Title: STATE EX REL CHEMICAL TRANSPORT v
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13557
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 22, 1977

No. 13557 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 STATE ex rel., CHEMICAL TRANSPORT et al., Relator and Appellant, -vs- GORDON E. BOLLINGER et al., Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Scribner and Huss, Helena, Montana A. W. Scribner argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Geoffrey L. Brazier argued, Helena, Montana Charles H . Dickman, Helena, Montana Robert Smith argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 20, 1977 Decided: AUG 2 2 1 9 ~ Filed: 'AUG 2 2 1 9 n M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. Relator appeals from the order and f i n a l judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County. The d i s t r i c t court order granted the Consumer Counsel's motion t o dismiss relator's application for w r i t of mandate. Judgment was entered i n favor of the Consumer Counsel, intervenor respondent here. Relator i s a motor vehicle common c a r r i e r operating i n interstate and intrastate commerce. I t s intrastate operations are conducted under certificates issued by the Montana Public Service Commission and under the provisions of T i t l e 8, Chapter 1, Revised Codes of Montana. O n June 26, 1975, relator f i l e d with the Public Service Commission i t s Supplement No. 6 t o Commodity Tariff No. 2(A), specifying proposed increases in intrastate motor carrier rates on acid chemicals and other commodities, t o be effective August 1, 1975. O n or about the time of f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 6, relator also f i l e d i t s sworn statements and exhibits supporting the proposed changes and revisions. O n July 22, 1975, the Public Service Commission entered a suspension order, pursuant t o section 8-104.5, R,CbM.1947, suspending r e l a t o r ' s proposed t a r i f f schedule, pending a hearing as t o the reasonableness of the proposed increased rates. The Public Service Commission s e t the matter to be heard on November 18, 1975. In i t s pleadings t o the Public Service Commission, a t the administrative level, the Consumer Counsel requested a public hearing. Prior t o the date of the hearing, the Consumer Counsel served written interrogatories upon relator demanding the same be answered before the hearing. Relator objected t o the interro- gatories. The Public Service Commission notified the parties that oral argument upon the objections would be heard a t the time s e t for hearing on the merits. O n the date s e t for hearing, the Public Service Commission heard o r a l arguments on the objections t o interrogatories, but declined t o hear the case on i t s merits and postponed,the matter to a date and time t o be s e t by the commission. A t that time 119 days had elapsed since the date of the order suspending relator's new t a r i f f schedules. During oral argument the Public Service Commission ehairman asked r e l a t o r ' s counsel whether relator was willing t o waive the 180 day period of suspension. Counsel replied relator was unwilling t o do so. The matter was never rescheduled for hearing. O n December 3 , 1975 (15 days a f t e r the prior hearing and 134 days a f t e r the suspension order) the Public Service Commission overruled relator's general objections t o the interrogatories. The Public Service Commission did not notify the parties of t h i s action u n t i l January 5, 1976 (33 days a f t e r the action was taken and 167 days a f t e r the suspension order). The ruling purported t o give relator u n t i l January 19, 1976, (181 days a f t e r the suspension order) to answer o r object t o the Consumer Counsel's interroga- tories. B y l e t t e r dated January 16, 1976, relator advised the Public Service Commissionf "Please be advised that the 180 day-: period which i s prescribed i n section 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, expires on January 18, 1976. N o hearing having been held nor order issued within such period, pursuant t o the afore- mentioned section, the t a r i f f revisions proposed i n t h i s docket are deemed approved and effective as filed. "For t h i s reason we consider the interrogatories submitted i n connection with a hearing in t h i s proceeding as moot, and do not intend t o respond to them." Relator thereafter tendered t o the Public Service Commission for f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 7, notifying customers of the increased rates. By l e t t e r dated January 21, 1976, the Public Service Commission rejected Supplement No. 7 and ordered relator: "* * * not t o assess or collect the f u l l amount of the various chemical r a t e increases requested * * * u n t i l such time as the Montana Public Service Commission makes a f i n a l determination as t o the validity and lawfulness of such increase i n rates. * * * "* * * the Commission feels the interrogatory question i s s t i l l a t issue." O n January 28, 1976, relator f i l e d an application for w r i t of mandate i n the d i s t r i c t court. Upon issuance of the w r i t of mandate or other appropriate w r i t , relator sought the d i s t r i c t court's directive (1) instructing the Public Service Commission t o accept for f i l i n g relator's Supplement No. 7 to i t s Commodity Tariff No. 2(A), thus implementing the rate increases provided for i n Supplement No. 6; (2) that judgment be entered i n favor of relator for reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and ( 3 ) that respondents be ordered t o appear and show cause why: the relief sought should not be granted. The d i s t r i c t court issued an order t o show cause compelling respondents t o appear before the court on February 11, 1976. O n February 6, 1976, the Consumer Counsel f i l e d a motion to intervene and a motion t o dismiss relator's petition on the ground it failed t o s t a t e a claim upon which r e l i e f could be granted. The d i s t r i c t court granted Consumer Counsel's motion t o dismiss and judgment was entered i n favor of Montana Consumer Counsel, the intervenor respondent. