Government agencies have ruled that new services from less-than-truckload carriers that transport household goods are not subject to the same consumer protection regulations as traditional household goods movers.

The debate stems from a request by the American Moving and Storage Assn. asking the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Surface Transportation Board to rule that special authority is needed even if a trucking company hauling household goods doesn’t offer packing/unpacking or loading/unloading services.
At issue are Consolidated Freightways' CFMovesU service and ABF's U Pack Moving Program. These services allow customers to pack a pup trailer with their belongings. Then the trailer is hauled by regular LTL drivers, and unpacked at the other end by the customer. AMSA has argued that such a service requires the carriers to obey consumer protection rules developed for the moving and storage industry, governing such things as coverage for lost or damaged goods, and liability for customers that are injured during the loading or unloading process.
The STB has once again bowed out of the general freight versus household goods carrier debate. Last March STB ruled that it has authority over household goods tariffs and liability limits, but not licensing. At the movers’ request, the agency reviewed that decision but came to the same conclusion.
The agency noted that another DOT agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, has jurisdiction over carrier licensing. FMCSA has in fact already determined that, based on the information given to them by the movers’ group, general freight carriers hauling crated household goods do not need household goods carrier licenses.
FMCSA's decision was based on precedents set by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1939, 1956 and 1966 dealing with issues of household goods operating authority. Acting Deputy Administrator Julie Anna Cirillo, in a letter to AMSA President Joe Harrison, wrote that "the ICC expressly declined to apply the household goods regulatory requirement to general freight carriers transporting crated household goods." These decisions focused on the type of service provided instead of whether the commodities being hauled fell within the legal definition of household goods, she pointed out.
AMSA had argued that the ICC Termination Act of 1995, which transferred many of the ICC's duties to the DOT, had substantially changed the regulatory framework for transporting household goods. FMCSA disagreed. "There is no evidence that Congress intended to change the regulatory treatment of residential household goods transportation," she said.
Harrison has said the association will seriously consider seeking a legislative solution from Congress to help clarify this issue.
"We don't believe Congress ever intended for consumers to be denied the regulatory protections of federal law when their prized possessions are moved across state lines, or that decades-old ICC decisions preclude such necessary protections," he said.