Legal Document

392 U.S. 571 88 Supreme Court Reporter 2105 20 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1289 AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, INC., et al., Appellants,v.LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. al. TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, Inc., Appellants, versus LOUISVILLE The WATERWAYS OPERATORS, Appellant, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Nos. 797, 804, 808, 809. Argued April 23 and 24, 1968. Decided June 17, [Syllabus from pages 571-573 intentionally omitted] Leonard S. Goodman, Washington, D.C., Harry C. Ames, Jr., for appellants. Peter T. Beardsley, Bryce Rea, Thomas M. Knebel, Nuel D. Belnap, Chicago, Ill., appellants American Trucking Associations, others. Daniel Friedman, Carl Helmetag, Philadelphia, Pa., appellees. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 basic issue in these cases is whether action Interstate Commerce Commission disallowing a rate reduction proposed by appellee railroads, 326 I.C.C. 77 (1965), was consistent with provisions § 15a(3) Act, 49 Code KF62 15a(3), added 72 Statutes-at-Large 572 (1958), which governs ratemaking situations involving intermodal competition. A subsidiary but related adequately articulated its reasons rate. statutory three-judge court, upon appeal Commission's decision held that erroneous on both foregoing grounds. 268 F.Supp. 71 (D.C.W.D.Ky.1967). Because importance as primary guide to ICC resolution controversies competition, we noted probable jurisdiction taken competing carriers District Court.1 389 1032, 782, 19 820 (1968). For detailed below, conclude erred rejection decision, grounds it based, reverse. I. 2 Since 1953 movement ingot molds Neville Island Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Steelton, Kentucky, has been almost exclusively combination barge-truck service, since 1960 overall charge this service $5.11 per ton. In 1963 Pennsylvania Railroad Louisville Nashville lowered their joint same traffic $11.86 barge lines, joined intervening trucking interests, protested new railroad violated Act because impaired or destroyed 'inherent advantage'2 then enjoyed service. thereupon undertook an investigation reduction. 3 course administrative proceedings followed, made following factual findings about there no real dispute among parties. fully distributed cost3 railroads $7.59 ton, 'long term out-of-pocket costs'4 were $4.69 cost service5 $5.19 ton.6 cost7 not separately computed, estimated, without contradiction, be approximately higher, any event, than railroads. uncontroverted shipper testimony effect price virtually sole determinant would utilized, that, rates charged same, all go 4 contended they should permitted maintain rate, once shown exceed attributable ground so set enable them make profit traffic. further fact substantially below irrelevant way reflected profitability them. other hand, took position required look railroads' costs order ascertain modes had inherent advantage at issue. They argued profitable merely minimum requirement under statute. response determined comparison rather costs, produced several economists testify standpoint economic theory, out-of-pocket, incremental, only rational regulating competitive rates. 5 rejected contention basis determined. observed past regularly viewed appropriate determining two lower mode regards particular It indicated legislative history revealed Congress mind when inserted reference National Transportation Policy into section place language sought also emphasized rulemaking proceeding pending before whole question proper standard costing competition being examined depth, stated 'a radical departure norm' justified record case. 6 Having decided utilize between determine advantage, concluded undercut combination's ability exploit force well own recapture Moreover, result general permission basis, eventually could take away former those latter and, therefore, war able outlast competitors. Accordingly, ordered canceled. 7 read statute accompanying reflect congressional judgment most generally individual choose long compensatory.8 court failed articulate deciding transportation more efficient costs. Although holding appears first opinion, evident must logically follow ruling meaning if enacting already special burden justify use II. 8 This previously occasion consider New York, N.H. H.R. Co., 372 744, 83 1038, 10 108 (1963) ('New Haven'), have relied heavily support conflicting results reached cases. relevant thoroughly canvassed there, shall undertake extended discussion material here. Instead, refer history. 9 So far here, provides that: '(r)ates carrier up level protect transportation, giving due consideration objectives national policy declared Act.' 11 Policy, preceding 1, states intention Congress: 12 'to provide fair impartial regulation subject act, administered recognize preserve advantages each * *.' enactment 1958 primarily complaints maintained artificially high levels driven out business competition.9 bill eventuated presently originally provided considering reductions, should, another 'consider facts circumstances attending such mode.' (Emphasis added.) U.S., 754, S.Ct., 1045. objected strongly representatives See Hearings 3778 Senate Committee Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., Sess. (1958). objection looking proposing it, unable advantages' applied. 