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court held: "* * * that insofar a s the noted provisd of Section 8-104.5 works or can work t o shut out a hearing re- quested by the consumer counsel it conflicts with out constitutional and legal provisions having t o do with the counsel." The parties t o t h i s action list several issues for review. However, w e find the central and controlling issue is whether the Public Service Commission is justified i n refusing t o accept for f i l i n g relator's proposed t a r i f f schedule on the grounds section 8-104.5 conflicts with the Montana Constitution, 'the Montana Consumer Counsel Act, the Montana Administrative Procedure Act and other pertinent statutory provisions affecting the Montana Consumer Counsel. Sections 8-104-;I., 8-104.2 and 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, s e t forth the procedures for revising motor vehicle: common c a r r i e r r a t e schedules: "8-104.1. Board's duty t o f i x rates. It shall be the duty o f t h e board t o f i x , a l t e r , regulate and determine j u s t , f a i r , reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and suffi- cient rates, fares, charges, classifications, and rules - - of service for the operation of class A and B motor carriers within t h i s state. The board also may f i x and determine reasonable maximum or minimum t a t e s for the operations of any class C motor c a r r i e r when the same are required for the best interests of public transporta- tion." (Emphasis added. ) "8-104.2. Rate schedules, f i l i n g with board. Every class A o r B motor - carrier holding a c e r t i f i c a t e must maintain on f i l e . with the board a f u l l and complete schedule of its rates, fares, charges, classifFcations, rules of service, and any and a l l t a r i f f provisions relating t o such rates, fares, charges, classifications, o r rules. Every schedule on f i l e with and approved by the board on the effective date of t h i s a c t shall remain i n f u l l force and effect u n t i l changed o r modified by the board or by the c a r r i e r with the approval of the board. "No change, modification, alteration, increase, o r decrease i n any rate, fare, charge, classification, or rule of service shall be made by any motor carrier without f i r s t obtaining the approval of the board. The board shall prescribe rules and/or regulations providing for the form and style of a l l schedules and t a r i f f s and for the procedures t o be followed i n f i l i n g or publishing any changes o r modifications of the same." (Emphasis added.) "8-104.5. Changes, revisions of r a t e schedules, how made. N o motor carrier shall change or revise any r a t e , fare, charge, classification, or rule of service contained i n i t s shedule without f i r s t obtaining approval therefor from the board. Such changes o r revisions shall be made by f i l i n g with the board the t a r i f f sheet o r sheets con- taining such changes o r revisions, plainly stating the change o r changes, o r revision o r revisions, t o be made; provided further, that the public s h a l l be provided with such notice of the proposed changes o r revisions as the board shall, by rule, require. The t a r i f f sheet o r sheets containing such changes or revisions shall be deemed approved and effective t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r the same are f i l e d unless the proposed revisions or changes are sus- pended o r disallowed by the board prior t o the expiration of the t h i r t y (30) day period; provided however, that the board may, for good cause, allow any change or revision t o become effective on less than t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r the f i l i n g thereof. Upon f i l i n g such changes or revisions, a l l t a r i f f sheet or sheets, when suspended by the board, must be supported by such prepared testimony and exhibits from the motor carrier a s w i l l support such changes o r revisions. The prepared testimony and exhibits must be f i l e d with the commission t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r the effective date of such suspension. Such testimony and exhibits may be supplemented prior to, or a t the time of hearing, and supplemental exhibits may be f i l e d a f t e r the close of the hearing a t the direction o r with permission of the commission. "Upon i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , or upon the complaint of any interested party f i l e d with the board within twenty (20) days a f t e r the date upon which a change or revision of any r a t e , fare, charge or classification is f i l e d with the board, the board may suspend the operation of such rate, fare, charge, o r classification for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, provided however that the order directing such suspension must be issued by the board not less than two (2) business days prior t o the proposed effective date; and provided further, that the motor carrier o r carriers , - "_filing; such rate, fare, charge, o r classification s h a l l be given prompt notice by the complaining party mailing a copy of the complaint concerning such proposed change o r revision t o the carrier or publishing agent, and such c a r r i e r o r carriers also s h a l l be given an opportunity t o reply t o any such complaint. I f the proposed change o r revision i s i n a t a r i f f issued by a t a r i f f publishing bureau for a motor carrier o r carriers, notice t o such bureau of any complaint w i l l constitute notice t o the participating carriers i n such t a r i f f . When the suspension of any proposed change or revision i n a t a r i f f i s ordered by the board, it s h a l l also order a public hearing t o consider the reasonableness of the proposed change or revision; due