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

Heading: Substantive Regulation of Domestic Portion of Joint Through Rate

Text: 78 As the second basis for its challenge to the rules enunciated in Ex Parte No. 261, petitioner contends that, if the ICC accepts joint through rate tariffs, the Commission cannot limit its substantive regulation to the inland portion of the joint through rate. 67 According to petitioner, it was an abuse of discretion for the ICC to require a separate statement of the ocean and inland division, rate or charge and to limit substantive rate regulation to that portion of the rate covering transportation taking place within the United States. 79 As noted previously, the Interstate Commerce Act expressly limits the exercise of ICC jurisdiction with the phrase but only insofar as such transportation takes place within the United States. 68 It is difficult to envision how the action taken by the ICC in Ex Parte No. 261 could have been fashioned in such a manner as to fall more precisely within this express Congressional mandate. There is a vast distinction between accepting a joint through rate for filing and regulating the foreign segment of the transportation involved. The former is possible without involving an invalid extension of regulatory power over practices clearly outside the scope of the Act; the latter is not. 80 Petitioner challenges the ICC decision to limit its substantive regulation as an unlawful 'settlement' with the F.M.C. 69 Petitioner does not, however, cite any evidence that there was a settlement of any kind; this assertion presumably derives from the fact that the ICC changed its position, outlined above, 70 that it had jurisdiction to regulate the entire joint rate (including the ocean portion) in response to complaints from the FMC. 71 The earlier ICC position plainly usurped the FMC's jurisdiction under the Shipping Act and would have created conflicting double regulation of the same rate tariffs by two different agencies applying quite different substantive standards. 72 81 It is well established that when two regulatory systems are applicable to a certain subject matter, they are to be reconciled and, to the extent possible, both given effect. 73 It seems to us that the ICC is to be commended for giving heed to the legal objections raised by its sister agency, the FMC; resolution of interagency conflicts by the agencies themselves, as was done in this case, is to be encouraged rather than condemned. 82 Finally, petitioner emphasizes that the ICC does not, as such, regulate divisions as between various carriers subject to ICC regulation except to the extent provided in § 15(6) of the Act. 74 Section 15(6) gives the ICC power to prescribe reasonable divisions when the agreed divisions have been found unlawful. The handling of rate divisions in fully ICC-regulated transportation is irrelevant to what the ICC has done here. The point here is not an attempt to regulate inter-carrier divisions as such. There may, for example, be any number of rail carriers sharing in divisions of the inland portion of a joint international rate. The ICC's rules in Ex Parte No. 261 are not directed thereto and do not purport to require a separate statement or regulation of these divisions. All that the ICC has done in requiring a separate statement of the inland division, rate, or charge is to focus ICC regulation on that part of the rate and that part of the cargo movement to which its jurisdiction attaches under § 1(1) and similar provisions in Parts II and III of the Act. 83 Petitioners are unduly concerned with the labels employed by the ICC in Ex Parte No. 261. The use in the alternative of the word division to describe the inland portion of the rate does not mean that an inland division of a joint international rate means the same thing or produces the same legal consequences as a division of a purely inland joint rate. The ICC recognized this when it referred to the portion of the joint through rate subject to ICC regulation as a division, rate, or charge accruing to the domestic carrier for its share of the revenue covering a through shipment . . . 75 84 Petitioners are equally wide of the mark in asserting that shippers are deprived of remedies against carriers' divisions of the rate. 76 In fact the regulations of both the FMC and the ICC make clear that the respective ocean and inland portions of the joint rate are treated as proportional rates and therefore subject either to full Shipping Act regulation 77 or full Interstate Commerce Act regulation. 78 Therefore, all rights accruing to the carriers are preserved and are subject to vindication in the appropriate federal administrative agency.