# Petition — AMERICAN BAKERS ASS'N. v. UNITED STATES AND ICC (Nos. 76-1870, 76-1721, 1795, 77-24) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2102%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1977 ## Text Supieme Court, U. & FILED | JUN YS 1977 —> $$ pri IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Ocroper Term, 1976 No, 76°1870 AMERICAN BAKERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, V. Tue Unirep States oF AMERICA and Tue INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Jacon P, Bruiia Joun R, ATTANASIO 2033 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-8270 Counsel for American Bakers Association Press or Bynow 8S. Avames Praiwrine, Inc,, Wasntneron, D, C. ———— INDEX Page OPIMIONS BRLOW .icicssessssrcneereresereeeneneeee 2 JURISDICTION voc ccceerccereeereveeveeeereveeeneeens 2 QUESTION PRESENTED .....0 606s c cece eee renee eee ene 2 STATUTB INVOLVED coi sse ssc nssecvcerecsvcneneens 8 STATEMENT OF THR CABE 0... cece cree eee ee eens 4 Reasons ron Grantino tHe Wart or Certionant ..,... 10 I, The Court Of Ae peals Has Decided A Federal Question In A Way Which Conflicts With The Applicable bostsions Of This Court, ......0055 10 II, The Decision Of The Court Of Appeals Is In Con. fliot With, And In Effect Nullifies, A Section Of The Interstate Commerce Aot, .cccccccccccccas 20 SED vis acdeeeeeeceéukes cede eceescscecérce 22 PE TL disc ene ch akimeseits eceeebisaeneonsedée a-] CED EEE NS A NAN DREN Rte OE b-1 eels Be ae i eee a ale ee soa | ee os d-1 pe Fe eae err re nr me e-1 SEE OF ss cctiddubsbin eieeei cee euiadnddedccaés f.1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: American Barge Line Co, v. Alabama G.S.R, Co., 303 1.0.0, 463 (1958), rev'd in ¥ at on other grounds, 806 1.0.0, 167 (1058), aff'd, 194 F.Supp. 438 (D. SE SED bocdauenes eins unsoeddteseseedéodeces Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 52 F. 912 (8th ee ST a cauaedbeks ovedendisbcecedesnedenase 12 il Table of Authorities Continued Page Cooperative Grange League Fed, Exc, v. Akron, 0, & Y. R. Co., 8238 L.C.0, 174 (1964) oo... cece eeees 5 Grain Proportionals, Ex-Barge to Official Territory, 246 1.0.0, 853 modified, 248 LOC, 307 (1941), rev'd sub nom, Inland Waterways Corp. v. United States, 44 Da 868 (N.D, Ill, 1942), rev'd, 319 Grain Proportionals, Ex-Barge to Official Territory, 262 LCC, 7 (1945), rev’d sub nom, Mechling vy. United States (N.D, Ill, Nov, 26, 1945), aff’d, 330 as GE. GED bvoceddeservedeeceubesedesnctes 16 Great Northern Ry. Co, v. Sullivan, 294 US, 458 sary 4, 11,12 Interstate Commerce Commission v, Inland Waterways Corp., 819 U.S. 671 (1948) ....ccvevcvvevevess passim Interstate Commerce Commission v, Mechling, 330 U.S. GOT CRUG) cccccvccescccscccvcnceccoececces passim James McWilliams Blue Line v. Campbell's Creek Railroad Company, 278 L.C.C, 312 (1950), rev'd, 100 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y, 1951), aff'd per curiam, 342 US, 961 DD a-11 a f United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 76-1198 September Term, 1976 THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, ROBERT W. BLANCHETTE, RICHARD C. BOND AND JOHN H. MCARTHUR; BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC., THE CHESAPEAKE & Oun1o RAILway COMPANY, CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY, CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, CHICAGO SOUTH SHORE AND SOUTH BEND RAILROAD COMPANY, DENVER RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, WILLIAM GIBBONS, TRUSTEE OF CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, DEBTOR, GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO., GREEN } Bay & WESTERN RAILROAD Co., THE KANSAS City SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD, MISSOURI-KANSAS- TEXAS RAILROAD Co., Missouri PaciFic RAILROAD COMPANY, NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, THOMAS F. PATTON AND RALPH F. TYLER, JR., St. Louis-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, St. Louis SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CoO., Texas & Paciric RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION PaciFiIC RAILROAD, THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Petitioners, | a-12 On Petition for Review of Orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., THE BOARD OF TRADE OF KANSAS City, Missourl, INC., and AMERICAN BAKERS ASSOCIATION, Intervenors-Petitioners, On Petition vs. . for Review of | THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and + Orders of the ! INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Interstate R — Commerce pono, Commission BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Intervenor-Respondent. | This cause came on to be heard on petition for review of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission and briefs filed by the respective parties and were argued by counsel. On Consideration Whereof, it is now here ordered and ad- judged by this Court that the petition to review and set aside the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission is denied. February 24, 1977 | A true copy. Attest: ROBERT C. TUCKER Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. April 7, 1977 a-13 @ a | a Ce ) a a ee a a . is 6 , tt pene 6 sy ced oe ik wo } APPENDIX B United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 76-1198 THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, VS. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Respondents. September Term, 1975 Petition for Review of Orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Petitions of petitioners and intervenor-petitioner for rehearing filed in this cause having been considered, it is now here ordered by this Court that the petitions for rehearing be, and they are here- by, denied. March 31, 1977 b-1 rv a APPENDIX C DECISION AND ORDER At a Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Division 2, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 14th day of January, 1976. No. 35825 BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO v. THE AKRON, CANTON, & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. Upon consideration of the complaint and the record in the above-entitled proceeding, including the initial decision and order of the Administrative Law Judge, the exceptions thereto filed by complainant, defendants, and by the western railroads, Peavey Company, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (intervenors), and the replies to the exceptions filed by com- plainant, jointly by defendants and the western railroads, intervenors, and Archer Daniels Midland Company, intervenor; and It appearing, That the exceptions do not show any material errors in the Administrative Law Judge’s statement and eval- uation of the facts, his conclusions of law or findings, nor do they raise any material matters of fact or law not adequately considered and properly disposed of by the Administrative Law Judge in his initial decision, and are not of such nature as to require the issuance of a report by Division 2 discussing the evidence and arguments advanced in the light of such ex- ceptions; 2 Wherefore, and good cause appearing therefor: We find, That the evidence considered in the light of the exceptions and the replies thereto does not warrant a result different from that reached by the Administrative Law Judge, and that the statement of facts, conclusions and the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, being proper and correct in all material respects, should be, and they are hereby, affirmed and adopted as our own. It is ordered, That the Proceeding be, and it is hereby, discontinued.“ By the Commission, Division 2. Rosert L. OswaLp Secretary (SEAL) Ae et ae ee tte a Leann de Set acai APPENDIX D OH Interstate Commerce Commission INITIAL DECISION No. 35825 BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO v. THE AKRON, CANTON, & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. Maintenance of the assailed proportional or reshipping rates from Chicago, Ill., to points in the eastern United States, as set forth in the defendant railroads’ tariffs, on wheat and wheat products, in carloads, where the prior movement of the commodities to Chicago is by railroad, lake vessel, or barge without maintaining like rates and charges, at the same levels, from and to the same points on the same commodities where the prior movement to Chicago is by motor for-hire carrier. found unjustly discriminatory in contravention of the provisions of section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act; and assailed rates and charges otherwise found not shown to be unlawful. De- fendants ordered to cease and desist from the referred to violation and to publish appropriate tariffs removing such violation. Complaint in all other respects dismissed. Harold E. Spencer and Frank E. Polom for complainant. John J. Paylor and Richard A. Mehley for eastern railroad defendants. By Alvin H. Schutrumpf, Administrative Law Judge: By complaint filed April 9, 1973, the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago alleges that the present rate structure on wheat and wheat products (as listed and defined in TL-CTR Tanff 600-1, 1.C.C. C-168) covering (1) flat and proportional rates published in TL-CTR Eastern Grain Tariff C/TN 245-I, L.C.C. C-375, from Chicago to eastern basing points, viz: Albany, N. Y., Baltimore, Md., Belington, W. Va., Boston, Mass., Cumberland, Md., Hagerstown, Md., New York, N. Y., New- port News, Va., Norfolk, Va., Philadelphia, Pa., Rochester, N. Y., Rockland, Maine, Strasburg, Va., Syracuse, N. Y., Utica, N. Y., and points taking the same rates; (2) proportional rates from Chicago, Ill., as published in CTR Tariff 535-C I, LCC. 4495 to destinations named therein and points taking the same rates; and (3) flat rates, as published in the individual lines’ tariffs of defendants to destinations covered by the last named tariff; are unlawful as hereinafter described. The railroads listed in Appendix A hereto were named as defendants. Complainant alleges (1) that the maintenance and collec- tion of such rates and charges were and still are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section | of the Act; unjustly discriminatory to wheat arriving at Chicago by rail from points beyond for further movement to the east in violation of section 2 of the Act; and unduly prejudicial to Chicago, to complainant and to its members, and to wheat and wheat products in violation of section 3(1) of the Act; and (2) that maintenance by defendants of proportional domestic rates as referred to above are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section | of the Interstate Commerce Act, unjustly discriminatory to motor- carrier-arrived wheat' at Chicago and the shippers of such wheat and wheat products made therefrom, in violation of section 2 of said Act, and unduly prejudicial to complainant and its members, to Chicago, and to motor-carrier-arrived wheat at Chicago in violation of section 3(1) of said Act. Complainant seeks flat rates on wheat and wheat products from Chicago to eastern basing points uniformly 6.5 cents higher than the proportional rates, with the rates on wheat products being made one-half cent higher than those on wheat, ‘Sometimes called ex-truck wheat, ex-truck wheat products, or ex-truck traffic. d-2 i cet ote mate & oY and revision of the applicable tariffs so as to permit the application of the proportionals on motor-carrier-arrived wheat and wheat products with the additional provision that the proportional rates applicable are