Opinion ID: 348607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Definition of Joint Through Rates

Text: 16 In order to understand the action taken by the ICC in Ex Parte No. 261, it is necessary briefly to explain the definition of joint and proportional through rates and to examine the similarities and differences between these two types of through rates. 17 A joint through rate is a single charge published by one carrier and concurred in by connecting carriers as the rate that will apply on a through movement of cargo from a point of origin on the line of one carrier to a point of destination on the line of the other. 8 Each participating carrier retains a division of the joint through rate agreed upon between the carriers. 9 Generally, the divisions of joint through rates between inland carriers who are subject only to ICC regulation are a private matter and are not set forth in tariffs on file with the Commission. There is, however, no prohibition against the statement of divisions in tariffs filed with the ICC. 18 Proportional rates, on the other hand, are rates published by a single carrier or mode of carrier applicable to that part of a movement of a through shipment which the publishing carrier itself handles. A proportional rate applies only to through shipments having a prior or subsequent movement over the line of another carrier. Like a division of a joint through rate, a proportional rate on a through movement is almost always lower than a carrier's purely local rate 10 between the same two points on its line. Commonly, each participating carrier in a through route separately publishes its own proportional rate; in combination, these separate proportional rates constitute the through rate. Thus, proportional rates closely resemble the divisions of joint through rates. Correspondingly, a combination of proportional rates is similar in purpose and effect to a joint through rate. 19 There are, however, important differences between the joint and proportional through rates, and these differences form the basis for petitioner's challenge in this case. In a joint rate with agreed divisions, as opposed to a combination of proportional rates, the total transportation charge is published as a single rate in one tariff, even if the divisions are also stated for other purposes. Joint through rates result in the simplification of, among other things, routing, documentation, and the calculation of charges and billing; this resultant simplification has been put forth as a major advantage of the joint through rate method for filing tariffs. 11 Beyond this level of procedural simplification, however, lies an economic difference between the joint and proportional through rate concepts which is central to petitioner's case. 20 Generally, a joint through rate is lower than the sum of the purely local rates separately published by each participating carrier. Similarly, divisions of joint rates are generally lower than the corresponding local rate. Proportional rates and the combinations thereof can and often do produce the same results. In theory, each proportional rate can be approximately the same as the corresponding division of a joint rate; in many contexts, this is indeed the case. 12 In the case of joint rail/ocean through rates (known as intermodal or minibridge rates) such as are at issue in this case, however, in many instances the joint through rates are lower than the combination of proportional rates which preceded them. 13 As a consequence, the joint through rate tariffs have the potential for creating new markets and changing previous patterns of international transportation. 14 This consequence forms the basis for petitioner's standing to maintain this action. Petitioner alleges that the new joint through rate tariffs will result in the diversion of business from the Philadelphia port area and therefore cause economic injury in fact to the various port interests. 15 We conclude that this allegation of injury is sufficient to confer standing on the petitioner to seek judicial review of the agency action in Ex Parte No. 261. 21