notice shall be given for such hearing t o a l l known interested,or affected persons and the same shall be allowed t o appear and present evidence. After considering the evidence presented a t such hearing, the board shall issue an order approving, denying, or modifying the proposed change o r revision; provided however, that unless such hearing is'held and such order is issued within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date upon which the suspension was ordered, the proposed chanp.e o r revision shall be deemed approved and effective as filed." (Emphds addedJ Relator contends the plain, clear and unambiguous language of section 8-104.5- specifies t a r i f f revisions become effective 30 days a f t e r they a r e f i l e d , unless within that period the Public Service Commission issues a suspension otder, which may cover a period of no longer than 180 days. The Public Service Commission i s empowered t o approve, deny o r modify the submitted t a r i f f schedules, within the suspension period, a f t e r notice and hearing. Unless a hearing i s held and an order issued by the Public Service Commission, the t a r i f f revisions are deemed approved and effective as filed. Since the Public Service Commis-' sion did not hold a hearing i n the instant case, within 180 days from the date the suspension was ordered, relator concludes a w r i t of mandate should be issued compelling the Public Ggrvice Commission t o accept for f i l i n g , a s approved and effective, r e l a t o r ' s t a r i f f schedule. Respondents argue "changing legal relationships i n t h i s case1' a c t t o amend or modify the 180 day suspension rule i n the Motor Carrier Act when the 180 day rule deprives the Consumer Counsel of its right t o a hearing. Respondents specifically c i t e : (1) A r t . 11, Section 8, 1972 Montana Constitution, which insures the right of public participation i n the operation of s t a t e agencies prior t o f i n a l decision; (2) A r t . X I I I , Section 2, 1972 Montana Constitution, which establishes the office of Consumer Counsel for the representation of consumer interests before the Public Service Commission, and (3) the Montana Adminis- t r a t i v e Procedure Act a s the catalysts precipitating the changing roles i n the field of u t i l i t y and transportation r a t e regulation. We believe respondents have incorrectly characterized the issue in this case as a conflict between statutory mandat~s and constitutional guarantees. The present action arose only be- cause the Public Service Commission failed to hold a procedural hearing within the 180 day statutory limitation. The sole obstacle which confronted the Public Service Commission was a determination of whether or not relator was compelled to answer written interrogatories submitted by the Consumer Counsel. We fail to see how such a deterent could be the basis for the Public Service Commission failing to timely schedule the requested procedural hearing. The Montana legislature Eixed 1 8 0 days as the maximum period of suspension. It seems clear to this Court that our extension of that period would in effect amend the statute and that is a matter beyond this Court's power. Art. 111, Section 1, 1972 Montana Constitution; Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern Railway Co., 308 F.2d 181 (1962), cert. granted 371 U.S. 859, 372 U . S . 658, 83 S.Ct. 984, 10 L ed 2d 52 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . We likewise fail to find any constitutional basis for overturning the statute. Even if this Caurt was empowered to amend the 180 day period of suspension, the Consumer Counsel would have no assurance a timely hearing would be scheduled by the Public Ser- vice Commission. Without any statutory period of maximum suspension, motor carriers could incur substantial time lags in obtaining rate increases since the Public Service Commission could postpone and reschedule hearings without restriction. If the 180 day period of suspension is inadequate the proper recourse is for respondents to seek legislative amendment of the statute, not judicial interference. W e note the resultant effect of the 180 day period of suspension is not to deprive the ~onsumerOtnrn~f?zbor any other interested member of the public, a vehicle for challenging the reasonableness of a motor carrier's proposed intrastate r a t e increase. Section 8-104.4, R.C.M. 1947, i n part speci- f i c a l l y provides: "The board may, upon its own i n i t i a t i v e o r upon the complaint of any interested party, investi- gate any rate, fare, charge, classification, or rule of service contained i n the schedule of any motor carrier; i f the board shall find, a f t e r such investigation, that any such rate, fare, charge, classi- fication, or rule of service is unfair, unjust, un- reasonable, o r discriminatory, it s h a l l disallow the same and f i x a rate, fare, charge, classification, o r rule of service which shall be f a i r , just, reason- able , and nondiscriminatory, and it s h a l l order the affected motor carrier o r carriers t o conform t o such modified schedule; provided, however, that each motor carrier affected by any complaint o r investigation s h a l l f i r s t be given notice of the same and an opportunity t o be heard before the board." I n t h i s opinion t h i s Court refrains from considering either the propriety or reasonableness of relator's proposed r a t e increases. W e hold only that the Public Service Commission, i n refusing t o approve and give effect t o relator's proposed t a r i f f schedules, has failed t o perform a clear legal duty arising under the Montana Motor Carrier Act. The order and judgment of the d i s t r i c t court a r e reversed and the cause is remanded for issuance of the w r i t of mandate sought by relator, consistent with t h i s opinion. Chief Justice - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M r . Justice Daniel J. Shea took no part i n t h i s Opinion. . . . . . . * . . . . . . * . .