those in effect on the dates said shipments leave Chicago. \ Answers to the complainant were filed by certain defend- ants. The proceeding was referred to the Judge for hearing and the issuance of an appropriate order thereon. Hearing was held at Chicago, Ill., on January 7, 8, and 9, 1974. Evidence was submitted on behalf of complainant and on behalf of certain eastern railroad defendants. Briefs were filed. The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago (hereinafter called the Board) is a corporation created by an Act of the Illinois legislature, with its principal business in Chicago, Ill. Its 1,402 members represent all segments of the grain and grain products industries and include terminals, storage operators, grain merchandisers, cash grain merchants, processors, millers, exporters, and producers who operate and maintain facilities within the switching limits of Chicago and who ship and receive grain and grain products in interstate and foreign commerce. The Board itself ships no wheat, wheat products, or like commodities. On March 13, 1972, complainant submitted to the Eastern Railroads a proposal (a) for an adjustment in the spread between the fiat and proportional rates on grain and grain products from Chicago to eastern trunkline territory and (b) for tariff amendment to permit the application of the proportio- nal or reshipping rates from Chicago on grain and grain products shipments reaching Chicago via motor carriers. Ultimately these requests wer’ “nied and the complainant filed the instant complaint, the relief sought being limited to wheat and wheat products rates. d-3 4 The grain rate structure from Central Freight Association territory, including Illinois, to the east was established many years ago and was originally based on what is commonly- known as the McGraham Formula. Basically, the key rates are the Chicago-New York proportional and flat rates. Proportio- nal rates are made from Chicago to other eastern basing points predicated on a percentage and/or differential over or under the Chicago-New York rate. Historically, rates from other origins in official territory were made as a percentage of the Chicago flat rates and the origin area was assigned group numbers which basically reflected the percentage of the Chi- cago rates. These rates were published as one-factor rates and from Illinois origins the one-factor rates generally applied to their routes through Chicago. Paragraph (a) of Item 520 Series of TPO Maurer’s Tariff C/TN 245-1, L.C.C. C-375 specifies, as follows: Rates apply as reshipping or proportional rates appli- cable on traffic reaching the re-shipping point via a rail or water transportation line that can furnish to the outbound carrier freight bill or like documentary evidence as to the origin of the traffic and rate paid to the re-shipping point. Rates also apply on through bill shipments not stopped in transit at re-shipping points subject to this application. This permits the use of the proportional rates from Chicago on traffic reaching Chicago via a rail or water transportation line. Rates also apply on through bill shipments not stopping at Chicago. One of the governing factors in the utilization of the proportional rates from Chicago ts that a combination of rail rate factors to and from Chicago may not be less than the flat or local rate from Chicago to the same destination. This has been referred to as the “pad” requirement, or minimum inbound pay-in requirement. This provision is set out in subparagraph (b) of Item 520, as follows: d-4 ~~. bi. ol ~ — oan hee me eA Provided that in no case shall the combination through rate to and from the re-shipping point via rail be less than the rate from the re-shipping point applicable on a shipment originating thereat to final destination, the difference necessary to protect such rate from the re- shipping point to be added to the re-shipping rate there- from. The rules established by the Board of Trade concerning futures contracts require that all grain delivered under these contracts must protect the rail proportional rates from Chicago to points in eastern territory. While the rail carriers parties to the proportional rate from Chicago require a pad on rail shipments to Chicago, they do not maintain a pad requirement on inbound shipments arriving via water. Thus, water-arrived grain at Chicago has the same status as rail-grain insofar as the application of the proportional rates are concerned, but inbound water-arrived grain has the advantage over rail inbound grain in that there is no pad requirement. Appendix B hereto sets forth the flat and proportional rates at various Ex Parte increased levels, together with the corre- sponding pads, on wheat and wheat products from Chicago to the basing point of New York City for the period March 1938 to date. Complainant points out that on March 10, 1960, the flat rate from Chicago to New York was reduced from 73.5 cents to 67 cents (column 2) resulting in a pad of 12 cents (column 4). Similarly, the flat rate on wheat products reflected the historic one-half cent higher rate of 67.5 cents (column 5). This adjustment is said to have been the outgrowth of Docket No. 32790, Fourth Section Application No. 35140 and related proceeding and was published in supplement 150 and 151, CTRTB 245-I, 1.C.C. 4403. Appendix C hereto shows the flat and proportional rates and corresponding pads on wheat from Chicago, Ill., to eastern d-5 trunkline basing points from March 10, 1960, to August 19, 1973. While the pads to all basing points were uniform at the Ex Parte 212, 223, and 256 levels (columns 10, 9, and 8, respectively ), this uniformity was not maintained subsequent to the Ex Parte 256 increase, although apparently the carriers had sought to make appropriate adjustments, but received opposi- tion thereto from the Board and others. Appendix D shows similar statistics for the same period with respect to wheat products from Chicago to eastern trunk- line basing points. The flat or local rail rates from Chicago are not used to ship wheat and wheat flour traffic from Chicago to the east because they are too high in relation to the proportional rates. They do, however, establish the pad which shippers must conform to on any traffic moving beyond Chicago on the proportional rates. For example, to utilize a proportional rate of 81.5 cents cwt. (X-295-A level, 8-19-73) on wheat from Chicago to New York, inbound the wheat rail billing must have a paid-in rate of at least 16.5 cents cwt. or the deficiency must be added to the proportional rate, which accrues to the eastern carrier. In the case of wheat flour moving from Chicago on the proportional rate of 81.5 cents cwt., a rail wheat bill must have a paid-in rate of 19 cents cwt. or the deficiency made up. Complainant’s representative at the hearing was unaware of any instances where deficiencies had to be made up, stating that the shippers make sure that no such situation arises. Appendix E is a statement showing the flat and reshipping rates and pads from Chicago to eastern trunkline destinations on barley, corn, grain sorghums, and oats, published by the Eastern Railroads for application from Chicago. The pad varies from 4.5 to 7.5 cents cwt. Complainant states that this was the first major departure from the long standing eastern domestic grain rate structure. Wheat was not inciuded in the list of whole grains on which the rates apply, nor was wheat d-6 a ee eee | flour included in the list of grain products. Wheat bran and shorts, by-products of the wheat milling process, are included in the list of animal and poultry feed ingredients on which these rates apply. The re-shipping rates (application thereof pub- lished in Item 655 of TPO Maurer’s Tariff E-772-G I.C.C. C- 945) from Chicago are applicable on traffic which reaches Chicago via rail or water. There is no pad requirement on water-arrived grain. As indicated, the pad on rail-arrived grain varies from 4.5 to 7.5 cents, below the present pads applicable at Chicago on wheat and wheat flour. Complainant has not shown the circumstances surrounding the publication of these rates. These rates, however, are limited with respect to routing and diversion and reconsignment privileges, and are subject to reduced free time, restricted transit privileges, limited liability and higher inspection charges, which limitations generally are not applicable to the rates on wheat and wheat products as set forth in the 245-I tariff hereinbefore referred to. Appendix F hereto sets out the level of the flat rates and the re-shipping or proportional rates sought by complainant on wheat and wheat products from Chicago to the eastern basing points. The applicable Chicago-to-New York proportional rate of 81.5 cents cwt. ( X-295-A level) on wheat is used as the key rate with the rates to other basing points made as a differential over or under, or a percentage of the Chicago-New York rate. The flat or local rates are made by adding 6.5 cents to the corresponding proportional rates. To restore the historic rate relationships complainant has made the rates on wheat prod- ucts one-half cent higher than those on wheat (columns 5 and 6). However, to accomplish the publication of the flat rates as suggested by complainant, carriers would require relief from Section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Complainant contends that this will present no problem to the carriers since similar relief from Section 4 was obtained by the Penn Central Railroad in connection with the application of one-factor rates via Kankakee, Ill. The record establishes, however, that the d-7 Kankakee rates and the Section 4 relief granted resulted from water competition and the desire of the carriers to recapture rail traffic lost to that water carrier, circumstances which were not shown to be present in the instant case. In the alternative, complainant states that defendants could protect the Fourth Section by maintaining the Chicago rates to eastern points, probably up to the Ohio-Indiana State line. No evidence with respect thereto was submitted. Water-arrived shipments of wheat and wheat products at Chicago enjoy identical status with rail-arrived shipments in the application of the re-shipping or proportional rates published from Chicago in TPO Maurer’s Freight Tariffs C/TN 245-I 1.C.C. C-375 and CTR 535, I.C.C. 4499, except as hereinbefore indicated, water-arrived traffic does not require a pad or minimum pay-in as in the case of inbound rail shipments. Complainant’s second request for relief seeks to permit the application of the proportionals on motor carrier-arrived wheat and wheat products with the provision that the proportional rates applicable be those in effect on the dates such shipments leave Chicago. This provision is identical with the applicable inbound ex-lake traffic and permits the rail carriers to imple- ment any increase in freight rates the day the increase becomes effective, rather than revert to the date at point of origin of inbound rail and barge traffic. Complainant refers to an example where a proportional rate applies on motor carrier-arrived grain published in Item 3385-F Supplement 77, TPO Watson’s NPCT Tariff 10-P L.C.C. 1158. These rates apply on barley or wheat from specified Washington and Idaho points to specified Oregon and Washington points, but do not allow transit inspections, diver- sion, Or reconsignment, except that shipments may be recorded at destination for transit. These rates thus are not comparable to the assailed rates and are no support for the relief sought herein. Appendix G