450. Routing; misrouting.-Any carrier who, for his own convenience, converts a less-than-truckload shipment from an intrastate to an interstate character by moving such shipments over an interstate route may be liable for misrouting. Shipments so converted in character must be charged by the applicable interstate rate.-Applicable Rates on Intrastate Shipments, 335 I.C.C. 472 (475)*. 460. Demurrage.-Proposed tariff provisions, requiring that liability for charges resulting from detention of motor common carrier equipment be placed solely on the person causing the delay, were found unlawful because such provisions attempt to place liability for detention charges upon a person not a party to the contract for transportation.-Payment for Detention Charges, Eastern Central Rates, 335 I.C.C. 537 (542) *. Classification of Property; Rules, Regulations 704. Density of commodity.-Relatively low density has long been an accepted basis for charging higher than normal class rates, and Commission has approved this factor as a justification for maintaining commodity or exception rates which were higher than the classification rating on the traffic in question. Therefore, in view of the importance in determining rate on certain traffic, there is nothing unreasonable in defendants' tariff provisions whereby the shipper has the alternative of stating the shipment density on the bill of lading or paying the rates higher than the classification basis when no such notation is made.-Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South Transports, 335 I.C.C. 586 (594). Receipts, Freight Bills, Bills of Lading 975. Bills of lading.-The density of a commodity is of such importance in making rates that tariff provisions requiring notation of density on the bill of lading as a condition precedent to use of a rate are not unreasonable. Failure of a shipper to comply with such provisions is not sufficient basis for declaring a higher rate unreasonable.-Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South Transports, 335 I.C.C. 586 (594-95). §216 (d). UNDUE PREFERENCE OR PREJUDICE 1. Construction and interpretation.-Complainant has not proved that tariff provisions requiring a notation of density on the bill of lading as a condition precedent to use of a lower rate on shipments of dresses constitute a disadvantage in purchasing or marketing dresses. There is no basis for finding such higher rates to be an undue preference and prejudice.— Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South Transports, 335 I.C.C. 586 (596). Rules, Regulations, Practices 60. Moving household goods.-Proposed amendment to 49 CFR 1056.4 which would make all charges for accessorial and terminal services on household goods be determined on basis of shipment's total weight not shown to be justified as weight is an arbitrary factor wholly unrelated to the services performed and would result in unreasonably higher or lower charges to shippers depending on amount of services required.-Amendment of Pt. 276.4 General Rules & Regulations, 335 I.C.C. 698 (702-03). $216(e). COMPLAINTS TO AND INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION; POWER OF COMMISSION TO FIX REASONABLE RATES, REGULATIONS, ETC. 3. Complaints to, and jurisdiction of Commission. -Commission order in investigation proceeding disapproving increases in rates and charges and directing carriers to make refunds to shippers to extent that such increases are not approved, which order was issued incident to respondent carriers' request for an extension of time, held valid and not subject to a judgment of annulment when, though the refund provision was challenged, respondents (including plaintiffs) tacitly or impliedly accepted the order by withdrawal of their objection. In addition, applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the Commission relied on carriers' withdrawal of their jurisdictional objection to the refund provision; and such withdrawal was a positive act evidencing their willingness to go along with the condition imposed. The Commission granted the request for extension of time in good faith and, as plaintiffs accepted benefits of such extension order, their present posture appears grossly inequitable and not deserving of court intervention. Therefore, while the procedure is not commended, peculiar facts of instant case do not justify granting the relief sought and approval of carriers' conduct. Camplaint dismissed.-Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 353 (356, 358-60)*. Rates on shipments of chemicals, drugs, and related articles from New Jersey and New York to Chicago were found not to cover respondents' out-of-pocket costs and were thus noncompensatory. The Commission prescribed lawful minimum rates for such service as empowered by $216 (e) and found the assailed rates unlawful to the extent they violate the prescribed minimum rates.