То

The Advance Bulletin supplements the Commission's bound volumes of Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. This issue is number 8 of volume 1. A number of Bulletins will constitute a volume; and the pages will be numbered consecutively within each volume rather than within individual Bulletins. facilitate the location of subject headings, the Table of Contents of each Bulletin may ultimately be removed to form a cumulative table for the volume. The Bulletin is published bimonthly.

Members of the public, attorneys and practitioners, the I.C.C. staff may consult the consolidated file from which the Bulletin is compiled in Room 6364 of the I.C.C. Building. For cases which appear in the Bulletin only as reconsidered or appealed, prior citations and annotations may be obtained by consulting the consolidated file or by calling Mr. John F. McMorrow or Mr. Robert A. Emery, (202) 343-3267.

Material in this volume of the Bulletin will appear in Volume 22 of the Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. Where a Bulletin case is marked with an asterisk (*), its history may be found in the Table of Cases at the back of the Bulletin.

Volume 21 of the Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated is now available from the U.S. Government Printing Office (Stock No. 2600-00970) and may be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at $18.65 per copy, payable by check or money order to the Superintendent of Documents.

The Advance Bulletin is prepared in the Annotations Unit under the direction of Mr. Jack R. Long, Chief, Reference Services Branch, Section of Case Control and Information, Office of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423. Comments and suggestions regarding improve

ment of the format of the Bulletin will be welcomed, and may be made in writing or by calling (202) 343-3766.

Vol. 1 No. 8

PART I

$1(5). JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES

Tests of Reasonableness

25. Method or bias of construction.—Analysis of reasonableness of proposed revised fare structure on interstate passenger service on New Haven division of respondent railroad must begin with the basic, single-trip, one-way fare and not with an estimated apportionment of prices of monthly tickets, and must be compared with fares charged for substantially similar traffic. Protestants' theoretical, alternate structures for fares provide no basis for finding of unreasonableness herein.-Penn Central Fare Revision1969, 335 I.C.C. 720 (730, 736).

Local, Through, Joint, and Proportional Rates

402. Proportional rates.-Proposed rail multiple-car proportional rates on canned foodstuffs from the Pacific coast to points east of the Rocky Mountains found just and reasonable. Respondents have shown a competitive need for such rates, have proven such rates are not discriminatory as to single-car shipments, and have limited such rates to transited movements over through routes.-Canned Foodstuffs, Pacific Coast to the East, 335 I.C.C. 612 (617-22).

Export and Import Rates

604. Relation to reasonable domestic rates.-Evidence submitted by respondent railroads comparing domestic rates with shipside rates found inadequate to support proposed cancellations of wharfage absorption as shipside rates reflect separate rate structures in effect for many years and affected by factors peculiar to waterborne traffic which do not normally affect domestic rates.-Cancellation of Wharfage Absorption, 335 I.C.C. 477 (525).

Rates for Special Classes of Service

659. Wharfage and dockage.-Proposed cancellation of wharfage absorption at indicated Gulf and South Atlantic ports by respondent railroads found just and reasonable to extent they reduce port terminal charges by the amounts of wharfage now included, but not just and reasonable as they cancel absorption of wharfage charges in connection with shipside and other rates which now include additive charges designed to defray port terminal expenses. Cancellation of Wharfage Absorption, 335 I.C.C. 477 (526).

Passenger Fares

760. In general.-Proposed revisions in fares applicable to interstate passenger service on the New Haven division of respondent railroad found just and reasonable in certain respects, as specified herein, to extent

that revised fares compare favorably with fares charged for similar services under substantially same transportation conditions and such other criteria as are pertinent.-Penn Central Fare Revision-1969, 335 I.C.C. 720 (736-47). $1 (6). CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION; REGULATIONS AND PRACTIC

Carrier's Duty as to Routing

573. Responsibility as between carrier and shipper.-Complainant's contention that defendant railroad's failure to call attention to conflict between the rate and route on the bill of lading is evidence of misrouting is without merit as the rates based on the applicable combination constitute the lowest possible charges.-Lincoln Grain, Inc. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 335 I.C.C. 779 (782).

$2. SPECIAL RATES AND REBATES PROHIBITED

Interpretation and Application

18. Unjust discriminations only prohibited.—Protestants' contentic that a proposed tariff provision restricting joint carload rates on shipments of fresh potatoes southbound from central Oregon only when such shipments are loaded in special refrigerator cars and moved over a specified route would result in discrimination between shippers found not proven. Respondent railroads have proven that an adequate supply of such cars exists and that compliance with the restriction is not an undue burden on shippers.-Routing Restrictions on Fresh Vegetables, 335 I.C.C. 665 (670-71).

Substantially Similar Circumstances and Conditions

105. In general.-Proponent railroads' multiple-car rates on canne foodstuffs moved from points on the Pacific coast to points east of the Rocky Mountains found not unjustly discriminatory, as such services do not occur under circumstances and conditions substantially similar to single-car shipme due to restrictions of accessorial services and high minimum tender requirements on multiple car shipments.-Canned Foodstuffs, Pacific Coast to the East 335 I.C.C. 612 (623).

$3 (1). UNDUE PREFERENCES OR PREJUDICES PROHIBITED

31.

Undue Preference and Prejudice Defined

"Undue or unreasonable preference or advantage."-Protestants' contention that a proposed tariff provision restricting joint carload rates o shipments of fresh potatoes southbound from central Oregon to such shipments loaded in special refrigerator cars and moved over specified routes would und prefer shippers from competing areas found not proven. Respondent railroads evidence as to costs and availability of such cars proves compliance with the restriction is not an undue burden on shippers and would not materially chang the competitive situation between shippers from different areas.--Routing Restrictions on Fresh Vegetables, 335 I.C.C. 665 (671).