13 Unfortunately, advantage,' what supposed protect, nowhere spelled argue, held, intended one transport goods incremental another. fallacy argument renders advantage' essentially meaningless context 15a(3). 14 pricing services net revenue loss carriage, prohibit practices carrier. Any precisely endorsed phrase 'and supra, 580. was, however, alternative formulation ICC, see Hearings, 169, substituted it. As said Haven case: 15 'The principal reason (to Policy) emphasize power prevent destroying impairing modes. And precise example given Committee, led adopted, case establishing part operations compensatory cost, forced smaller thus perhaps business.' 758, 1047. 16 are identical just described, seem very least, here presumptively accord intent utilizing language.10 17 Court, ignored above portion seized certain therein 18 'It may be, example, neither 'out-of-pocket' nor 'fully distributed' terms defined Commission, method movement.' 760, 1048. coupled interpretation having purpose promote 'hard competition,' justifying using means advantage. We think reading prior extent foster note nothing indicates preference either measure advantage; rather, 'may be' neither. Given insertion s came insistence demanding advantage,11 clear import statement could, after consideration, decide some comparative might satisfactory traditionally utilized.12 That cry saying must. 21 apparently believed exercise direction floor encourage 'hard'13 do deny probably 'hard.' Indeed, admittedly scanty evidence record, resulting hard run considerable number existing truck lines business. 22 disagree, Court's intent. contained product bitter struggle One specific fears competitors prompted change original used permit unregulated various permitting meet eventual complete triumph impose constant costs14 who testified unequal allocation shippers demand i.e., existence traffic,15 economically sound desirable. Apart merits matter theory,16 quite wholly accepted enacted examples undesirable practice, members drafted such, engaged day-to-day differential carriage citrus fruit Florida depending available ship day. 153—155. Similar seasonal variations winter conditions interfered freight water. Id., 162—163. Yet, standpoint, perfect sense insofar maximization revenues concerned.17 24 simple enacted, claim, obtain maximum therefrom. words speak 'preserv(ing)' transportation. If meant noncompensatory regulated carriers, good deal clearer easily used. And, above, least version Congress. theories advanced compelling feel are, body whom addressed. courts ill-qualified indeed kind judgments particularly inappropriate award carrier, grounds, relief denied legislature. Yet done 25 mean suggest similarly barred making matters policy. task entrusted specialized agency jurisdiction. Of course, operate within limits legislation administers. But say expressing view constitutes categorical command controversies. case, will prove preferable present one. All hold initial determination Commission. 26 connection timing takes significance. broad-scale examination standards where comparisons required. Rather await proceeding, appellees attempt raise issues much circumscribed unilaterally reducing item totally temporary nature ICC's pendency proceeding. went ahead guise resolving controversy over single rendered which, practical purposes, moot. While justification applicable clearly requires arrive result, emphatically situation. Haven, '(t)hese similar questions left informed judgment.' 761, 27 presented evaluate alternatives effects industry whole. Until evaluation completed, continue practice dealing reductions basis. effect, refused complex problems developing broad resolve narrow 28 interpreting require instances. ultimately preferable, refusing reasonably adequate involved. can denying reasonable latitude issues, addition how deprives opportunity prevents doing suitable context. 29 recently Federal Power authority fix area-wide producer procedure feasible, moratorium increases producers period 1/2 years setting area Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 747, 1344, 312 principle 'legislative discretion implied necessarily extends entire process, embracing reaching itself.' 776, 1365. equally carried especially where, interim involved agency. ample decline contentions failing authority. 30 failure explain why competitor regulated. short answer applies 'modes Act,' definition carriers. arbitrariness flow distinction recognized creation Congress, 31 did impair destroy pointed would, recognized, capture combined seems impressed meeting despite equal move train. somewhat unrealistic parity does undercutting possess regardless label used, self-evident carrier's low sets forces retain addition, likely pushing longer profit, traditionally, properly, prevented commencing place. Certainly suggestion excessive need down pressure. conclude, 32 reversed remanded directions enter affirming order. ordered. 33 Reversed directions. 34 HARLAN, concurring result. 35 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions understand position, decided, decide, expressly open N.H 108: third criterion determining, (preceding Act), reasoning is, properly adhere separate entitled Rules Governing Assembling Presenting Cost Evidence, Docket Number 34013. 