N.D. Ill. 1963) and cases cited therein.

Section 204(a)(6) of the act has been interpreted as reflecting the intention of Congress to vest the Commission with broad powers to promulgate such regulations as are required to enforce effectively part II of the act. United States v. Resler, 313 U.S. 57, 60 (1941); Wycoff Company v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 304, 308-309 (D. Utah, 1965). Sections 216(b) and 404(a) of the act, 49 U.S.C. 316(b) and 49 U.S.C. 1004(a), require motor common carriers and freight forwarders to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations relating to their rates. We have relied on these statutory provisions not only in promulgating regulations for processing loss and damage claims (49 CFR 1005) but also in adopting regulations involving transportation of household goods in interstate and foreign commerce (49 CFR 1056).

Additional statutory authority is also found in sections 208(a) and 410(e) of the act, 49 U.S.C. 308(a) and 49 U.S.C. 1010(e), which provide that, from time to time, the Commission shall attach to the exercise of the privileges granted by the carriers' and forwarders' certificates and permits "such reasonable terms, conditions and limitations as the public convenience and necessity may from time. to time require ***."

"Under sections 204(7) and 403(e) of the act, the Commission is authorized and required to keep itself informed of transportation matters within its jurisdiction.

Finally, considering the mandate of the national transportation policy to promote economical and efficient service to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services, it is reasonable to conclude that the Commission may promulgate regulations for the expeditious processing of claims for overcharges, duplicate payment, and overcollection. The processing of these claims, as with loss and damage claims, constitutes an integral part of the total transportation service about which carriers are obligated to establish reasonable practices. Notwithstanding our lack of statutory authority to settle or adjudicate these claims, T.I.M.E., Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 464 (1959), we clearly have authority to prescribe reasonable and expeditious procedures for their handling.

MOTIONS

The Household Goods Forwarders Tariff Bureau requests that freight forwarders of household goods be exempted from having to comply with any regulations promulgated in this proceeding. Movers Round Table makes a similar request regarding household goods carriers. It argues that, even assuming all of the regulations are relevant to household goods carriers, it does not follow that a uniform requirement should be imposed on all types of carriers without regard to different carrier operations and accounting systems. Moreover, it points out that such differences have been recognized in numerous Commission proceedings as warranting separate and independent consideration. Movers Round Table asks. that, if regulations are adopted despite its arguments, they be made applicable only to those household goods carriers, the operating revenues of which exceed $60 million for the most current accounting year.

It is evident in the wording of the proposed rule on applicability (section 1008.1), that the proposed regulations are intended to govern the processing of all claims for overcharge or duplicate payment for the transportation of property, including property handled by household goods carriers and freight forwarders. In addition a procedure is provided for overcollection, which is limited by definition to household goods transportation.

Section 1008.2(c) of the proposed regulations defines overcollection as receipt by a household goods carrier of a payment in excess of transportation charges applicable to a particular shipment of household goods (as defined in 49 CFR 1056.1) where

no dispute between the parties exists as to the applicability of those charges. It provides that where a dispute does exist, the collection of excess amounts shall be treated as an overcharge, and, therefore, would be subject to the regulations for the processing of overcharges.

Since no adequate or sufficient reasons have been demonstrated for exempting household goods carriers and freight forwarders of household goods from the proposed regulations, their requests for this relief are denied.

Various shippers request that this proceeding be expanded to embrace railroad and water carriers. Essentially, they point out that the problems involved in the processing of claims are common to all modes of transportation and, in the interest of uniformity and fairness, rail and water carriers should be subject to the proposed regulations.

While we certainly would agree that uniform, efficient claims processing procedures are a desirable and necessary goal for all modes of transportation, we are not persuaded that broadening the scope of this proceeding to encompass rail and water carriers is advisable or appropriate at this time. We initiated this proceeding upon our own motion because of our growing concern with the increasing number of shipper complaints received by this Commission concerning problems of carrier failure to process and settle claims promptly. These complaints almost exclusively involve motor common carriers and freight forwarders. It is also apparent that the problems often involve simple errors which would require only minimal investigative effort.

In contrast, the incidence of complaints against rail and water modes are few and usually involve more complex disputes as to rate applicability or tariff provisions. We recognize that the great discrepancy between on the one hand, the large number of complaints received against motor carriers and freight forwarders and on the other hand, the much smaller number received against rail and water carriers may be attributable to the absence, under parts II and IV of the act, of provisions comparable to those under parts I and III which empower the Commission to issue orders specifically requiring rail and water carriers to make refund of overcharges due as well as to pay reparations. Moreover, these provisions have most likely served to induce rail and water carriers to settle claims on an expedited and informal basis. As pointed out by the BIE, no similar stimulus exists for settlement of claims. against motor carriers and forwarders.

We believe that given the already voluminous record in this proceeding, the fact that the involved shipper complaints are filed almost exclusively against motor common carriers and freight forwarders, and the different nature of the problems involving each transportation mode, broadening this proceeding to embrace rail and water carriers is unwarranted. Our action does not, however, preclude the application of uniform claim processing rules to other modes, at anytime in the future, should this appear necessary or desirable.

Several shippers believe that collection agents such as Transport Clearings should be bound by the regulations adopted in this proceeding. However, our jurisdiction regarding these entities is questionable. There is a serious question whether the Commission can exercise jurisdiction over these entities. In addition, the NPRO did not provide notice that such an action was under consideration. However, the respondents are bound by these regulations and their carrier responsibilities may not be avoided by using a clearinghouse or similar entity.

Numerous carrier respondents challenge the need for the proposed regulations by asserting the adequacy of the motor carrier industry's present claims handling procedures and the lack of sufficient data to substantiate the need for the proposed regulations. Some carriers have attempted to minimize the seriousness of the complaints received by the Commission by comparing (1) the percentage relationship between the number of complaints filed to the total number of shipments transported, or (2) the relationship between the number of complaints filed and the number of overcharge claims filed. For example, several carriers assert that the number of complaints received by the Commission involving overcharge, as shown in evidence submitted by the BIE," is infinitesimal when compared to the volume of shipments handled, and, if anything, would indicate that the present carrier procedures are more than adequate. Movers Round Table, Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., and Frozen Food Express, Inc. have called for specific proof of the extent of the complaints received by the Commission.

'Since the Commission has adopted rules and regulations with respect to extensions of credit to shippers by rail and motor common carrier, various facilities have been developed by independent agencies which are looked upon as being of assistance to both the carriers and the shippers in complying with those rules. One such facility is Transport Clearings, whose prime purpose is to factor the bills of its carrier members.

"A summary of data on overcharge handling complaints received by the Commission's Bureau of Traffic for the period of December 11, 1976, to November 25, 1977 is shown in appendix C.