—Chemicals, Drugs, and Related Articles, 335 I.C.C. 601 (606-07). $216 (g). NEW RATES; DETERMINATION OF FAIRNESS BY COMMISSION; SUSPENSION (COMMON CARRIERS) 5. Burden of proof.-Commission investigation orders, entered prior to the effective date of proposed tariff rules eliminating the unloading of loose and carcass meats by motor carriers and placing responsibility for such unloading on the consignee, place the burden of proof on respondents to show the proposed tariff rules to be just and reasonable.-Unloading Restrictions on Meats & PHP, 335 I.C.C. 391 (395). Justification for increases: Upon protest, burden of proving increased rates on shipments weighing 201 to 499 pounds to be just and reasonable is upon the respondent motor carriers and has been met by evidence of costs-revenue relationships proving a revenue need exists for such increases.Small Shipment Rate Revision-Eastern Central, 335 I.C.C. 547 (550-56). Upon investigation, respondent has met the burden of proving proposed increased rates and minimum charges on shipments of less than 5,000 pounds to be reasonable by introduction of data which fairly represent the motor common carriers involved, show a revenue need, and prove that such increases would not be excessive. -Increased Rates & Charges, C. & S. Territories, 335 I.C.C. 576 (679-89). Justification for reductions: Upon protest, burden of proving reduced rates on small shipments weighing in excess of 1,000 pounds to be just and reasonable is upon the respondent motor carriers and has been met by evidence of cost revenue relationships proving need for such reductions to offset the upward adjustments on shipments weighing less than 500 pounds. Small Shipment Rate Revision-Eastern Central, 335 I.C.C. 547 (551-56). 10. Evidence, in general.-Respondents' evidence for proposed tariff rules placing responsibility for unloading loose and carcass meats on the consignee relates mainly to respondents' motivation for such restriction on unloading. Such restriction constitutes a reduction in service and proposed tariffs include no corresponding adjustment of carriers' line-haul rates. Proof of motivation, alone, without economic justification, is insufficient evidence to show proposed tariffs just and reasonable.-Unloading Restrictions on Meats & PHP, 335 I.C.C. 391 (398-99). Protestants' contention that traffic and cost studies introduced by respondent motor carriers in support of restructured rates on LTL and any-quantity shipments are invalid found not proven. Traffic study followed standard statistical procedures, provided for control of errors, and was reasonably representative of the entire traffic under consideration. Cost study used the proper through traffic basis for cost computation and acceptably used quarterly reports to the Commission as basis for increased serviceunit costs.-Small Shipment Rate Revision-Eastern Central, 335 I.C.C. 547 (565-70). Respondent's data on cost, traffic, and revenue of selected carriers found representative evidence of all respondents operating between central and southern territories as it accurately reflects data ascertained by the Commission's cost finding section in preparation of statements No. 3-66 published as a guide for the formulation of rates. Protestant's evidence is not persuasive as it fails to consider the characteristics of central and southern territorial traffic.-Increased Rates & Charges, C. & S. Territories, 335 I.C.C. 676 (681-92). 25. Classifications; comparisons; exceptions. -Suspended schedules restructuring rates on LTL and any-quantity shipments found just and reasonable. The assailed departure from classification principles is justified as transportation characteristics generally have become irrelevant insofar as small shipments are concerned and such charges are not rates but shipment charges and need not be stated in rates per 100 pounds.-Small Shipment Rate Revision-Eastern Central, 335 I.C.C. 547 (563-64). Proposed rate and minimum charge increases in flat amounts on shipments of less than 5,000 pounds between the central and southern territories approved as respondent proved that flat amount increases correct disparities in cost-revenue relationships caused by previous percentage increases which did not consider the relative importance of classification to size of shipment and length of haul.-Increased Rates & Charges, C. & S. Territories, 335 I.C.C. 676 (692-93). 26. Reasonableness of regulations and practices.-Proposed tariff rules eliminating the unloading of loose and carcass meats by motor carriers but not adjusting line-haul rates to reflect such elimination constitutes reduced service without reduced rates and so have not been shown to be just and reasonable. Proposed tariffs permitting a carrier to arrange such unloading services without specifying a precise charge for such services ruled unlawful.-Unloading Restrictions on Meats & PHP, 335 I.C.C. 391 (400-01). 65. Reasonableness of proposed rates.