hereto is a statement showing wheat receipts in bushels at Chicago for the years 1963 through 1972 via rail, motor carrier, and water carrier, and the percent of the total of each mode. However, the figures shown for the yerrs 1971 and 1972 do not include certain receipts by Dixie-Portland Flour Mills, Inc. Using figures, in pounds, as submitted by this shipper’s representative and as hereinafter set forth in Appen- dix H, and converting pounds to bushels at the rate of 60 pounds per bushel, the rail receipts as shown in Appendix G for the years 1971 and 1972 were, respectively, 7,469,000 and 7,362,000 and the truck receipts for 1971 and 1972 were, respectively, 15,995,000 and 15,673,000. For the years 1971 and 1972, columns 2, 4, 6 and 8 would have to be revised accordingly. At the hearing held by the rail carriers certain parties appeared and opposed the proposed tariff changes suggested by complainant unless they were granted the same treatment. Thus, the present flat rate from Chicago exceeds the flat rate from Indianapolis to New York, whereas the proposed 88 cent flat rate from Chicago would be less than the present 90.5 cent rate from Indianapolis. Other flat rates from points located east of Chicago to the Indiana-Ohio State line are higher than 88 cents. The present proportional rate from Chicago to New York is 81.5 cents and complainant would retain that rate. This compares, however, with the present flat rates from the central part of Ohio, including Toledo, wherein the flat rate is also 81.5 cents. As to official territory, complainant's representative knew of no point where the proportional rail rate is available at the origin point on motor carrier-arrived traffic. Generally the drawing area of the Chicago market for wheat is northern Illinois, northern Indiana, and western In- diana on the Milwaukee Railroad to Terre Haute, as well as the former Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad. d-9 | 10 Complainant states that if it is successful here that there will be more traffic available to the Eastern Railroads. It is noted, however, that on March 10, 1960, the flat rate was reduced from 73.5 cents to 67 cents and on October 4, 1960, it was increased to 68 cents and remained at that figure for almost seven years, until August 19, 1967, when it was increased {170 cents. However, as shown in Appendix G hereto, during the period 1963 through 1970 rail receipts showed a constant decline, except 1966 exceeded 1965 and 1967 exceeded 1966. In no year after 1963 did the rail receipts equal those in 1963. Dixie-Portland Flour Mills, Inc., is engaged in the business of milling wheat into flour. Its flour mills are located at Chicago and other points not here involved; and it has an elevator in Chicago on the Calumet River which is capable of receiving and shipping wheat by barges and lake vessels. The flour mill at Chicago is landlocked and located on the Penn Central Transportation Company’s line. Its milling capacity is 9,000 cwt. per day and the rated elevator storage capacity approximates 980,000 bushels. The Calumet elevator, which was acquired in March 1971, has a rated capacity of 4.8 million bushels and it is used to supply the Chicago flour mill with wheat and to store wheat for outside companies. To supply its Chicago flour mill with wheat from the Calumet elevator, Dixie-Portland must use either rail (85 percent) or motor truck (15 percent) in cross-town service, at additional expense. The Chicago mill’s annual production is about 384,000,000 pounds, of which 288,000,000 pounds consist of flour and 96,000,000 pounds consist of mill feeds. Inbound wheat to the Chicago mill arrives by railroad or motor carner and to the Calumet elevator by rail, truck, and water carrier. This wheat omginates at country origins in Illinois and Indiana and at such major terminals as the Twin Cities, Omaha-Council Bluffs, and Kansas City, as well as country stations west thereof. Of its flour production over 90 percent is distributed in the Chicago area ( approximately 150 d-10 miles of Chicago) by a motor contract carrier; some flour moves three times a week to its flour distributing plant in Memphis; and the remainder moves throughout the terntory east of the Illinois-Indiana State line. Insofar as the rate-break points of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Norfolk and Cumberland are concerned, it ships only to New York and then only for sporadic periods. In Ohio, it ships only to Toledo, five truckloads of 45,000 pounds each, every week. In addition to wheat, it ships mill feeds outbound to various eastern points including points within 150 miles of Chicago to which a substantial amount moves, Ohio points, and considerable amounts to New England points ( which take the Boston rate) for use by feed producers. The Toledo traffic moves by bulk truck and that to New England points moves by rail on both proportional rates and the non-transit mileage rates in the 772 tariff hereinbefore referred to. Appendix H hereto sets forth inbound receipts of wheat at the Chicago mill and the Calumet elevator and the outbound shipments of wheat products consisting of flour and mill feeds. These outbound shipments move to the various destinations to which the shipper ships but the evidence does not show the amounts to specific geographical locations, other than as shown above with respect to those to which “substantial” or “consid- erable” amounts moved. Of the approximate 1,500,000 bushels of soft wheat moved into Calumet storage yearly from Illinois and Indiana ongins, in excess of 20 percent moves in by rail. Also about 250,000 bushels of hard wheat moves in by barge and about 750,000 bushels of spring wheat moves in (90 percent by rail and 2 percent by truck). When the Chicago mill was acquired about ten years ago, it was for all practical purposes a 100-percent rail inbound and outbound operation. Because of numerous across-the-board increases in the gathering rates to Chicago, increases in the 12 outbound rates on products, and the rail carriers’ inability to provide sufficient equipment and service, shipper sought other modes of transportation. When it took over the plant, it installed truck dump and bulk facilities at its flour mill and during the subsequent years the amount of truck traffic handled has increased. Dixie-Portland’s milling operation at Chicago is in com- petition with a General Mills’ mill in Chicago and with storage facilities located in the Chicago area. Of the eight elevators in Chicago, five are located on water and they have about 80 percent of the total storage capacity. Dixie-Portland states that with respect to inbound movements of wheat its landlocked Chicago flour operation is at a distinct disadvantage with elevators located on water and that its inbound wheat move- ment is confined strictly to rail and motor carrier. Elevators located on water can and do bring wheat in by barge or lake vessel in addition to rail and motor carrier; and the facilities iocated on water can cancel their truck billing against movements from Chicago via barge or lake vessels and utilize the inbound water or rail carrier billing for rail move- ments to the east in connection with proportional rates. This ability to switch the inbound billing according to the best possible advantage on outbound shipments is an advantage which a landlocked operation does not have, except in con- nection with inbound receipts by rail. In view of the above, Dixie-Portland states that it would be desirable for all concerned to allow inbound motor carrier billing to be used in connection with outbound rail proportional rates; that the recognition of truck billing will simplify transit application and supervision: and that it will assist the mill to sell its products to rail-oriented customers in the east. It further states that Eastern Railroads would not suffer any loss in revenue if the flat rates are reduced to the extent requested by complainant because to its knowledge there are no movements d-12 13 of wheat or wheat flour from Chicago on flat or local rates. It expects that the relief sought by complainant would result in additional wheat and wheat products traffic from Chicago to eastern destinations; but it presented no specific evidence as to where that alleged additional traffic would come from or how it would be handled by defendant rail carriers, considering that the latter appear unable to furnish all of the freight cars that the shipper desires at present. It believes that if the pad is reduced as sought to 6.5 cents cwt. it could operate thereunder by purchasing its truck wheat at harvest at 4 cents a bushel cheaper. However, during the last several years truck wheat and rail wheat have been selling at the same price and the record is not convincing that as of present if both truck wheat and rail wheat moving into Chicago could move out on rail proportional rates that truck wheat could be purchased at a lower price than rail wheat at country origins. Continental Grain Company, of Chicago, IIl., operates two storage elevators at Chicago with a combined storage capacity © in excess of 16,000,000 bushels. It engages in the buying and selling of grain, including wheat, but no wheat products. Its principal drawing market is from points in northern Indiana and northern Illinois within 150 miles of Chicago and most of such wheat is trucked into Chicago. During the year September 1, 1972 to August 31, 1973, Continental shipped 13,840,000 bushels of delivery grain from their two elevators in Chicago. In addition to this delivery function the company bought-and sold many additional millions of bushels of grain that was put through the Chicago elevators. It does not show, however, the amount of this wheat which is included in the referred to figures. Its representative at the hearing is a grain merchandiser for the company, a member of the Chicago Board of Trade Transportation and Grain Committees and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Board of Trade. He submitted considerable evidence with respect to the operations of the d-13 | 14 futures and cash markets in the grain marketing system. He supports, on behalf of his company, the proposal to reduce the pad, as hereinbefore described, and to allow the proportional rates from Chicago to eastern points to be applicable to truck- originated traffic. He pointed out, as hereinbefore described, the advantages of having inbound wheat arriving at Chicago by rail with rail billing and the advantages of switch billing for the movement of outbound shipments of rail-arrived wheat and motor carrier-arrived wheat. He states that the effect of rate increases over the past years have made rail movement non- competitive against truck competition, especially on wheat. He admits, however, that much of the wheat moves by truck at the present, because of the lack of sufficient rail cars to perform such transportation. He expresses the view that the proposals of complainant will assist Continental and other companies in the Chicago area in obtaining wheat t6 move through the Chicago market to eastern points. Generally, Continental’s elevators are filled to capacity. Although it is stated that the proposal would result in additional wheat traffic for the Eastern Railroads no specific figures were submitted and otherwise such opinion is not supported by specific evidence. This traffic now is moving from other points, including such points as Toledo from which it is being trans- ported by the Eastern Railroads and any diversion of wheat traffic to be moved through the Chicago