Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. I.C.C., 79-2228
| Decision Date | 27 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2228,79-2228 |
| Citation | 645 F.2d 1102 |
| Parties | PUERTO RICO MARITIME SHIPPING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Trailer Marine Transport Corporation, Sea Land Service, Inc., International Longshoremen's Association, American Trucking Association, Inc., Federal Maritime Commission, Houston Port Bureau, Inc. et al., South Carolina State Ports Authority, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petition for Review of an Order of the Interstate Commerce commission.
Morris R. Garfinkle, Washington, D.C., with whom Amy Loeserman Klein, Olga Boikess and Kathleen Mahon, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner and intervenors, South Carolina State Ports Authority and Houston Port Bureau, et al.; Richard D. Gluck, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance, for petitioner.
Gordon M. Shaw, Atty., Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C., with whom Edward G. Gruis, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for intervenor, Federal Maritime Commission.
Kathleen M. Dollar, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., Washington, D.C., with whom Richard A. Allen, Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., Washington, D.C., Sanford M. Litvack, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, Barry Grossman and Robert J. Wiggers, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents. Robert B. Nicholson, Atty. Dept. of Justice and Henri F. Rush, Counsel, I.C.C., Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents.
Michael Joseph, Washington, D.C., with whom John Cunningham, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for intervenor, Trailer Marine Transport Corp.
Nelson J. Cooney, Kenneth E. Siegel and Alan J. Thiemann, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for intervenor, American Trucking Associations, Inc.
Thomas W. Gleason, New York City, was on the brief, for intervenor, International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Inc.
Donald J. Brunner, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor, Sea Land Service, Inc.
Before McGOWAN, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and GASCH, * United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge McGOWAN.
This is a proceeding to review an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in which the Commission accepted for the first time exclusive jurisdiction over tariffs naming joint motor/water through rates in trade between the United States and Puerto Rico. In large part the Commission reversed its longstanding previous practice on the strength of Trailer Marine Transport v. Federal Maritime Commission, 602 F.2d 379 (D.C.Cir. 1979) ("TMT" ), in which a panel of this court held that the ICC may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over tariffs naming joint rail/water through rates in the same trade. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Commission's extension of TMT to motor/water as well as rail/water through rates.
Trailer Marine Transport ("TMT") is a common carrier by water which operates between ports in the United States and Puerto Rico. Prior to August 1977, TMT operated a single-rate, all-water service between Puerto Rico and Florida. In 1977, however, TMT filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a tariff naming through rates for a new rail/water intermodal service for the joint carriage of goods 1 between points within the continental United States and seaports in Puerto Rico. Pursuant to this tariff, TMT would transport goods on the marine segment of the route and various independent rail carriers would transport the goods within the continental United States. Customers would pay one through rate, to be apportioned between the rail and water carriers according to the terms of their agreement. The Commission accepted exclusive jurisdiction over the tariff, and the joint service commenced operation on November 8, 1977.
Shortly thereafter, TMT filed a tariff similar to the one previously approved, except that the continental segment of the journey would be assumed by motor rather than rail carriers (a provision hereinafter termed a "joint motor/water through rate"). The ICC rejected this tariff, however. TMT filed for reconsideration, but the ICC upheld its previous determination.
Meanwhile, the Federal Maritime Commission ("FMC") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempting to set aside the ICC's assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over joint rail/water through rates. The FMC believed that it alone had the power to regulate or accept tariffs with respect to the marine segment of the joint through routes operating between the United States and Puerto Rico. On review, however, this court upheld the ICC's assumption of exclusive jurisdiction over rail/water through rates. Trailer Marine Transport v. Federal Maritime Commission, 602 F.2d 379 (D.C.Cir. 1979).
Immediately after the TMT opinion issued, TMT petitioned the ICC to reconsider its conflicting decision with respect to joint motor/water rates, arguing that the TMT opinion requires the Commission to take a more expansive view of its powers with respect to traffic in the Puerto Rico trade. The ICC agreed and, on September 10, 1979, handed down the decision now on review.
