Opinion ID: 348607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Separate Statement of Division, Rate, or Charge

Text: 72 The discussion thus far in Part II of this opinion has concerned the jurisdiction of the ICC to accept joint through rate tariffs for filing. In Ex Parte No. 261, however, the Commission decided that it would not simply permit a single factor joint rate to be filed. Rather, the ICC treated the domestic carrier's division, rate, or charge as itself an element required to be separately stated in the tariff and subjected to ICC substantive regulation. At this point in the analysis we consider only the decision of the ICC to require the separate statement of the inland charge. 64 73 In section 904(a) of the Act, Congress has conferred broad power on the ICC to make such general or special rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary to carry out (the) provisions (of the Act.) 65 In requiring a separate statement of the inland portion of a joint rate, we believe that the ICC has properly exercised its rule-making authority to effectuate its foreign commerce jurisdiction outlined at various points above. The need for this type of separate statement is particularly acute in light of the limitation on the ICC's jurisdiction discussed in Part II.B, infra. Therefore, we conclude that the separate statement requirement is a necessary adjunct to the joint rate filing requirements and was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission. 74