market would be that now moving from other markets, by Eastern Railroads, and possibly other railroads. It is pointed out that the Commodities Exchange Authority of the United States Department of Agriculture ( which regu- lates and supervises the futures market) was instrumental in having the Chicago Board of Trade establish multiple delivery points on the wheat contract and starting with the July 19, 1973, contract, Toledo became a delivery point at 2 cents a bushel discount to the Chicago futures price. This was based on the difference in ocean or lake freight from Chicago to Toledo for d-14 15 outbound water movements. No evidence was submitted, however, showing that this results in any unlawful dis- crimination or undue preference and prejudice within the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. A cash grain merchant located at Chicago supports the proposals of the complainant, particularly the proposed appli- cation of the rail proportional rates to truck-arrived shipments. This witness solicits (a) consignments of grain from country origins and (b) offers of “to arrived” grain which he purchases and sells. In making sales of wheat to customers located east of the Illinois-Indiana State line he looks to the elevators in Chicago for stocks. Inbound billing is important to him in the movement of the wheat to the east because his customers are interested in rail transit billing, which enables them to utilize the proportional rate from Chicago to various eastern destina- tions. Thus, the flour mills located in the east which are customers of his depend on freight rates which permit transit arrangements. This allows the flour miller an opportunity to transit for subsequent movement of his products to destinations in the east. If the inbound movement of wheat into Chicago via motor carriers is given the same status now permitted on similar movements via rail or water in the application of the propor- tional rates from Chicago, this witness is of the view that it will put him in a position whereby he could increase his sales in the east because there would be more flexibility on the part of the elevator operators to offer him wheat without regard to whether the grain arrived by rail, water, or motor carrier. As stated by the prior witnesses, most of the wheat is drawn from points in northern Illinois and northern Indiana within 150 miles of Chicago and moves in by truck. Witness states that the net returned to the farmer moving his wheat in by truck is reduced by reason of the pad. However, he admits, as have the other witnesses, that during the last several years there has been little or no differential between wheat shipped from the country ongins by truck and that shipped by rail. d-15 16 Nevertheless, he states that by reason of the pad, buyers at Toledo have an advantage over Chicago buyers, because of the unavailability of proportional rates on truck-arrived traffic at Chicago and the fact that the flat rate from Toledo is the same as the proportional rate from Chicago to New York. He further states that by reason thereof the mills and elevators east of Chicago, particularly in Tolede and environs, are able to reach into northeastern Indiana to points equi-distant between Chi- cago and Toledo, bid for wheat in competition with the Cnicago buyers, and move their flour and wheat out from Toledo either by truck or on the 8!.5 cents flat rail rate. The same situation is said to exist from numerous other points such as Columbus, Cincinnati, and Fostoria, Ohio, Hillsdale, Mich., and Ligonier, Ind. This witness i: yst entirely a rail operator, but does purchase some truck wheat in northern Indiana. He has experienced difficulty in purchasing rail-originated wheat and is of the view that if rail proportionals out of Chicago were made applicable to truck-arrived wheat, he would be more com- petitive with respect to the drawing of wheat from points equidistant from Toledo. Further, he is of the opinion that the relief sought would not result in any loss of traffic to the Eastern Railroads, and states that such relief would place the Eastern Railroads in a position to attract more rail traffic. He acknowl- edges, however, that the Eastern Railroads have had difficulty in furnishing a sufficient number of cars for eastbound traffic; that any alleged benefit from the proposal herein would be contingent upon the Eastern Railroads having additional equip- ment available; and that any such traffic as they might attract would be traffic which now moves from other markets. No evidence was submitted by this witness showing the extent of his present operations and the extent to which there would be an increase in wheat handled by him if the relief sought is granted. d-16 17 Defendants point out that the provision in Item 520 of the 245 tariff that the re-shipping or proportional rates apply only on traffic reaching the re-shipping point via rail or water applies not only to Chicago but to its competing points in Illinois and neighboring States. Thus, Fast St. Louis and Kankakee, Ill., St. Louis, Mo., and Milwaukee, Wis., among others, for example, are similarly subject to this restriction on the application of the proportional rate. The rates from Chicago are slightly lower in comparison to those applicable from other Illinois points. Various other origin points such as Milwaukee and Manitowoc, Wis., take the same flat and proportional rates as Chicago. Peoria and Decatur (from other than northwest origins), East St. Louis, and Cairo, IIl., St. Louis, Mo., as well as other Illinois points, have flat and proportional rates higher than Chicago. Appendix I hereto sets forth rates from Chicago and com- petitive points to New York. When traffic originates at a western territory point, such as Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. the combination rates to and from Chicago to eastern destinations is equalized over the other gateways (except that Peoria is one- half cent higher). Appendix J shows the annual volume of wheat shipments from Chicago by various modes of transportation during the years 1962 through 1971; and according to 1971 Board of Trade statistics, wheat was shipped during that year via lake vessel, rail, and truck, in the following amounts: Lake vessel — 2,954,000 bushels( domestic and export) Rail 3.462.000 bushels Truck 26,000 bushels Appendix K shows the volume of wheat and flour handled eastbound from Chicago by railroads during the six-year period 1958 through 1966 when the pad was 18.5 cents until March 1960 and thereafter from 12 to 13 cents, showing a decline in traffic handled every year, except in 1965 with respect to wheat and in 1960 and 1961 with respect to flour. d-17 18 At the hearing Eastern Railroads contended that Chicago is not prejudiced by the present rate structure, pointing to the rates hereinafter set forth from other origins. They state that if the relief sought is granted it could not be limited to wheat and wheat products or to the movement of these commodities only from Chicago and its environs, but would require a realignment of the entire grain rate structure so as to include other grains and grain products and require reductions from other origins, the rates from which are related to the Chicago rates. Evidence was presented showing that when complainant sought from the railroads relief with respect to grain and grain products, similar to that sought herein various shippers stated that any adjust- ment made in the rates from Chicago to eastern destinations would require a related adjustment from origins east of Chicago and that in some instances shippers located west of Chicago also objected to any change in the rate relationship. Thus, at the hearing held by the railroads, General Foods appeared in favor, provided that their plant at Kankakee received a similar reduction with respect to corn and corn products. Also, Pillsbury appeared in support of the similar proposal con- cerning the application of the proportional rates to motor carrier-arrived grain and grain products but suggested that St. Louis and Minneapolis-St. Paul be accorded equal adjustment. The only shipper which supported the proposal without quali- fication concerning the addition or extension of the adjustment to other origins was Continental Grain Company. The Eastern Railroads also pointed out that it is doubtful that the reduction sought on wheat and wheat products would result in any additional traffic because a substantial amount of such traffic ts now moving by eastern lines, as hereinbefore shown. The 26,000 bushels figure for truck wheat amounts to approximately i3 carloads; and the 1,340,000 bushels of lake vessel traffic which moves primarily to Buffalo would not, in the railroad’s opinion, be divertable to their lines. Further, in 1971 a substantial portion of the wheat shipments and all of the flour shipments moved via rail. With respect to the facts concerning d-18 19 Toledo and contentions with respect thereto, Eastern Railroads point out that if the proportional rates are made applicable on motor carrier-arrived wheat at Chicago the rails would then be required to charge the proportional rate of 81.5 cents to New York which is the same as the flat rate from Toledo, thus transporting the traffic the extra 233 miles (from Chicago to Toledo) for no additiomal charge. This, of course, deprives Toledo of its natural advantage of being 233 miles closer to the market. Defendant The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company (B&O) submitted an estimate of the approximate amount of revenue reduction which it considers it would suffer if the Board of Trade is successful in obtaining the relief sought herein. B&O points out that complainant seeks a 10 cents reduction in the Chicago-New York flat rate, from 98 cents to 88 cents or approximately 10 percent. It concludes that, because of the relationship between the flat rate from Chicago and flat rates from St. Louis, Mo., points in Illinois, and points east of Illinois to eastern destinations, a 10 percent reduction in the rates on all wheat and wheat products traffic would ultimately be required and that this would result in $97,478 reduction in B&O revenue on this traffic. It further states thar if complainant is successful in making the eastbound proportional rates applicable on truck- arrived traffic, other official territory origins will demand similar relief, resulting in additional revenue losses of $68,235, for a loss of $165,713. Set forth as Appendix L hereto are figures showing the pertinent traffic transported by The B&O during 1972 and the revenue therefrom, including a grand total revenue of $974,780. B&O is of the opinion that its estimate of losses set forth above is conservative. In any event, it is of the view that even if the same reduction in cents or a comparable percentage reduction is not made with respect to all rates from origins east of Chicago that some adjustments would have to be made in d-19 20 order to clear the requirements of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. It bases this view on the opinion that the Commission would not allow fourth section relief. Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central) submitted evidence similar to that submitted by the B&O. Based on traffic statistics and revenues received by it in 1972 in connection with the traffic involved in the instant proceeding, it concludes that if a 10 percent reduction in the Chicago-New York flat rate (from 98 cents to 88 cents) is granted Penn Central could suffer a 10 percent reduction ($1,037,380) in revenue, as shown in Appendix M hereto. It further states that if complainant is successful in having the Chicago-New York proportional rate made available on wheat trucked to Chicago, this would, for all practical purposes, make the Chicago-New York proportional rate the flat rate. And, all other official territory origin points would insist that their rate relationship with Chicago be maintained on all ex-truck traffic. It contends that if this were done it would result in approximately a 17 percent reduction in the rates from and to the above referred to points and Penn Central would experience an additional $726,273 reduction in its revenues, for a total revenue loss of $1,763,557. These revenue figures deal only with wheat and certain wheat products. However, if the Eastern Railroads were made to apply the sought reductions to other grains and grain products (as initially sought by complainant in proposals to the Eastern Railroads as hereinbefore referred to), the reduction in Penn Central’s revenue would be much greater. Further, it points out that Fourth Section relief would be required; and it questions whether such relief would be granted by the Commis- sion. It has made no estimate of the amount of revenue it would expect to lose if rates at intermediate points would be reduced to the level of the sought Chicago fiat rate. Appendix N hereto sets forth the tonnage of wheat and wheat products originated in 1972 at principal points in the d-20 21 States named and the figures therein set forth are included in Appendix M. These statistics were submitted at the request of complainant. Norfolk & Western Railway Company (N&W) submitted evidence similar to that submitted by the other two railroad defendants. Thus, as shown in Appendix O hereto, during 1972, N&W handled 6,261 cars of wheat and wheat products from points in the listed States to the referred to destination territory. These cars moved 227,434 tons producing $1,521,779 in revenue for N&W. The respective 10 percent loss and the loss from the 17 percent reductions referred to in connection with the prior railroads result in estimated losses of $255,490 and $178,844, for a total revenue loss of $434,334. Its contentions were similar to those of the B&O and Penn Central. As in the case of the other railroads, no calculations were made as to what the projected effect would be on the N&W if the Chicago flat rate were reduced to 88 cents and that was held at a minimum at intermediate points. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Complainant and its witnesses contend that the total relief sought would make more traffic available to the Eastern Railroads and thus be beneficial to them. Suffice it to say that complainant’s evidence is too indefinite and conjectural to support such a conclusion and, further, that defendants’ evi- dence shows, at least, that reducing the flat rate would not result in additional revenue. In any event, the question to be resolved here is whether any of the complained of rates and tariff provisions violate sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as alleged. The discussion hereafter will be divided into two parts, count (1), that relating to the alleged unlawfulness of the proportional and flat rates and the resulting d-21 22 pads, and, count (2), that relating to the alleged unlawfulness of the tariff provision which precludes on the outbound move- ment from Chicago of motor carrier-arrived wheat the appli- cation of the proportional rates now applicable to rail-arrived and water-arrived wheat. (1) In this count complainant alleges that the local and joint flat and proportional domestic rates and charges on wheat and wheat products from Chicago to various eastein basing points and other destinations in the east are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section | of the Act, unjustly discriminatory to wheat arriving at Chicago by rail from points beyond for further movement to the east in violation of section 2, and unduly prejudicial to Chicago, to complainant and its members, and to wheat and wheat products in violation of section 3(1) of the Act. It seeks to have the flat rates reduced so that the pad would be uniformly 6.5 cents. See Appendix F hereto. Complainant points to the history of the flat and propor- tional rates as shown in Appendix B hereto and states that the evidence discloses no possible basis on which the present pads can be justified. The burden of proof, however, is upon complainant to show the unlawfulness of the rates resulting in the pads. Mere allegations of unlawfulness are not sufficient. As indicated, in this count complainant asks only that the flat rate be reduced. It presented no cost evidence or other cost- related evidence showing that the flat rates are excessive and thus unreasonable. It refers to the mileage rates which are published in the CTR 772 series tariffs, I.C.C. C-945, which apply on barley, corn, grain sorghums, soybeans, and oats, pointing out that the pads with respect to the rates on these commodities range from 4.5 to 7.5 cents. See Appendix E. These latter rates deal with commodities different from those here in issue (being used principally for animal and poultry feeds) and are, as hereinbefore set forth, subject to various restrictions or limitations (to which the challenged rates are not d-22 23 subject) which preclude their consideration in determining the reasonableness of the assailed flat rates. The fact that the flat rates are higher than the proportionals, in excess of 6.5 cents, does not without further proof establish that they are unreason- able. The progressive increases in flat rates and pads resulted from Ex Parte increases found by the Commission to be lawful. The record establishes that no traffic moves from Chicago under the assailed flat rates, but the record does not establish that the flat rates have inhibited the movement of the involved traffic out of Chicago. Further, the record contains no con- vincing evidence that the sought reductions would result in movements thereunder. A statement by one of complainant’s supporting witnesses that he probably could purchase truck- originated wheat at country ongins at a sufficient discount to warrant the use of the flat rates is no more than conjecture and flies in the face of recent facts which show that due to the demands for wheat and the shortage of freight cars to haul it, truck-originated wheat has been selling at country ongins at or near the prices of rail-originated wheat. The changes in the flat rates and pads sought by complainant are not to correct a transportation condition, but rather a market condition so as to enable its members to more readily buy and sell wheat and wheat products without being unduly inhibited by the Board of Trade rule which requires the seller to protect the pad on wheat and wheat products moving out of Chicago. The Judge concludes that complainant has failed to show that the assailed rates and the resulting pads are unreasonable in violation of section | of the Act. (b) Although under this count, complainant alleges viola- tion of section 2, in its brief it sets forth no specific contentions concerning the alleged discrimination of the flat rates per se and resulting pads, relying instead on the justification therefor under its contentions relating to count 2. d-23 24 Motor carrier-arrived wheat is not enutled to the proportional rates and, therefore, there is no pad which could differ from that applicable to rail-arrived whea: and thus resulting in discrimination to rail-arrived wheat. The flat rates are equally applicable to all wheat moving to, through, and from Chicago. Further, even if the proportionals are made applicable to motor-arrived wheat there would be no dis- crimination because they would be applicable to all common carrier-arrived wheat. At present, the pad is required in connection with rail-arrived wheat in order to avoid violations of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. No such problem exists with respect to motor carrier-arrived wheat. Further, as hereinbefore set forth, the rates provided in Tariff E-772 on coarse grains, etc., used as feed ingredients, do not cover like traffic as that here involved and, as indicated above, are subject to differing restrictions and conditions so that they do not cover “a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substanually similar circumstances and conditions” as provided in section 2. The Judge concludes that under this count complainant has failed to establish that the assailed rates and the resulting pads are discriminatory in violation of section 2 of the Act. Whether the proportionals are discriminatory or unduly preferential because they are not applicable to motor carrier- arrived wheat will be discussed hereinafter under count 2. (c) As in the case of allegations of section 2 violations discussed above, complainant in its brief does not under this count submit arguments as to alleged section 3( 1) violations. The evidence does not establish that the assailed rates prejudice complainant ( which ships no traffic) and its members, Chicago. or wheat and wheat products in violation of section 3(1), as alleged. Insofar as rates on wheat and wheat products from other shipping points are concerned, the evidence shows that the flat and proportional rates from those origins are the same d-24 25 as or higher than the rates from Chicago, and also, that the pads applicable from those points on comparable rates are equal to or higher than the Chicago pads. See Appendix I hereto. Toledo, also a competitor of Chicago, has available for shipments into the east a flat rate equal to the Chicago proportional, although Toledo is located 233 miles closer to eastern markets than is Chicago. Further, the Tariff E-772 rates afford no basis for a conclusion of preference and prejudice for the reasons hereinbefore set forth. The Judge concludes that coniplainant has failed to estab- lish any violation of the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act. 2. In this count, complainant alleges that the proportional rates on wheat and wheat products from Chicago to the east are unjust and unreasonable in violation of section | of the Act; unjustly discriminatory to motor-carrier-arrived wheat at Chi- cago and the shippers of such wheat and wheat products made therefrom, in violation of section 2; and unduly prejudicial to complainant and its members, to Chicago, and to motor-carrier- arrived wheat in Chicago in violation of section 3( 1). The Chicago proportional rates are restricted against appli- cation upon wheat which arrives at Chicago by motor carrier. They are, however, applicable on wheat which arrives at Chicago by rail or by water, and the products thereof. Wheat does arrive at Chicago by motor carrier and the volume of such motor-carrier-arrived wheat has been substantially increasing in recent years both as a result of disparities between the rail and the motor carrier rates and as a result of the inability of the rail carriers to furnish equipment to move wheat to the market. Up to 1939, the proportional or reshipping rates from Chicago to the east applied equally on grain arriving at Chicago ex-rail, ex-lake, or ex-barge. Because of the vast increase in harge tonnage from competitive points subsequent to 1933, the d-25 26 rail carriers proposed to restrict the proportional or reshipping rates against ex-barge traffic in order to recapture some of the traffic lost to the barges. The Commission originally held that this could be done, but indicated that in a proper proceeding it might prescribe proportional rates on the ex-barge traffic lower than local rates or joint barge-rail rates lower than the com- binations. Grain Proportionals, Ex-Barge to Official Territory, 248 LC.C. 307 (1941). Subsequently, in a report on further hearing in Grain Proportionals, Ex-Barge To Official Territory, 262 1.C.C. 7, the Commission concluded, in part, that ex-barge grain rates east from Chicago would be reasonable and lawful even though they were 3 cents per hundred pounds higher than rates for ex- rail and ex-lake grain. Thus, in effect, the Commission permitted the railroads to charge higher reshipment rates for ex-barge than for ex-lake and ex-rail grain. The last cited decision was appealed to the Courts and ultimately resulted in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1.C.C. v. Mechling, 330 U.S. 567 (1947). In that case, after referring to various provisions in part III of the Act, as well as section 3(4), the Supreme Court continued ( pp. 576-577): Finally § 2 of the pre-existing Act has long forbidden the Commission to authorize railroads to charge one person more than another for “a like and contempo- raneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions ...”’ [February 4, 1887] 24 Stat 379, 380, c 104, 49 USCA § 2, |OA FCA title 49, § 2. The foregoing provisions flatly forbid the Commission tO approve barge rates or barge-rail rates which do not preserve intact the inherent advantages of cheaper water transportation, but discriminate against water carriers and the goods they transport. Concretely, the provisions mean d-26 27 in this case that Chicago-to-the-east railroads cannot lawfully charge more for carrying ex-barge than for carrying ex-lake or ex-rail grains to and from the same localities, unless the eastern haul of the ex-barge grain costs the eastern railroads more to haul than does ex-rail or ex-lake grain. (Emphasis added. ) The barge carriers involved in the Mechling case were certificated carriers under part III of the Act, but the grain traffic they handled was not necessarily subject to regulation and much of it in fact was not handled on regulated rates. Furthermore, as indicated, the eastern rail carriers had always permitted lake-arrived grain to move out on the Chicago proportional rates without penalty. As a result of the decision in the Mechling case, the Eastern Railroads amended their tariffs to provide that the Chicago proportional rates would be applicable on grain which arrived at Chicago ex-barge. The matter of restricting rail proportional rates against application on coal traffic having a subsequent movement by barge wholly on unregulated rates came before the Commission in James Mc Williams Blue Line v. Campbell’s Creek R. Co., 278 1.C.C. 312 (1950). Again the Commission held that such a restriction was lawful. It stated at page 319: Complainant Blue Line cites /nterstate Commerce Commission v. Mechling, 330 U.S. 567, in which the Court permanently enjoined our order authorizing a 3-cent in- crease in certain ex-barge proportional rates on grain, without corresponding increases in certain proportional rates or specifics on ex-rail and ex-lake grain, the three sets of rates having been theretofore on a panty. The circum- stances in that case are fully set forth in the Court’s decision and in our report in Grain Proportionals, Ex- Barge to Official Territory, 262 1.C.C. 7. They differed in many essential respects from those presented here. Most d-27 28 of the barge transportation of the grain was subject to our jurisdiction and it was impracticable to distinguish from a rate-making standpoint between that which was subject to our jurisdiction and that which was not. The lake transportation of the grain, like the coal transportation by water in the instant proceedings was not subject to our jurisdiction. Increasing the ex-barge rates on grain with- Out corresponding increases in the ex-lake rates on grain would have resulted in more favorable treatment of the unregulated lake transportation than of the regulated barge transportation. (Emphasis added. ) Suit was then filed by James McWilliams Blue Line in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to set aside and enjoin the Commission's order. The court granted the relief sought. In its opinion in James Mc Williams Blue Line v. United States, \00 F. Supp. 66 (1951), it said, at page 70: ... we hold that the rates complained of are unlawful because in violation of Section 2 of the Interstate Com- merce Act, 49 US.C.A. §2. We find it unnecessary, therefore, to determine the legality of these rates under Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Act. We are unable to distinguish the instant case from 1.C.C. v. Mechling, 1946, 330 U.S. 567, 67 S.Ct. 894, 91 L.Ed. 1102. There the order of the Commission permitted the railroads to charge higher reshipment rates (3 cents per 100 Ibs.) east from Chicago for grain brought to Chicago by barge than for ex-lake or ex-rail grain. The enforce- ment of the order was enjoined to the extent that it permitted this extra charge. ... It has been settled with respect to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act prohibiting different charges by a common carrier for “a like and contemporaneous service in d-28 29 the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substan- tially similar circumstances and conditions” that “***the clause did not allow carriers by railroad to make a difference in rates because of differences in circumstances arising either before the service of the carrier began or after it was terminated.” Nor are we impressed by the attempt of the Commission to distinguish this cuse from the Mechling case because the Commission cannot regulate “Blue Line’s” barge rates. That was true, at least as to part of the ex-barge grain in the Mechling case; however, as we read the Mechling case, the decision was not based upon the existence of jurisdic- tion in the Commission to regulate the barge rates on the grain traffic and was reached quite independently of such jurisdiction. (Emphasis added. ) In granting the relief sought, the court directed the Com- mission “to make and enter an appropriate order ending the practice complained of and enjoining the Commission from further continuing and enforcing the practices and rates now in effect”. The court’s judgment was affirmed per curiam by the Supreme Court. /nterstate Commerce Commission v. James McWilliams Blue Line, Inc., 342 U.S. 951 (1952). See also, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 381, 386 (E.D. Mo., 1964). The present situation cannot be distinguished from the Blue Line and Mechling cases. A large amount of wheat arrives at Chicago by motor carrier as well as by rail and water, but, whereas inbound billing on the ex-rail, ex-lake, and ex-barge wheat can be used to engage the Chicago proportional rates to the east, this is not true with respect to ex-truck billing. All wheat, whether ex-rail, ex-lake, ex-barge, or ex-truck goes into the same elevators. When it does so, it loses its identity insofar d-29 30 as its mode of transportation is concerned. With respect to all wheat of the same type, there is no way to distinguish whether it arrived at the elevator by rail, water, or truck. The issue here is not a matter of the physical transportation of the wheat and products but of the application of the inbound billing. When wheat comes out of the elevator or when wheat products are shipped from a mill, in most cases, neither the shipper nor the railroad knows iow that particular wheat arrived at the elevator, nor does it make any difference to them. It makes no difference in the operation of the railroad whether the wheat arrived by rail, water, or truck. Furthermore, switching billing is common and is permitted by the rail tariffs. In such a case, wheat which, because of its type, can be identified as having moved to the mill or elevator by truck, can be shipped out on the proportional rates and inbound rail or water billing can quite properly be applied so as to engage the proportional rates. In any case, it makes no difference to the Eastern Railroads how the wheat arrived at the elevator or mill. Their service is exactly the same on the Chicago-to-the-east move whether the wheat arrived at the mill or elevator by rail, water or truck and thus the costs are the same. Although no wheat or products thereof have moved on the flat rates to eastern points and shippers have, by various means moved their traffic out of Chicago, (including the shipment of motor-carrier-arrived wheat under rail proportional rates by switch-billing ), they have shown that the complained of restric- tion has inhibited and damaged them in the conduct of their businesses of buying and selling wheat and wheat products and in the shipping thereof. The Judge concludes that the Eastern Railroads’ restriction against permitting the Chicago proportional rates to the east to apply on motor-carrier-arrived wheat at Chicago is an unjust d-30 31 discrimination against such wheat and the shippers thereof in violation of section 2 of the Act, and that such restriction should be removed from the tariffs of the Eastern Railroads. In view of the above conclusion no further consideration will be given to the alleged violations of sections | and 3{1) of the Act. The decision herein is not a major Federal Action signifi- cantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. FINDINGS AND ORDER The Administrative Law Judge finds that the maintenance of the assailed proportional or reshipping rates and charges from Chicago, Ill., to points in the eastern United States, as set forth in the defendant railroads’ tariffs, on wheat and wheat products, in carloads, where the prior movement of the com- modities to Chicago is by railroad, lake vessel, or barge, without maintaining like rates and charges, at the same levels, and from and to the same points on the same commodities where the prior movement to Chicago is by for-hire motor carrier, is unjustly discriminatory in contravention of the provi- sions of section 2 of the Interstate Commerce Act; and that the assailed rates and charges are not shown to be otherwise unlawful. The Judge further finds that this decision is not a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmen- tal Policy Act of 1969. It is the ORDER of the Administrative Law Judge that the defendant railroads be, and they are hereby, noufied and required to cease and desist within 60 days of the date this order becomes effective and thereafter to abstain from the application of the rates and charges herein found unlawful; that the defendants be, and they are hereby notified and required to d-31 32 establish within 60 days of the date, this order becomes effective, upon not less than 30-days’ notice to this Commission and to the genera! public, by filing and posting in the manner prescribed in the Interstate Commerce Act, and thereafter to maintain and apply, rates and charges removing the unlawful discrimination herein found to exist: and that this order shall continue in force until the further order of the Commission. It is further ordered, That the complaint in all other respects be, and it is hereby, dismissed. And it is further ordered, That in the absence of a stay or postponement by the Commission, or the timely filing of exceptions, the effective date of this order shall be 30 days from the date of service thereof. