- 7 -
UPS-New York and UPS-Ohio which were in effect during the years
in issue contained, among other things, provisions relating to
the scope of operations, damaged and unclaimed property, methods
of determining rates, and filing of claims. With respect to the
scope of operations, the tariffs for both UPS-New York and UPS-
Ohio provide: "Rates and provisions named in this tariff, or as
amended, are limited in their application to the extent of the
operating rights set forth below." The provisions of the tariffs
governed the rates and services offered by petitioner to its
shippers.
The ICC tariffs filed by UPS-Ohio and UPS-New York were
similarly filed with the State transportation commissions of most
of the States.9 Individual State filings were required in the
9The tariffs filed by UPS-Ohio were filed with the State
transportation commissions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.
The tariffs filed by UPS-New York were similarly filed with
the State transportation commissions of Connecticut, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.
In 1983 and 1984, the States of Arizona, Delaware, Florida,
Maine, New Jersey, and Wisconsin did not regulate intrastate
motor common carriers. In Wyoming, no regulatory filing was
required. In Texas, intrastate service was limited to the
Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio metropolitan areas.
In Hawaii, an intraisland service was commenced between all
islands of the State. Petitioner did not operate in Alaska
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011