Opinion ID: 553264
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Single-State Movements Preceded by Exempt Movements

Text: 29 Approximately 15% of JRC products shipped to the Woodland center arrive by rail boxcar or TOF shipments. The ICC has chosen to exempt these shipments from most regulatory requirements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10505. Teamsters argues that shipments from the Woodland center, preceded by exempt shipments, must be deemed to be new shipments from the Woodland center. Teamsters argues that this is so regardless of JRC's intention to transport its merchandise in continuous interstate commerce. We disagree, and hold that goods shipped from a point in one state to a point in the same state may remain in interstate commerce even where an exempt movement of the goods precedes the single-state movement. 30 We begin with the observation made by the Fifth Circuit in Central Freight that [i]f the essential character of the transportation, as determined primarily by the shipper's intent, is interstate, we do not see how that interstate character changes when one leg of the journey is performed by a carrier that happens to be exempt from ICC regulation. See Central Freight, 899 F.2d at 423. The ICC's exemption from regulation of rail boxcar and TOF shipments does not affect JRC's fixed and persisting intent at the time of shipment. Armstrong, 2 I.C.C. 2d at 69. Moreover, while the ICC has exempted TOF and boxcar transportation from its active control, such service is still subject to Commission regulation. See 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1039.14 (1988). The ICC could reassert its regulatory authority over such traffic merely by revoking the exemption. See G & T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 830 F.2d 1230, 1235 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988, 108 S.Ct. 1291, 99 L.Ed.2d 501. 31 The decision of the ICC is AFFIRMED. The petition for review is DENIED.