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 18th day of April, 1974. By the Commission, (Alvin H. Schutrumpf), Adminis- trative Law Judge. Rosert L. Oswa.p, Secretary. (SEAL) d-32 A-l No. 35825 Appendix A List of Defendants Group I Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, The. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, The, Chesapeake District. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, The, Pere Marquette District. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. Erie Lackawanna Railway Company, Thomas F. Patton and Ralph S. Tyler, Jr., Trustees. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Norfolk and Western Railway Company. Penn Central Transportation Company, George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, and Jervis Langdon, Jr., Trustees. Group II Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Company, The. Ann Arbor Railroad Company, The. Arcade and Attica Railroad Corporation. Aroostock Valley Railroad Company. Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad Company, The. Baltimore and Eastern Railroad Company. Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company, The. Bangor and Aroostock Railroad Company. Bath and Hammondsport Railroad Company. d-33 A-2 Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad Company. Bellefon’e Central Railroad Company. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, The. Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company. Boston and Maine Corporation, Robert W. Meserve, Trustee. Boyne City Railroad Company. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal. Burlington Northern Inc. Cambria and Indiana Railroad Company. Canadian National! Railways Lines Thunder Bay, ON., Armstrong, ON., and East thereof. Carolina, Clinchfield and Ohio Railway; Carolina, Clinchfield and Ohio Railway of South Carolina, Lessees: Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Carolina and Northwestern Railway Company. Central Indiana Railway Company. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, The, Robert D. Timpany, Trustee. Central Vermont Railway, Inc. Chesapeake Western Railway. Chestnut Ridge Railway Company. Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company. Chicago and North Western Transportation Company. Chicago River and Indiana Railroad Company, The. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, The. Claremont and Concord Railway Company, Inc. Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad Company, The. Cooperstown and Charlotte Valley Railway Corporation. Coudersport and Port Allegany Railroad Company. CP Rail (Canadian Pacific Limited) Lines Thunder Bay, ON., and East thereof. Dansville and Mount Morris Railroad Company, The. Delaware and Hudson Railway Company. d-34 A-3 Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company. Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company. Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company, The. East Jersey Railroad and Terminal Company. East Washington Railway Company. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company. Fonda, Johnstown and Gloversville Railroad Company. Fore River Railroad Corporation. Frankfort & Cincinnati Railroad Company. Genesee and Wyoming Railroad Company. Georgia Rail Road & Banking Company, operated as the Georgia Railroad by Lessees: Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. Grafton and Untcn Railroad Company. Grand Trunk Railway System Green Mountain Railroad Corporation Greenwich & Johnsonville Railway Company. Hoboken Shore Railroad. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, The. Pittsburgh & Shawmut Railroad Company, The. Port Huron and Detroit Railroad Company. Quebec Central Railway Company. Rahway Valley Railroad (Rahway Valley Company, Lessee). Raritan River Rail Road Company. Reading Company, Richardson Dilworth and Andrew L. Lewis, Jr., Trustees. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company. Rosslyn Connecting Railroad Company. St. Johnsbury & Lamoille County Railroad. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. Seaport Navigation Company. Skaneateles Short Line Railroad Corporation. Soo Line Railroad Compary. d-35 A-4 South Brooklyn Railway Company. Southern Railway Company. Springfield Terminal Railway Company ( Vermont). Staten Island Railroad Corporation, The. Stewartstown Railroad Company, The. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Company. Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, The. Trenton-Princeton Traction Company. ( RDG) Twin Branch Railroad Company. Vermont Railway, Inc. Virginia Central Railway. Warwick Railway Company. Wellsville, Addison & Galeton Railroad Corporation. Western Maryland Railway Company. West Virginia Northern Railroad Company. Wharton and Northern Railroad Company. Winchester and Western Railroad Company. Winfield Railroad Company, The. Yancey Railroad Company. Youngstown & Southern Railway Company. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company. Illinois Northern Railway. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company. Ironton Railroad Company, The (Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and Reading Company, Lessees ). Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Railway Company. Lake Erie, Franklin & Clarion Railroad Company. Lehigh and Hudson River Railway Company, The, John Trioano, Trustee. Lehigh and New England Railway Company. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, John F. Nash and Robert C. Haldeman, Trustees. Livonia, Avon & Lakeville Railroad Corporation. Long Island Rail Road Company, The. d-36 Berens A-5 Lorain & West Virginia Railway Company, The. Louis’ ille and Nashville Railroad Company. Louisville, New Albany & Corydon Railroad Company. Lowville and Beaver River Railroad Company, The. Maine Central Railroad Company. Manufacturers Railway Company. Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Middletown and New Jersey Railway Company, Inc. Midway Railroad Company. Missouri-Illinois Railroad Company. Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company. Montour Railroad Company. Montpelier and Barre Railroad Company. Morristown & Erie Railroad Company. Moshassuck Valley Railroad Company. Narragansett Pier Railroad Company, Inc., The. New Jersey, Indiana & Illinois Railroad Company. New York Dock Railway. New York and Long Branch Railroad Company, The. New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company. Norfolk, Franklin and Danville Railway Company. Norfolk Southern Railway Company. Northampton and Bath Railroad Company. Norwood & St. Lawrence Railroad Company. Ogdensburgh Bridge and Port Authonity. Paducah & Illinois Railroad Company. Pennsylvania and Atlantic Railroad Company (The Union Transportation Company, Lessee ). ennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines. Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company. Peoria Terminal Company. d-37 Appendix 8 No. 35825 Statement of Flat and Proportional Rates from Chicago, IIl., to New York (Domestic) with Applicable “Pad” from March 1938, to Date (X-295-A) Date Wheat Wheat Products Flat Prop Pad Flat Prop Pad Rate Level (1) (2) (3) (4) (8S) (6) (7) (8) Mar. 28, 1938 345 2% is. «Ss 26.5 8.5 X-123, ICC 30 Jan. 21, 1947 40 30 10 405 WS 10 X-162,1CC 77! Jan. 8, 1948 50 375 125 SOS 38 12.5 X-166, ICC 784 Sept. 26, 1949 565 415 14 56 42 14 X-168,. ICC 811 Apr. 5, 1956 62 465 185 62.5 47 15.5 X-175, ICC A-1076 Jul. 10, 1956 655 49 16.5 66 49.5 16.5 X-196, ICC A-1095 May 10, 1957 69 S15 175 695 §2 17.5 X-206, ICC A-1122 Oct. 18, 1957 71.5 S35 If 72 54 18 X-206-A, ICC A-113 Jun. 1, 1958 735 $5 185 90-74 $5.5 185 X-212. ICC A-1113 Mar. 10, 1960 67 $$ 12 67.5 $85 12 X-212 Oct. 24, 1960 68 555 125 685 %6 12.5 X-223, ICC 151 Aug. 19, 1967 70 575 125 75 58 12.5 X-256, ICC 281 Nov. 28, 1968 74 61 13 75 61 14 X-259-B, ICC 302 Nov. 18, 1969 78 6$ 13 80 65 1S X-262. ICC 312 Nov. 20, 1970 83 69 14 85 69 16 X-265-B, ICC 336 Apr. 12, 1971 92 7.5 155 945 765 18 X-267-B. ICC 343 Oct. 23, 1972 95 79 16 975 79 18.5 X-281-B. ICC 380 Aug. 19. 1973 98 815 165 1005 815 19 X-295-A. ICC 397 Tariff Authority: . March 28, 1938 C.F.A. Tariff 245-F, ICC 3055—5% Table Inc. January 21, 1947 C.F.A. Tanff 245-G, ICC 3356—15% Table Inc. June 8, 1948 C.F.A. Tariff 245-G. ICC 3356—25% Table Inc. Sept. 26, 1949 C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—10% Table Inc. April 5, 1956 C.T.R. Tanff 245-H, ICC 4403—12% Table Inc. d-38 July 10, 1956 May 10, 1956 October 18, 1957 June |, 1958 March 10, 1960 October 24, 1960 August 19, 1967 November 28, 1968 November 18, 1969 November 20, 1970 April 12, 1971 October 23, 1972 August 19, 1973 B-2 C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—5% Table Inc. C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—5% Table Inc. C.T.R. Tarnff 245-H. Table Inc. C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—3% Table Inc. C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—Sup. 150 ( Reduction in Flat Rates ) C.T.R. Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403—.5 cent Inc.* TL/CTR Tariff 245-I, ICC C-375—2 cents Inc. TL/CTR Tariff 245-I, ICC C-375—6% Table Inc. TL/CTR Tariff 245-1, ICC C-375—6% Table Inc. TL/CTR Tariff 245-I, ICC C-375—6% Table Inc. TL/CTR Taniff 245-I, ICC C-375—11%- G Table Inc. TL/CTR Taniff 245-1, ICC C-375—3%-G Table Inc. TL/CTR Taniff 245-1, ICC C-375—3%-G Table Inc. ICC 4403—9% * § cent Increase in rates less than 65¢ cwt. and | cent Increase in rates over 65¢ cwt. d-39 C-1 Appendix C Statement Showing Flat and Proportional Rates and Corresponding Pads on Wheat from Chicago, Ill., to Eastern Trunk Line Basing Points from March 10, 1960, to August 19, 1973 To (In Cents Per 100 Pounds) Ex-Parte Increase Rate Level 295- A (1) New York, N.Y. .................. IG SHRI s -tunccndeinesseigpcreeenes Balumore. Md. .................... Belington, W Va. ................ Boston, Mass. Cumberland. Md Hagerstown, Md. ............... Newport News, Va. as Philadelphia, Pa. a b enonehlUmw? onagmrenasg¢ vrTenrigdge eo renereowmrmengreagensn (2) 98 81.5 16.5 95 5 79 16.5 94 76 18 86 67.5 18.5 101.5 17.5 67.5 18.5 16.5 281- 267- 265- 262 B BB (3) (4) (5) (6) 9 92 83 78 79 76.5 69 65 16 ISS 14 13 25 9 80 1% 76.5 745 66 63 16 ISS 14 13 91.5 89 79 7§ 74 72 64 61 17.5 17 15 14 83.5 81 72 69 65.5 635 $7 $4 18 175 15 1S 985 955 8&5 Sl 81.5 79 70 67 17 165 1S 14 835 81 72 69 65.5 635 §7 54 18 ie 1S 91.5 89 79 75 74 72 64 61 17.5 17 15 14 91.5 89 79 75 74 72 64 6l 17.5 17 15 14 91.5 89 79 75 74 72 64 61 i75 17 1S 14 92.5 9 80 76 76.5 745 66 63 16 15.5 14 13 259- 223 (9) 68 55.5 12.5 66 $3.5 12.5 65 52.5 12.5 59 46.5 12.5 70 57.5 12.5 59 46.5 12.5 65 52.5 12.5 65 212 (10) 67 55 12 C-2 Ex-Parte Increase Rate Level 295- 281- 267- 265- 262 259- 256 223 212 To } + Sa eee (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Rochester, N.Y. ........ cia a 885 86 83.5 75 71 67 63 61 60 b 705 685 665 60 57 54 50.5 485 48 18 17.5 17 1S 4 13 125 12.5 12 eee a 101.5 98.5 955 85 81 76 72 70 = 69 b 84 815 79 70 «8667~—63 $95 $75 57 ce 175 WW 16.5 15 14 13 125 125 12 ELI: uscomateiactiiabasie a 94 915 89 79 75 71 67 65 64 b 76 74 72 64 —s«6 | 58 $45 $2.5 §2 > 18 175 17 1S 14 13 25 12.5 12 SE ave a 885 86 83.5 75 71 67 63 61 60 b 705 685 665 60 $7 S54 SOS 485 “48 c 18 675 17 18 14 13 125 125 12 Utica. NY. cccccccccccccccocceee @ 895 87 845 76 72 68 645 625 61.8 b 715 695 675 61 S® SS 52 SO 495 c 18 175 17 1S 14 413 «©1258 125 12 a—Flat Rate b—Proportional Rate c—Pad Tariff Authority: TPO B.B. Maurer, C/TN-245-I, [CC C-375 X-295-A —Eff. 8/19/73 X-281-B —Eff. 10/23/72 X-267-B —Eff. 4/28/73 (Increase Table—Supp. 307, C/TN 245-1, ICC C-375) X-265-B —Eff. 11/20/70 X-262 --Eif. !1/18/69 X-259-B —Eff. 11/28/68 X-256 —Eff. 8/19/67 X-223 —Eff. 7/1/63 (New Tariff Issue, TPO: H.R. Hinsch C/TN 245-1, ICC C-375) X-212 —Eff. 3/10/40 (Reduction In Flat Rate From Chicago), TPO: H.R. Hinsch, Freight Tariff 245-H, ICC 4403, Supp. 193. d-41 No. 35825 Appendix D Statement Showing Flat and Proportional Rates and Corresponding Pads on Wheat Products from Chicago, Illinois to Eastern Trunk Line Basing Points from March 10, 1960 to August 19, 1973 (In Cents Per 100 Pounds) Ex Parte Increase Rate Level 295- 281- 267- 265- 262 259- 256 223 212 To A 8B B B oo (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) New York,NY... a2 1005 975 945 85 80 75 0S 685 675 d b 815 79 76.5 69 65 61 58 56 55.5 c 19 18.5 18 16 1S 14 2$ 12.5 12 PEI, POT. ccccsisclarcaninessennind a 95 935 QI 82 77 73 68.