-Proposed new rates and charges on LTL and any-quantity shipments, to apply between points in New England and middle Atlantic territories, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in central, northwest, middle west, and southwestern territories found just and reasonable as such rates would bear their fair share of carriers' costs as applied to the respective weight brackets.-Small Shipment Rate Revision-Eastern Central, 335 I.C.C. 547 (575). The Commission concludes that the data submitted by respondent in support of increased rates and minimum charges on shipments of less than 5,000 pounds fairly represent the carriers operating between the central and southern territories, show a revenue need, and prove such increases are not excessive. The increased rates and charges are approved as just and reasonable.-Increased Rates & Charges, C. & S. Territories, 335 I.C.C. 676 (692). $217 (a). TARIFFS OF COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLES; FILING, POSTING, PUBLICATION 1. Construction and interpretation.-Where tariff provisions requi the making of a notation on the bill of lading stating the density of the cam modity shipped as a condition precedent to the use of a rate, the shipper is bound by such provisions. Such notations must be made prior to movement of the shipment or they are not in compliance with the provision.-Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South Transport, 335 I.C.C. 586 (593). 6. Territory, routes, points; "between"; direction of movement; commodities.-New order of the Commission requiring plaintiff to cancel proposed rates on single-unit mobile homes, on ground that its operating rights did not authorize transportation of mobile homes, is founded on substantial evidence of record. After the decision in 262 F. Supp. 1009, which set aside its earlier order requiring cancellation of those rates, the Commission held extensive further hearings which produced voluminous additional testimon and exhibits; and the prior three-judge court having left to the Commission any appropriate further action, that procedure was proper. A new record is now presented for judicial review; and, while testimony of expert and industry witnesses disagrees as to proper classification of the single-unit mobile home, there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that there is a valid distinction between the terms "mobile home" and "prefabricated building" as used in commodity description of the authority granted. Commission order under review, sustained. -Pre-Fab Transit Co. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 1147 (1149-50, 1152)*. 10. Plain and definite statement required.-Proposed tariff provisions, placing liability for payment of charges resulting from detention of motor common carrier equipment, are in violation of $217 of the Act to the extent that such provisions contain the phrase "party causing the delay," or similar wording, which phrases are indefinite and unclear.-Payment for Detention Charges, Eastern Central Rates, 335 I.C.C. 537 (542)*. $220 (a). REPORTS TO COMMISSION; COPIES OF CONTRACTS; PUBLICATION OF INFORMA- 5. In general.-Under $220, the Commission may require any motor carrier to file a copy of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between such carrier and any other carrier or person relating to any traffic, except that the Commission may not make public any contract, agreement, or arrangement between a motor contract carrier and a shipper. Commission's authority sufficiently encompasses reporting requirements at issue herein. Also, proposed revisions of class I and class II motor carriers annual reports requiring additional information, specified herein, as to transactions between carriers and their affiliates are approved as modified. These data are essential to Commission's evaluation of revised rates, fares, and charges of such carriers pursuant to §§216 (g) and (i).—Annual Reports of Motor Carriers of Property, 335 I.C.C. 707 (711-12). $222 (b). JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCE 11. Interstate operation without certificate or permit.—So long as defendant agricultural cooperative holds no interstate motor carrier authority and performs interstate transportation for compensation, such transportation must be performed pursuant to the $203 (b5) exemption. Therefore, cooperative's for-hire transportation of nonexempt products and com-modities (including that performed for the Government) beyond the scope of the $203 (b5) exemption is unlawful and subject to permanent injunction and restraint until such time as appropriate authority there for is obtained.— Interstate Commerce Commission v. Big Sky Farmers & Ranch. Mkg. Coop. of Montana, 321 F. Supp. 79 (80, 82-3)*. 25. Injunction. -Agricultural cooperative's interstate for-hire transportation of nonexempt products and commodities beyond scope of the $203 (b5) exemption, as applied to defendants, is unlawful and in violation of the Act; thus, plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining |