State Ex Rel Chemical Transport V.

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 1n
9
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
Relator appeals from t h e order and f i n a l judgment of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r
granted t h e Consumer Counsel's motion t o dismiss r e l a t o r ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate. Judgment was entered i n favor
of t h e Consumer Counsel, intervenor respondent here.
Relator i s a motor v e h i c l e common c a r r i e r operating i n
i n t e r s t a t e and i n t r a s t a t e commerce. I t s i n t r a s t a t e operations
a r e conducted under c e r t i f i c a t e s issued by t h e Montana Public
Service Commission and under t h e provisions of T i t l e 8 , Chapter
1, Revised Codes of Montana.
On June 26, 1975, r e l a t o r f i l e d with t h e Public Service
Commission i t s Supplement No. 6 t o Commodity T a r i f f No. 2(A),
specifying proposed i n c r e a s e s i n i n t r a s t a t e motor c a r r i e r r a t e s
on a c i d chemicals and o t h e r commodities, t o be e f f e c t i v e August
1, 1975. On o r about t h e time of f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 6 ,
r e l a t o r a l s o f i l e d i t s sworn statements and e x h i b i t s supporting
t h e proposed changes and r e v i s i o n s .
On J u l y 22, 1975, t h e Public Service Commission entered a
suspension o r d e r , pursuant t o s e c t i o n 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
a s t o t h e reasonableness of t h e proposed increased r a t e s . The
Public Service Commission s e t t h e matter t o be heard on November
18, 1975.
I n i t s pleadings t o t h e Public Service Commission, a t t h e
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l , t h e Consumer Counsel requested a p u b l i c
hearing. P r i o r t o t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g , t h e Consumer Counsel
served w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s upon r e l a t o r demanding t h e same
be answered before t h e hearing. Relator objected t o t h e i n t e r r o -
gatories. The Public Service Commission n o t i f i e d t h e p a r t i e s
t h a t o r a l argument upon t h e o b j e c t i o n s would be heard a t t h e
time s e t f o r hearing on t h e m e r i t s .
O t h e d a t e s e t f o r hearing, t h e Public Service Commission
n
heard o r a l arguments on t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , b u t
declined t o hear t h e case on i t s m e r i t s and postponed,the
matter t o a d a t e and time t o be s e t by t h e commission. A t that
time 119 days had elapsed s i n c e t h e d a t e of t h e order suspending
r e l a t o r ' s new t a r i f f schedules. During o r a l argument t h e
Public Service Commission ehairman asked r e l a t o r ' s counsel
whether r e l a t o r was w i l l i n g t o waive t h e 180 day period of
suspension. Counsel r e p l i e d r e l a t o r was unwilling t o do so.
The matter was never rescheduled f o r hearing. On December
3 , 1975 (15 days a f t e r t h e p r i o r hearing and 134 days a f t e r t h e
suspension order) t h e Public Service Commission overruled r e l a t o r ' s
general objections t o the interrogatories. The Public Service
Commission d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e p a r t i e s of t h i s a c t i o n u n t i l
January 5 , 1976 (33 days a f t e r t h e a c t i o n was taken and 167 days
a f t e r t h e suspension o r d e r ) . The r u l i n g purported t o give
r e l a t o r u n t i l January 19, 1976, (181 days a f t e r t h e suspension
o r d e r ) t o answer o r o b j e c t t o the Consumer Counsel's i n t e r r o g a -
tories. By l e t t e r dated January 16, 1976, r e l a t o r advised t h e
Public Service Commissionf
"Please be advised t h a t t h e 180 day-: period which i s
prescribed i n s e c t i o n 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, e x p i r e s
on January 18, 1976. N hearing having been held nor
o
o r d e r issued within such period, pursuant t o t h e a f o r e -
mentioned s e c t i o n , t h e t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s proposed i n
t h i s docket a r e deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e a s f i l e d .
"For t h i s reason we consider t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s submitted
i n connection with a hearing i n t h i s proceeding a s moot,
and do not intend t o respond t o them."
