Το

The Advance Bulletin supplements the Commission's bound volumes of Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. This issue is number 3 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. We plan to publish the Bulletin 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 1205 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 (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 currently being printed and should be available from the U.S. Government Printing Office in approximately six to eight months at which time a general press release will be issued.

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 improvement

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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY

Vol. 1 No. 3

5. National transportation policy, in general

Competition and ratemaking: The Commission must recognize the overriding problem today facing all common carriers-the heavy and increasing diversion of traffic into unregulated channels. It is essential for management to seek ways to recapture or retain this traffic if regulated carriers are to improve and consolidate their relative positions; with so many economic factors favoring diversion to unregulated carriage, experiment and ratemaking innovation is the only feasible approach, and, so long as experiments are not clearly unlawful, they should not be discouraged. Unless the Commission is to dictate carrier policy, measures designed to provide better and less expensive service than shippers can provide for themselves must be given a fair chance to develop through exercise of managerial discretion.-Reduced Exceptions Ratings Based on Density, 323 I.C.C. 341 (345).

Destructive competition: Proposed reduced rail TOFC per-flatcar charge, which is shown to be compensative on an out-of-pocket basis, and which would improve railroads' overall revenue position, would not constitute destructive competition when protesting water carrier failed to establish that motorwater-motor transportation is the low-cost mode for considered traffic and, as such, is entitled to protection pursuant to provisions of the national transportation policy and $15a (3). Therefore, despite the fact that evidence indicates that proposed rail rates will have an adverse effect on volume of certain Sea-Land traffic, protestant's argument that proposed TOFC rates threaten existence of a service uniquely capable of filling a transcendent public need, is not persuasive.-Canned or Preserved Foodstuffs from Fla. to N. Y. & N. J., 326 I.C.C. 776 (780-2)*.

Inherent advantages: The shipping public is entitled to benefit from the inherent advantages of water carrier service, including low-cost transportation, even though motor and rail transportation is available. Shippers and communities are entitled to adequate transportation service by water, with its inherent benefits and advantages, upon proof of need therefor.-Coyle Lines, Inc., Extension, 323 I.C.C. 386 (392-3).

Reduced rates: The maintenance of reduced joint rates with the use of less than 70-ton cars could be accomplished only at the expense of revenue losses to the carriers concerned. The primary consideration is how to achieve a balance in rail transportation costs between competing shippers under similar transportation conditions without unduly sacrificing the revenues of the carriers. Since the evidence established substantial savings from the use of the larger cars and there is nothing in the record to establish any extra cost in providing such cars, these savings to be accomplished through innovations in equipment, service and technological efficiencies should be promoted and fostered under the national transportation policy, rather than discouraged, and passed on to all shippers in competing origins.-Coal, Ky., Tenn. and Va. to North Carolina, 329 I.C.C. 572 (586)*.

PART I

$1 (4).

DUTY TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION AND ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES; DIVISION
OF JOINT RATES

1. General nature of duty.-See Coal, Ky., Tenn. and Va. to North

Carolina, at §15(3), n. 22,

$1 (5). JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES

In General-Definitions

22. Flexible limits of judgment in determining reasonableness.While rates which exceed out-of-pocket costs by only slight margins have been approved when required by special circumstances, the Commission has never take the view that any particular margin must be set. Logic dictates that each rate must be judged in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding it. Furthermore, the level of a rate is essentially a matter for managerial discre tion. There is no magic formula to insure the automatic approval or disapprov of any specific rate. -Sea-Land Service, Inc., v. New York Central R. Co., 329 I.C.C. 589 (596).

Tests of Reasonableness

25. Method or basis of construction. Shipment consigned to a warehouse putatively located in Williamsburg, Va., was delivered to the appropriate warehouse which is actually located in Penniman, 2 miles farther than Williamsburg. The rate to Penniman was 19 cents more than to Williamsburg, and complainants were charged the Penniman rate. Although the Commission determined that the applicable rate was charged, it was held to be unjust and unreasonable, because: (1) no specific proof of record that competitive situat is different at Penniman than at other points in the same general area taking lower rates; (2) subsequent reduction of the Penniman rate to lower level is a factor, among others, tending to show that the prior basis exceeded a maximu reasonable level; and (3) the defendants were not guilty of mis routing, becaus in spite of ambiguous routing instructions, delivery was made to warehouse of consignment.-Cardinal Meat Co. v. Colo. & Southern Ry. Co., 329 I.C.C. 622

(623-5)*.

Comparison of Rates

210. In general.-Complainant shipper's contention that c.1. rates on silica sand, from Guion, Ark., to Southeastern points are unjust and unreasonable found not proven. Complainant's rate comparisons do not sustain burden of proof as the assailed rates are already below compared opposite direction and Commission prescribed rates; comparison with intraterritorial rates ignores different operating conditions; and comparison with rates on quick lime ignores factor of competitive depression. -Silica Products Co., Inc. v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 329 I.C.C. 181 (183-7).