36 doubt may, orderly processes adjudication require, defer proceedings,1 greatest difficulty occurred, occur, cases.2 Nonetheless, conclusion isolated statements conclusion, believe best acquiesce express my views shuns.3 37 less candid regard disposition unsatisfactory, now leaves important our five ago litigation necessary 38 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 39 affirm 71. States, defendant supported participated comes incorporated Act. central discussed detail, infra, 579—594. Fully broadly 'out-of-pocket plus revenue-ton ton-mile distribution including deficits, (that) indicate return traffic, disregarding pay.' Automobiles 259 475, 513 (1945). long-term computed ICC-sponsored formula holds 80% rail operating expenses, rents taxes vary To element 4% investment (all equipment 50% road property), apportioned proportional Compare n. 3, supra. figure figure. transfer. parties willing treat combination, mention disparate elements. Division initially forfeited right claim matching On reconsideration, full 2, observing anything lines' ignorance amount challenged party Out-of-pocket regarded equivalent 'incremental' 'marginal' Accordingly equate likewise, although vouching accuracy equation pure economics. Cf. 4, Such specifically incurred unit output include pre-existing overhead expenses. time greater set. sometimes describe excess An illustration There half movements rely instead coastwise shipping therefore prohibited. general, possessed cancelled Nation's defense needs protection even higher cases, contend, compel approach utilized 475 (1945), rule However, passage quoted simply help says advantages. argue thrust compare true many actually compels flat laid down. automobiles, truckers 120 miles. 230 I.C.C., 528. After discussing length concept rates, distances 200 miles compete longer-haul 539. get 600 miles, surprising measuring receive little Thus cannot fairly represents considered choice methods comparison. stands concerned thought enacted. text stand structure protected losing through proposal interests 1940. clear, major so-called Miller-Wadsworth amendment possibility low-value industrial agricultural commodities enough feasible interstate commerce. Nelson, Rate-Making Transportation—Congressional Intent, Duke L.J. 221, 228—238. varying unexplained reasons, invariably F.Supp., 78, preferable. hearings become Commissioner Freas stated: 'Whenever permit, performing instances, low-cost form exceeds If, then, accept preserving carrier.' Quoted 755, ascertained competition' opinion: 'Section words, something deemed unfair destructive. seen, establish unprofitable attrack traffic.' 759, sentence described prohibited reverse peculiar. Constant speaking, items expense scale operations. commonly called estate taxes, rents, right-of-way maintenance Unequal occurs bulky commodity valued ton carrying uneconomic 11, suited pass arguments expert witnesses soundness reach posture controversy. us, venture few observations Most directed towards proving utilization permits maximize profits. accurately proposition uncontrovertible. country. developed follows. Whenever lowers benefits. benefits obtaining profits formerly carry. lose earned immaterial railroad's charging shows sense, competitor. aspects operation kept mind. inter alia, 14, allocated carries not. These stay proportionally theory factors equal, assuring contributes his share covering Obviously pays discriminated against. point arbitrary allocate contend benefited obtains additional pay currently paying disproportionally outweighed benefit absolute borne decreased apparent, attract continued maintaining relative favors inability match continuation disappear. assert situation level. obvious effectively different thereafter turn, drive Eventually eliminate whose own. accomplished re-price thereby eliminating discrimination customers. served lost perpetuate absence (It barriers reentry market low, asserted economists, potential created re-entry furnish continuance create competition.) existed business, irrational keep serve elsewhere revenue? Would possible increase increasing, selective decreases, volume shipped persons amounts afforded them? come pretend find Our interpreted points illustrate desirability tribunal, discriminations relationship basically discriminatorily, shipments shippers, By contrast retained areas too dissimilar embodied examples. not, really references moratoria systems approved 312. devices warranted light Natural Gas extraordinary difficulties inpendent commodity. useful desirable extrapolate unusual extension agencies. today turn Los Angeles Electric Corporation California, 289 287, 304, 53 637, 643, L.Ed. 1180, sustained opinions. difficulty, supposed, dimly us. appearance disappearance deferred presentation deserves chronicle given. 1965, three initiated Fed.Reg. 4102, months ascertaining unregulated. found unnecessary question, Grain Multiple-Car Shipments River Crossings So., 325 752, 772. report 'adhere(d) presented.' 323 762—763. pause brief opinion's final section. 77, 84. dissenting 85, 86, 90. year review problems. adhered decisions Shipments—River advert proceedings. 'relatively limited' apply Shipments, whatever expedients until careful analysis possible. Wine, Pacific Coast East, 329 167, 171—175. opinions Vice Chairman Tucker Freas, id., 176, Murphy, part, 177. aside jurisdictional adverted sentence, identifying footnote, statement's conclusion. Jurisdictional Statement 809, 17. memorandum urging noted, 'present reserved Court' 'whether 'some measure' *' Memorandum 3—4. briefs four looked vain holds, Haven. searched unsuccessfully reference, however fleeting, if, finds, view, decisive room 51 cite difficult escape inference has, doubtless me, postponed add 'the (as proceeding) Ante, 590-591.

Classification Label: 7