Opinion ID: 2780805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the Load Limit Clause

Text: The load limit clause states that “vehicles shall comply with statutory load limits . . . .” J.A. 1217. The Board found that EM Logging violated the clause because several loads exceeded the limits set by a Forest Service Order and Montana law. EM Logging argues that the record only contains a single violation of Montana law. It argues that Montana law, specifically Section 61-10-107 of the Montana Code, limits the weight of a truck based on the truck’s number of axles and the distance between the axles. EM Logging argues that the Board erred in concluding that EM Logging violated the load limit clause by exceeding the weight limit set by the Forest Service Order because both parties interpreted “statutory load limits” to include only Montana state limits. It argues that the Forest Service only proved a single violation of Montana law because, except for the ticket it received on January 20, 2011, the record does not contain evidence of the number of axles or distance between axles for other loads, which are required to determine whether a truck exceeds Montana state limits. Thus, it argues that the government has only proven a single violation of the load limit clause. Moreover, EM Logging argues that the employee who was driving the truck which received the ticket testified that he had forgotten to reconfigure the truck to increase the length between the axles after coming down a mountain with sharp hairpin turns and that, had he reconfigured the truck that day, he would have not received the ticket because the distance between his axles would have brought him into compliance with Montana law. In short, EM Logging argues that it was simply a mistake not to reconfigure the truck. This single instance, EM Logging argues, cannot be considered flagrant disregard. The government argues that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. It argues that the Forest EM LOGGING v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 9 Service Order applies to roads over which EM Logging travelled. It argues that the Forest Service understood that the Order was a statutory load limit because the Forest Service advised EM Logging in the Notifications for Breach that EM Logging needed to comply with load limits for travelling over Forest Service roads and bridges and the Order, rather than Montana law, applies to Forest Service roads and bridges. It argues that although EM Logging only received a single ticket, only receiving one ticket does not mean that EM Logging only exceeded Montana weight limits once. The government argues that EM Logging’s actions, including the numerous violations of the Forest Service Order, demonstrate a pattern of flagrant disregard because the violations, including the ticket, came after the Forest Service repeatedly warned EM Logging in the Notifications. We agree with EM Logging that the government has only proven one violation of the load limit clause. The clause requires EM Logging to comply with “statutory” load limits. J.A. 1217. The Forest Service Order is not a “statute.” It is an Order, issued by the Forest Supervisor on February 24, 1986, under 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.50 and 261.54. As such, any violation of the Forest Service Order is not a breach of the load limit clause. Similarly, exceeding the limits listed on EM Logging’s registrations, which the Board relied upon, does not breach the load limit clause because they do not define statutory limits. Therefore, the only violation of the load limit clause in the record is the ticket issued to EM Logging on January 20, 2011, one day before the contract was suspended and ultimately terminated. This single isolated violation does not independently rise to the level of flagrant disregard. To be clear, we are not sanctioning the violation of the Forest Service Order, which the government argues was predicated on safety concerns. The only question before us is whether the government established “flagrant disregard” of contract terms, and if failure to comply with 10 EM LOGGING v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE the Forest Service Order is not a violation of a contract term, it cannot justify the government’s decision to terminate pursuant to this particular provision.