Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

APPENDIX PART II-Continued

Comparison of rates with 1968 out-of-pocket costs for International from Greybull, Wyo., to Chicago, Ill., and Milwaukee, Wis., minimum weight 40,000 pounds (based upon an average of Dahlsten and Huston costs)

[blocks in formation]

Comparision of rates with out-of-pocket costs of 1968 for International from Greybull, Wyo., to points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, mimimun weight 40,000 pounds (based upon an average of Dahlsten and Huston costs)

[blocks in formation]

2 Simple average of percents empty for Dahlsten (18.9 percent) and Huston (19.3 percent).

3 From exhibit Nos. FH-50 and 51.

4 Appendix F line 12, plus miles in column 3, times cost of 0.07682 cents per hundredweight-mile computed

by taking simple average cost per vehicle-mile of 31.026 cents for Dahlsten and 30.425 cents for Huston from appendix F, line 19 divided by 400 hundredweight (examiner's report).

5 Rates in cents per 100 pounds from A. R. Fowler MF-ICC No. 265.

APPENDIX PART II-Continued

Comparison of rates with 1968 out-of-pocket costs for C&H, from Belle Fourche to Chicago and Milwaukee, minimum weight 40,000 pounds (based upon an average of Dahlsten and Huston costs)

[blocks in formation]

Comparison of rates with 1968 out-of-pocket costs for C & H, from Belle Fourche and Colloid Spur to points in Illinis and Wisconsin (based upon an average of Dahlsten and Huston costs)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

*hort-line miles increased 6 percent to include circuity.

Simple average percents empty for Dahlsten (18.9 percent) and Huston (19.3 percent). 3Appendix F, line 13 plus miles in column 5 times cost of 1.53630 cents per ton-mile computed by taking simple average cost for Dahlsten 31.026 cents and 30.425 cents for Huston from appendix F, line 19 (examiner's report).

Commodity rates in cents per ton from C & H, tariff MF-ICC No. 89, page 11.

From exhibit No. FH-49.

divided by 20 tons

conform

Unit costs per ton in footnote 3 converted to cents per 100 pounds to compute costs in 100 pounds to with rates. Terminal cost 5.9 cents per 100 pounds, and line-haul costs of 0.07682 cents per hundredweight-mile. 'Distance rates in cents per 100 pounds from C & H, tariff MF ICC No. 89, page 13.

APPENDIX PART II-Continued

Comparison of rates with 1968 out-of-pocket costs for Diamond from Belle

Fourche, S. Dak., and Colloid Spur, Wyo., to points in Illinois and Wisconsin, minimum weight 30,000 pounds (based upon an average of Dahlsten and Huston costs)

[blocks in formation]

1Short-line miles increased 6 percent to include circuity.

2Simple average of percents empty for Dahlsten (18.9 percent) and Huston (19.3 percent). 3From exhibit No. FH-48.

Appendix F, line 12 plus miles in column 3 above, times cost of 0.07682 cents per hundredweight-mile computed by taking simple average cost per vehicle-mile of 31.026 cents for Dahlsten and 30.425 cents for Huston, appendix line 19 divided by 400 hundredweight (examiner's report).

F

5Rates in cents per hundredweight from A. R. Fowler MF-ICC 265.

INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 8548

INSPECTION IN TRANSIT, GRAIN AND GRAIN PRODUCTS

Decided September 21, 1971

1. On reconsideration, proposed new or increased charges for in-transit inspection of grain at various points in the United States found just and reasonable and otherwise lawful. Prior report 339 I.C.C. 364.

2. Jurisdiction retained to receive and review reports required to be filed by respondents.

Appearances as shown in the prior report and in addition: Carl F. Schwensen, Fred B. Adam, and D. J. Russell for protestants and Mel Thompson for the Honorable Keith G. Sebelius, United States House of Representatives, for First District, Kansas.

REPORT AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In the prior report, 339 I.C.C. 364, decided April 16, 1971, division 2 found that proposed new or increased charges for in-transit inspection of grain at various points in the United States were just and reasonable and otherwise lawful and entered its order discontinuing the proceeding. We had earlier determined that the proceeding presented an issue of general transportation importance which action sanctioned, under section 1.101 of the General Rules of Practice, the filing of petitions for our reconsideration of the division's report and order. The schedules publishing the charges became effective on May 4, 1971, but pursuant to the indicated Rules of Practice many of the protestant parties to this proceeding filed petitions for reconsideration, some of which contained requests for oral argument. In response to the latter we heard the parties in oral argument on August 24, 1971, and subsequently, reopened the proceeding for reconsideration.

Initially, a procedural matter requires attention. On August 16, 1971, just prior to the oral argument, certain protestants filed a motion to strike portions of the respondents' reply to the petitions for reconsideration or, in the alternative, that we receive for

consideration a number of documents attached to the motion. Respondents oppose both the motion and the alternative request in a reply filed September 7, 1971. The matter sought to be stricken and the addenda to the motion are concerned with conflicting analyses of the reaction of grain interests after the inspection charge became effective on May 4, 1971. The record as submitted supports our findings. The addition of self-serving unverified statements directed to events arising after the hearing was closed adds nothing of probative value. The motion of the protestants will be granted. The alternative request by protestants is thereby moot.

There will be no attempt to restate herein the scope of this extended and highly controverted proceeding. The complex factual and legal issues are described in detail in the earlier report and there is no serious challenge to the major portion of that recitation. Nor is there much fault to find with many of the preliminary findings of fact reached by the division. Accordingly, it should be stated at the outset that, following a careful review of the division's report and order and an analysis of the record in the light of the arguments advanced orally by the parties, we adopt and affirm the findings and conclusions reached in the earlier report except to the extent modified subsequently herein. Such findings and conclusions are fully supported by the record and a restatement and review in this report would be repetitive and serve no purpose. Certain aspects of this proceeding appear to require some elaboration, or greater emphasis, and to a limited degree modification of the conclusions of division 2, and that is the reason for this brief report. In the interest of clarity, it will be necessary to set forth a brief description of the proceeding.

As noted by division 2, in-transit inspection relates to the practice of stopping railroad cars loaded with grain and grain products, including soybeans, and placing them on railroad track facilities for the purpose of permitting inspection of the contents of the car, awaiting disposition orders from shippers after inspection, and the subsequent movement of the car. The inspection is the taking of a representative sample or samples to determine the official grade of the contents of the car for the purpose of establishing value of the commodity at the market. It does not include any inspection on tracks of the shipper at either origin or destination.

By far the predominant portion of the grain and grain product traffic that receives the in-transit inspection moves within the West. For many years the railroads that originate substantial quantities of this traffic have made provision for sampling and inspection while the loaded cars were in transit. The provision of the Federal statute which prior to 1968 required an inspection to establish the official

« FöregåendeFortsätt »