Relator t h e r e a f t e r tendered t o t h e Public Service Commission
f o r f i l i n g i t s Supplement No. 7, n o t i f y i n g customers of t h e
increased r a t e s . By l e t t e r dated January 21, 1976, t h e Public
Service Commission r e j e c t e d Supplement No. 7 and ordered r e l a t o r :
"* ** n o t t o a s s e s s o r c o l l e c t t h e f u l l amount of t h e
v a r i o u s chemical r a t e increases requested *** until
such time a s t h e Montana Public Service Commission
makes a f i n a l determination a s t o t h e v a l i d i t y and
lawfulness of such increase i n r a t e s . ***
"* ** t h e Commission f e e l s t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r y question
i s s t i l l a t issue."
On January 28, 1976, r e l a t o r f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t
of mandate i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Upon issuance of t h e w r i t of
mandate o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t , r e l a t o r sought t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s d i r e c t i v e (1) i n s t r u c t i n g t h e Public Service Commission
t o accept f o r f i l i n g r e l a t o r ' s Supplement No. 7 t o i t s Commodity
T a r i f f No. 2 ( A ) , thus implementing t h e r a t e i n c r e a s e s provided
f o r i n Supplement No. 6; (2) t h a t judgment be entered i n favor
of r e l a t o r f o r reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s ; and ( 3 )
t h a t respondents be ordered t o appear and show cause why: t h e
r e l i e f sought should not be granted. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t issued
an order t o show cause compelling respondents t o appear before
t h e c o u r t on February 11, 1976.
O February 6 , 1976, t h e Consumer Counsel f i l e d a motion
n
t o intervene and a motion t o dismiss r e l a t o r ' s p e t i t i o n on t h e
ground it f a i l e d 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 c o u r t granted Consumer Counsel's motion
t o dismiss and judgment was entered i n favor of Montana Consumer
Counsel, t h e intervenor respondent. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t
court held:
"* ** t h a t i n s o f a r a s t h e noted provisd of Section
8-104.5 works o r can work t o shut o u t a hearing r e -
quested by t h e consumer counsel it c o n f l i c t s with
out c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l provisions having t o do
with t h e counsel."
The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n l i s t s e v e r a l i s s u e s f o r review.
However, we f i n d t h e c e n t r a l and c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s whether t h e
Public Service Commission i s j u s t i f i e d i n r e f u s i n g t o accept
f o r f i l i n g r e l a t o r ' s proposed t a r i f f schedule on t h e grounds
s e c t i o n 8-104.5 c o n f l i c t s with t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , 'the
Montana Consumer Counsel Act, t h e Montana Administrative Procedure
Act and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t o r y provisions a f f e c t i n g t h e
Montana Consumer Counsel.
Sections 8-104-;I., 8-104.2 and 8-104.5, R.C.M. 1947, s e t
f o r t h t h e procedures f o r r e v i s i n g motor v e h i c l e : common c a r r i e r
r a t e schedules:
"8-104.1. Board's duty t o f i x r a t e s . It s h a l l be t h e
duty o f t h e board t o f i x , a l t e r , r e g u l a t e and determine
j u s t , f a i r , reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and s u f f i -
- ient rates,
c -
f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , and r u l e s
of s e r v i c e f o r t h e operation of c l a s s A and B motor
c a r r i e r s within t h i s s t a t e . The board a l s o may f i x and
determine reasonable maximum o r minimum t a t e s f o r t h e
operations of any c l a s s C motor c a r r i e r when t h e same
a r e required f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of public t r a n s p o r t a -
tion." (Emphasis added. )
"8-104.2. Rate schedules, f i l i n g with board. Every c l a s s A
-
o r B motor c a r r i e r holding a c e r t i f i c a t e must maintain on
f i l e . with t h e board a f u l l and complete schedule of i t s
r a t e s , f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f F c a t i o n s , r u l e s of s e r v i c e ,
and any and a l l t a r i f f provisions r e l a t i n g t o such r a t e s ,
f a r e s , charges, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , o r r u l e s . Every schedule
on f i l e with and approved by t h e board on t h e e f f e c t i v e
d a t e of t h i s a c t s h a l l remain i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t
u n t i l changed o r modified by t h e board o r by t h e c a r r i e r
with t h e approval of t h e board.
"No change, modification, a l t e r a t i o n , i n c r e a s e , o r
decrease i n any r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r
r u l e of s e r v i c e s h a l l be made by any motor c a r r i e r without
f i r s t obtaining t h e approval of t h e board. The board s h a l l
p r e s c r i b e r u l e s and/or r e g u l a t i o n s providing f o r t h e form
and s t y l e of a l l schedules and t a r i f f s and f o r t h e procedures
t o be followed i n f i l i n g o r publishing any changes o r
modifications of t h e same." (Emphasis added.)
"8-104.5. Changes, r e v i s i o n s of r a t e schedules, how made.
N motor c a r r i e r s h a l l change o r r e v i s e any r a t e , f a r e ,
o
charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e contained i n
i t s s h e d u l e without f i r s t obtaining approval t h e r e f o r
from t h e board. Such changes o r r e v i s i o n s s h a l l be made
by f i l i n g with t h e board t h e t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s con-
t a i n i n g such changes o r r e v i s i o n s , p l a i n l y s t a t i n g t h e
change o r changes, o r r e v i s i o n o r r e v i s i o n s , t o be made;
provided f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e public s h a l l be provided with
such n o t i c e of t h e proposed changes o r r e v i s i o n s a s t h e
board s h a l l , by r u l e , require. The t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s
containing such changes o r r e v i s i o n s s h a l l be deemed
approved and e f f e c t i v e t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r t h e same a r e
f i l e d unless t h e proposed r e v i s i o n s o r changes a r e sus-
pended o r disallowed by t h e board p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n
of t h e t h i r t y (30) day period; provided however, t h a t
t h e board may, f o r good cause, allow any change o r r e v i s i o n
t o become e f f e c t i v e on l e s s than t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r
t h e f i l i n g thereof. Upon f i l i n g such changes o r r e v i s i o n s ,
a l l t a r i f f s h e e t o r s h e e t s , when suspended by t h e board,
must be supported by such prepared testimony and e x h i b i t s
from t h e motor c a r r i e r a s w i l l support such changes o r
r e v i s i o n s . The prepared testimony and e x h i b i t s must be
f i l e d with t h e commission t h i r t y (30) days a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e
d a t e of such suspension. Such testimony and e x h i b i t s may
be supplemented p r i o r t o , o r a t t h e time of hearing, and
supplemental e x h i b i t s may be f i l e d a f t e r t h e c l o s e of t h e
hearing a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o r with permission of t h e commission.
"Upon i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , o r upon t h e complaint of any
i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y f i l e d with t h e board w i t h i n twenty (20)
days a f t e r t h e d a t e upon which a change o r r e v i s i o n of any
r a t e , f a r e , charge o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s f i l e d with t h e board,
t h e board may suspend t h e operation of such r a t e , f a r e ,
charge, o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r a period n o t t o exceed one
hundred e i g h t y (180) days, provided however t h a t t h e o r d e r
d i r e c t i n g such suspension must be issued by t h e board n o t l e s s
than two (2) business days p r i o r t o t h e proposed e f f e c t i v e
d a t e ; and provided f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e motor c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s
, - "_filing;such r a t e , f a r e , charge, o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be
given prompt n o t i c e by t h e complaining p a r t y mailing a copy
of t h e complaint concerning such proposed change o r r e v i s i o n
t o t h e c a r r i e r o r publishing a g e n t , and such c a r r i e r o r
c a r r i e r s a l s o s h a l l be given an opportunity t o r e p l y t o any
such complaint. I f t h e proposed change o r r e v i s i o n i s i n
a t a r i f f issued by a t a r i f f publishing bureau f o r a motor
c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s , n o t i c e t o such bureau of any complaint
w i l l c o n s t i t u t e n o t i c e t o the p a r t i c i p a t i n g c a r r i e r s i n such
t a r i f f . When t h e suspension of any proposed change o r r e v i s i o n
i n a t a r i f f i s ordered by t h e board, it s h a l l a l s o o r d e r a
p u b l i c hearing t o consider the reasonableness of t h e proposed
change o r r e v i s i o n ; due n o t i c e s h a l l be given f o r such
hearing t o a l l known i n t e r e s t e d , o r a f f e c t e d persons and t h e
same s h a l l be allowed t o appear and p r e s e n t evidence. A f t e r
considering t h e evidence presented a t such hearing, t h e board
s h a l l i s s u e an order approving, denying, o r modifying t h e
proposed change o r r e v i s i o n ; provided however, t h a t
unless such hearing i s ' h e l d and such order i s issued
w i t h i n one hundred e i g h t y (180) days from t h e d a t e upon
which t h e suspension was ordered, t h e proposed chanp.e
o r r e v i s i o n s h a l l be deemed approved and e f f e c t i v e a s
f i l e d . " (Emphds addedJ
Relator contends t h e p l a i n , c l e a r and unambiguous language
of s e c t i o n 8-104.5- s p e c i f i e s t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s become e f f e c t i v e
30 days a f t e r they a r e f i l e d , unless w i t h i n t h a t period t h e
Public Service Commission i s s u e s a suspension o t d e r , which may
cover a period of no longer than 180 days. The P u b l i c Service
Commission i s empowered t o approve, deny o r modify t h e submitted
t a r i f f schedules, w i t h i n t h e suspension p e r i o d , a f t e r n o t i c e
and hearing. Unless a hearing i s h e l d and an order issued by
t h e Public Service Commission, t h e t a r i f f r e v i s i o n s a r e deemed
approved and e f f e c t i v e a s f i l e d . Since t h e Public Service Commis-'
s i o n d i d n o t hold a hearing i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w i t h i n 180
days from t h e d a t e t h e suspension was ordered, r e l a t o r concludes
a w r i t of mandate should be issued compelling t h e Public Ggrvice
Commission t o accept f o r f i l i n g , a s approved and e f f e c t i v e ,
r e l a t o r ' s t a r i f f schedule.
Respondents argue "changing l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h i s
case1' a c t t o amend o r modify t h e 180 day suspension r u l e i n t h e
Motor C a r r i e r Act when t h e 180 day r u l e deprives t h e Consumer
Counsel of i t s r i g h t t o a hearing. Respondents s p e c i f i c a l l y
c i t e : (1) A r t . 11, Section 8 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which
i n s u r e s t h e r i g h t of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e operation of
s t a t e agencies p r i o r t o f i n a l d e c i s i o n ; (2) A r t . X I I I , Section 2 ,
1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which e s t a b l i s h e s t h e o f f i c e of
Consumer Counsel f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of consumer i n t e r e s t s
before t h e Public Service Commission, and ( 3 ) t h e Montana Adminis-
t r a t i v e Procedure Act a s t h e c a t a l y s t s p r e c i p i t a t i n g t h e changing
r o l e s i n t h e f i e l d of u t i l i t y and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r a t e r e g u l a t i o n .
We believe respondents have incorrectly characterized the
issue in this case as a conflict between statutory mandat~sand
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 180 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 (1963). 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 n o t e t h e r e s u l t a n t e f f e c t of t h e 180 day period of
e
suspension i s n o t t o deprive t h e ~ o n s u m e r O t n r n ~ f ? z b o r
any
o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d member of t h e p u b l i c , a v e h i c l e f o r challenging
t h e reasonableness of a motor c a r r i e r ' s proposed i n t r a s t a t e
r a t e increase. Section 8-104.4, R.C.M. 1947, i n p a r t speci-
f i c a l l y provides:
"The board may, upon i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r
upon t h e complaint of any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , i n v e s t i -
g a t e any r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r
r u l e of s e r v i c e contained i n t h e schedule of any
motor c a r r i e r ; i f t h e board s h a l l f i n d , a f t e r such
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h a t any such r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i -
f i c a t i o n , o r r u l e of s e r v i c e i s u n f a i r , u n j u s t , un-
reasonable, o r discriminatory, i t s h a l l disallow t h e
same and f i x a r a t e , f a r e , charge, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,
o r r u l e of s e r v i c e which s h a l l be f a i r , j u s t , reason-
a b l e , and nondiscriminatory, and i t s h a l l order t h e
a f f e c t e d motor c a r r i e r o r c a r r i e r s t o conform t o such
modified schedule; provided, however, t h a t each motor
c a r r i e r a f f e c t e d by any complaint o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l
f i r s t be given n o t i c e of the same and an opportunity
t o be heard before t h e board."
I n t h i s opinion t h i s Court r e f r a i n s from considering
e i t h e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o r reasonableness of r e l a t o r ' s proposed
r a t e increases. W hold only t h a t t h e Public Service Commission,
e
i n r e f u s i n g t o approve and give e f f e c t t o r e l a t o r ' s proposed
t a r i f f schedules, has f a i l e d t o perform a c l e a r l e g a l duty
a r i s i n g under t h e Montana Motor C a r r i e r Act.
The order and judgment of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e reversed
and t h e cause i s remanded f o r issuance of t h e w r i t of mandate
sought by r e l a t o r , c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.
Chief J u s t i c e
-
................
M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea took no p a r t i n t h i s Opinion.
......*......*..