In its decision upon reconsideration, the ICC reversed its position and for the first time asserted exclusive jurisdiction over tariffs naming joint motor/water through rates in the Puerto Rico trade. The Commission based its decision on the TMT court's findings that (1) Puerto Rico is a "possession" of the United States for purposes of the Interstate Commerce Act ("the Act"), and (2) that the "limitation clause" contained in section 10501 of the Act (and quoted almost verbatim in section 10521, which pertains to motor carriers) is to be read only to prevent ICC regulation of intra-territorial traffic, not to prevent ICC regulation of any particular portion of the United States/Puerto Rico journey. Trailer Marine Transport v. FMC, 602 F.2d at 392-93. The court had also found that the FMC has no jurisdiction over the marine leg of the United States/Puerto Rico trade, which makes the ICC's jurisdiction exclusive, a ruling which the Commission apparently believed to be applicable to motor/water services as well.
On October 12, 1979, Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority ("PRMSA"), a common carrier by water owned by the Government of Puerto Rico, petitioned the ICC to reject TMT's tariff on the grounds that the Commission had no jurisdiction even to accept filings pertaining to the marine leg of a joint through route between Puerto Rico and the United States, much less to assert exclusive jurisdiction over the entire route. The ICC rejected this petition, and refused to stay the tariff pending review by this court. The Court of Appeals eventually stayed the operation of that tariff pending review. 2
Numerous parties have since intervened on both sides of the dispute. Supporting the ICC's order are Trailer Marine Transport, progenitor of the tariff which began the dispute, and American Trucking Associations, Inc. The major opponent of the order is the Federal Maritime Commission, as well as various municipal and state shipping authorities which have intervened to protect the livelihood of certain ports operating along the Puerto Rico/United States shipping lines. 3 The International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and Sea Land Service, Inc., have also joined in the brief urging reversal of this order.
The issues in this case are two: (1) whether the ICC has the authority to accept and regulate tariffs naming joint rates entered into by motor carriers and water carriers operating between the United States and Puerto Rico, and if so, (2) whether this jurisdiction reposes exclusively in the ICC or concurrently in the ICC and FMC. The first issue turns upon our construction of the Interstate Commerce Act, Part II, which is the statutory authority for the ICC's regulation of motor carriers.
The Interstate Commerce Act, Part II, grants the Interstate Commerce Commission general jurisdiction over motor transportation in the following instance, inter alia:
(a) Subject to this chapter and other law, the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction over transportation by motor carrier ... to the extent that passengers, property, or both, are transported by motor carrier
(1) between a place in
(C) The United States and a place in a territory or possession of the United States to the extent the transportation is in the United States; 4
Section 216(c) authorizes the establishment of joint through routes between motor and other common carriers for the purpose of facilitating efficient and cheaper transportation of goods. It provides:
A carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under chapter 105 of this title shall establish through routes as follows:
(4)(A) A motor common carrier of property may establish through routes and joint rates ... with other carriers of the same type, with rail and express carriers, and with water common carriers .... 5
Last, Section 217(a) requires a motor carrier to file with the Commission any tariffs "containing the rates for transportation it may provide under this subtitle (Part II)." 6
These statutes, read together, go far toward resolving the present dispute. First, they indicate that Congress, in enacting Part II, contemplated that the ICC might play some role in the regulation of motor traffic that is not purely "interstate" in character. This is obvious from the varied categories of ICC jurisdiction, apart from merely interstate powers, that are enumerated in section 203(a). 7 Also enlightening is the fact that motor carriers have carte blanche to enter into joint arrangements with other forms of common carriers, specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar
...Lumber Co. , 314 U.S. 95, 100, 62 S.Ct. 1, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941) (citations omitted); see also P.R. Mar. Shipping Auth. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n , 645 F.2d 1102, 1112 n.26 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("It is hornbook law that the use of the word ‘including’ indicates that the specified list of carri......
-
Kendrick v. Kendrick
...definition indicates that the enumerated items that follow are illustrative, not exclusive. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth. v. I.C.C., 645 F.2d 1102, 1112 n. 26 (D.C.Cir.1981). This rule of statutory construction leads to the conclusion that the property interests identified in Tenn.Cod......
-
Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. Npr, Inc.
...court made the same ruling in respect of joint through inland/water intermodal motor carrier service. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth. v. I.C.C., 645 F.2d 1102 (D.C.Cir.1981). Therefore, from 1979 until the enactment of the Termination Act in 1995, two federal agencies, with differing st......
-
Capital Freight Serv. v. Trailer Marine Transport
...segment of a joint motor/water through rate between the United States and Puerto Rico, see Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 645 F.2d 1102 (D.C.Cir.1981), and under part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10501, to regulate the marine segm......