$ 66.5 655 79 76.5 745 67 63 59 56 54 $3.5 ¢ 175 17 16.5 15 14 i4 25 12.5 12 Baltuumore, Md... a 95.5 92.5 81 76 72 675 655 645 76 74 72 65 61 58 55 $3 $2.5 c 195 185 18 16 15 14 128 12.5 12 Belington, W Va. .......... a 86 83.5 81 73 69 65 615 S95 SRS b 685 665 645 58 55 52 49 47 46.5 ¢ 17.5 17 165 15 14 13 25 125 i? a 1025 995 %.5 87 82 77 25 75 695 b 85 82.5 80 72 68 64 60 58 $7.5 ¢ 175 17 16.5 15S 14 13 25 125 12 eee Cumberland, Md. . a % 83.5 81 3 69 65 61.5 595 58.5 b 685 665 645 S58 55 52 a9 47 46.5 ¢ 175 17 165 15S 14 13 2.56 12.5 12 955 925 9 81 %6 72 67.5 655 645 74 72 65 61 58 55 $3 52.5 c 195 185 18 16 ts 14 2.5 125 12 Hagerstown, Md. ve ~ a 955 925 9 8| 76 72 67.5 655 645 74 72 65 61 58 55 $3 52.5 c 195 WS 18 16 1S 14 12.5 125 12 Newport News, Va... oe 4 o D-2 Ex Parte Increase Rate Level —— 295- 281- 267- 265- 262 259- 256 223 212 B To A B B B B_. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) eh, 9.5 925 9 81 16 72 675 655 645 a b 76 74 72 65 61 58 55 53 $2.5 c 195 185 18 16 1S 14 2.5 12.5 12 Philadelphia, Pa. ................ a %5 935 91 82 77 «+73 685 665 655 b 79 5 1745 67 63 39 56 $4 $35 c 178 17 165 1S 14 14 125 125 12 Rochester, N.Y. 0.0.00. a 885 86 83.5 75 71 67 635 61.8 60.5 b 705 685 665 60 57 54 S| 49 48.5 c {8 17.5 17 1S 14 13 lan tas Rockland, Me. 0.2.0.0... a 1025 995 95 87? 82 77 1725 05 695 b 85 825 80 72 68 64 60 S§ §75 c 178 17 6S 18 14 13 125 125 12 ’ Strasburg, Va. 0... a 955 925 0 81 7% 72 675 65.5 645 b 7% 74 +112 «65 «61 «SS $5 $3 + © §2.§ c 195 185 1 6 8 4 125 125 22 ee a 885 86 835 75 71 67 63.5 61.5 605 b 705 685 665 60 $7 $4 St 49 48§ c 18 175 17 15) 14 13) 125 128 12 | SR a 95 88 855 77 73 69 6S 63 ~~ 62 b 7 +72 #0 63 $9 $6 $25 S05 $0 c 165 6 55 14 14 13 125 125 12 a—Flat Rate b—Proportional Rate c—Pad Tariff Authority: TPO B.B. MAURER, C/TN 245-1, LC.C. C-375 X-295-A —Eff. 8/19/73 X-281-B —Eff. 10/23/72 X-267-B —Eff. 4/28/73 (Increase Table—Supp. 307, C/TN 245-1, L.C.C. 375) X-265-B —Eff. 11/20/70 X-262 —Eff. 11/18/69 X-259-B —Eff. 11/28/68 X-256 —Eff. 8/19/67 X-223 —Eff. 7/1/63 (New Tariff Issue, C/TN 245-I, 1.C.C. C-375) TPO: H. R. Hinsch X-212 —Eff.3/10/60 (Reduction in Flat Rate From Chi- cago), TPO: H. R. Hinsch, Freight Tariff 245-H, I.C.C. 4403, Supp. 193 d-43 E-| No. 35825 Appendix E Statement Showing Flat and Reshipping Rates also “Pads” from Chicago to Eastern Trunk Line Destinations on Barley, Corn, Grain Sorghums and Oats (In Cents Per 100 Pounds) ( Eff. 8-19-73) (Eff. 10-23-72) (Eff. 4-12-71) X-295-A X-281-B X-267-B (1) (2) (3) (4) (S$) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Flat Res. Pad Flat Res. Pad Flat Res. Pad SIA DE Gs sccetecicenenes 66 61 50 64 59 50 62 57.5 4.5 Baltuumore, MD. ........... . 65 $95 55 63 58 50 61 $6.5 4.5 Belington, W Va. ....... $3 48.5 45 $1.5 47 45 $0 455 45 ES vas ve 76.5 695 70 745 67.5 70 Cumberland, MD ......... 54 485 55 $2.5 47 55 S| 4855 55 Hagerstown,.MD....... 595 $3 6.5 58 $15 65 56.5 SO 6.5 New York, N.Y. ....... . 74 67.5 6.5 72 65.5 65 70 63.5 6.5 Newport News, Va. ... 74 67.5 6.5 72 65.5 6.5 70 63.5 65 Norfolk, Va. ......... 74 67.5 65 72 655 65 70 63.5 65 Philadelphia. Pa 685 64 45 665 62 45 645 60 45 Rochester, NY. ........ $3 485 45 $1.5 47 45 SO 455 45 Rockland. Me ............. 86 80.5 55 835 78 $.§ 81 79.5 435 Strasburg, Va. ae a 56.5 6.8 61 $5 6.0 59 §3.5 55 Syracuse, N.Y. ............ GS $3 $5 $7 51.5 55 55.5 50 $.5 Uuca. N.Y. .... 61 $4 70 59 $2.5 6.5 57.5 $1 6.5 Tariff Authority: TPO Maurer’s TL/CTR E-1009-A, ICC C- 391; TL/CTR E-772-G, ICC C-945 d-44 No. 35825 Appendix F Statement Showing Proposed Wheat and Wheat Producis Rates from Chicago to Eastern Basing Points Reflecting the 6.5¢ cwt. “PAD” (Cents Per 100 Pounds — X-295-A Level) Wheat Wheat Products Te _ Flat Prop Pad Fiat Prop Pad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) New York, N_Y. 88 815 65 885 82 6.5 Albany, N.Y 845 78 65 &§ 78.5 65 Baltimore, Md 85 785 65 855 79 6.5 Belington, W. Va. 75 685 65 755 69 6.5 Boston. Ma. 90 835 65 95 84 6.5 Cumberland. Md. 75 685 65 755 69 6.5 Hagerstown, Md. 85 78.5 65 855 79 6.5 Newport News, Va. 85 78.5 65 85.5 79 6.5 Norfolk, Va. 85 785 65 855 79 6.5 Philadelphia, Pa. 86 795 65 865 80 6.5 Rochester, N.Y. 775 7I 6.5 78 71.5 65 Rockland, Me. 90 835 65 WS 84 65 Strasburg, Va. 85 785 65 855 79 6.5 Syracuse, N.Y 77.5 #71 65 78 71.5 65 Uuca. N Y 80 73$ 65 805 174 6.5 d-45 G-1 Appendix G No. 35825 Statement Showing Wheat Receipts in Bushels at Chicago For a Series of Years Via Rail, Motor Carrier and Water, also Percent of Total Via Each Mode (000 Bushels Omitted) Total % % Barge- % Wheat Rail of Truck of Lake of Year Receipts Receipts Total Receipts Total Receipts Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ae 17024 3780 22.2 11655 68.5 1589 93 nial 18502 3746 202 10015 54.1 4741 25.46 NE essence 20610 5049 245 6013 29.2 9548 46.3 ET enemies 20241 5697 28.1 8934 441 5610 27.7 FI sncossiin 26025 7628 29.3 10270 39.5 8127 31.2 FOEe eicies 35156 11358 32.3 12677 36.1 I1121 31.6 See 25986 9677 37.2 7847 30.2 8462 32.6 oe 30247 8639 28.6 7255 240 14353 47.5 | 33581 10864 32.4 9297 27.7 13420 40.0 I ssasitis 33481 11928 35.6 10451 31.2 11102 33.2 Source: Annual Statistics Chicago Board of Trade # d-46 H-1 No. 35825 Appendix H Statement of Inbound Receipts of Wheat at Dixie Portland Flour Mill, and Outbound Shipments of Products Via Rail and Motor Carrier (In Pounds 000 Omitted) : Rail Truck Rail Wheat Products Wheat Products Non-Transit Receipts Shipments Receipts Shipments Shipments i ccdaisnecnnasaiiie 272,484 187.642 144,384 246,390 St cddeiiinictiiteaesiin 243,289 154,388 108.401 222.091 er 163,428 136,188 353,412 273.953 $0,777 eee 214,943 100,847 241,109 309,330 42,048 ee ccdiiiniesintintin 46,070 50,931 132,720 182,717 10,397 Jan.-June............. * Rail Shipment of Millfeeds Under Non Transit Mileage Rates In TPO: Maurer’s TL/CTR-E-772-G, ICC C-945. d-47 No. 35825 Appendix I Statement of Flat and Proportional Rates from Chicago and Competitive Points to New York (Domestic) together with Applicable Pad Rates in Cents Per 100 Lbs. (Ex Parte 295-A Level) Wheat ee Peatects Propor- Propor- Flat tional Flat tional Origin Rate Rate Pad Rate Rate Pad Chicago. Ill. 98 81% 16% 100" Bi'r 19 Manitowac, Wis. 98 81's 16's 1002 8i': 19 Milwaukee, Wis. 98 8i's 16" 100'2 8i'2 19 Peora-Pekin. lil. (a) 119 (c) 86 33. (a) 119 (ce) 86 33 (b) 103'2 (c) 86 17's (b) 103% (c) 86 17"; Decatur. III (a) 119° (ec) 8 33, (a) 119) (ee) 86 33 (b) 103% (c) 86 17'y (b) 103'2 (c) 86 17! Springtield. Ill. (a) 119° (ce) 86 33. (a) WIM (ey 86 33 (b) 103% (c) 86 17'> (b) 103% (cc) 86 17'y East St. Louis Ill St. Louis. Mo. (a) 119 90's 28'r (4a) 120 90': 29!, (b) 103'» 90': 13 (b) 103! W'. 13 Quincy, Ill (a) 127 9): 36's (a) 128 W's 37! (b) tl2 9O'> Ji'r (by) 112 9'> JI: (a) Flat rate subject to comparable conditions as appli- cable to Chicago flat rate. (b) Flat rate subject to no more than two transit privileges and non-application of Rule 24 of the Classification ( freight in excess of full carload rule). (c) Proportional rate except on traffic originating in North- west Territory. The applicable proportional rate on traffic originating in Northwest Territory ts the same as from Chicago, Ill. viz: 81%. Tariff Reference: TL-CTR TB 245-1, ICC C-375 d-48 No. 35825 Appendix J Annual from Chicago Shipments of Wheat (Bushels) (000 Omitted ) Year Lake Vessel Via To Canadian Overseas US Ports Ports Ports Total Barge Rail Truck Total a $,272 - 130 5,402 1.145 9275 22. 15.844 ee 4.698 2,604 $99 7.901 3.114 9,982 29 21,026 1964.0... 7,708 1,377 a 9.085 5.719 10,315 9 25,129 1965......... 10,315 3,878 168 14361 423. 7,151 | 21,936 1966......... 4.743 1185 * — 5.928 240 8494 26 14,688 a 8,404 189 88 8.681 2.109 5300 103 16,193 es. 5.798 212 $8 6,068 4.574 10,089 153 20,884 1969... 2,317 661 ime 2,978 1,838 7,456 47 12.319 1970......... 2,826 999 991 4816 — 6.742 31 11,589 eas 1,340 $50 1,064 «2,954 | 3.462 26 6,442 SOURCE: Annual Statistics Chicago Board of Trade d-49 J-2 No. 35825 Annual Chicago Shipments of Flour (Sacks) (000 Omitted) VIA Year Lake Vessel Barge Rail 1962 ........ 750 _ 6,258 EE ceseens -- — 6,733 1964 ........ — — 6,515 a — — 5,584 1966 ........ — — 5,857 1967 ........ — — 4,530 1968 ........ _ = 4,341 1969 ........ -- — 6,972 I chccisiiees —_ _ 6,912 = -- — 5,454 SOURCE: Total 7,008 6,733 6,515 5,584 5,857 4,530 4,341 6,972 6,912 5,454 Annual Statistics Chicago Board of Trade d-S0 No. 35825 Appendix K Chicago-East Bound Rail Shipments of Wheat and Flour — (1958-1966) (000 Omitted) Wheat Flour Year (Bushel) (Sacks) ores 2 9,293 2,842 | (aes 7,$52 1,739 | i ae 6,199 1,804 tte 4,864 1,804 | ae 3,468 1374 Se 1,529 1,203 a 679 954 a 2,353 771 DEED wcccccvccccsseseceseceece 133 841 SOURCE: Annual Statistics Chicago Board of Trade, 1966. d-51 L-1 " No. 35825 Appendix L Shipments of Wheat, Bran, Middlings, and Wheat Flour Handled by B&O in 1972 from Origin Points in Illinois, (including St. Louis, Mo.), Indiana, Michigan (lower penin- sula) and Ohio, including the Buffalo, N. Y. area, and Destined to Buffalo, Néw York, Pittsburgh, Pa., and Official Territory Points East Thereof. An attempt was made to exclude export traffic. WHEAT —STCC NO. 01.-137-10 B&0 from Cars Tons = Revenue Ihinots (including St. Louis, Mo). cede’ 720 = $ 11,396 INI sevcedsntnscchsscotecnets EE. AES a 10 498 3,877 Michigan (lower peninsula) - - -- Ohio entiond ii : 360 «29.563 238.090 Buffalo, N.Y Area - = — = Total , _J81 30.778 $253,363 WHEAT FF! OUR—STCC NO, 20-411.10 Iilinous ( including St. Louis, Mo ) 251 49.763) §$ 62.561 Indiana .... 202 5,968 44.898 Michigan (lower peninsula) 98 = =3,003 24,358 Ohio sol 783 48.036 184,529 Buffalo, NY Area... 80S 26,176 _192,750 Total 2.139 89.946 — $509,096 MIDDLINGS—STCC NO. 20-412-10 Ilinois ( including St Louis, Mo ) 471,789 $13,178 Indiana , 3 193 1,168 Michigan (lower peninsula) 16 637 6.922 Ohw 464 17,947 37.190 Buffalo. N Y. Area _7t 2,887 _ 13,987 Total 601 23,453 72,415 d-52 L-2 BRAN-STCC NO. 20-412.20 From ——e Ilinois ( including St. Louis. Mo. ) Indiana : Michigan (lower peninsula ) _ Total... Core 327 68 . 417 70 9.349 2,041 12,112 GRAIN FLOUR, NEC—STCC NO, 20-419-92 Iinoss ( including St. Louis, Mo ) Indiana (etieniauiiainas Michigan ( lower peninsula) Se Buffalo, N.Y. Area... Total FLOUR EDIBLE, NEC--STCC NO, 20-452.90 Iinous (including St. Louis, Mo ) Indiana . Michigan ( lower peninsula) Ohio ..... Buffalo. N.Y Area Total TOTAL WHEAT AND WHEAT PRODUCTS—YEAR Iinoss ( including St. Louis, Mo ) Indiana stnideibahial Michigan ( lower peninsula ) Ohio , Buffalo. NY. Area GRAND TOTALS 10 287 5 144 109 6.795 124 7.196 225 8.8 5 129 10 338 iy 4824 S| a 416 410 3615 $37 $54 21,754 230 7042 131 4.192 2.162 113.514 995 32.520 407? d-53 179.022 B40 Rev enue $ 6.637 610 11,397 9.887 a $28,531 3,306 $ -343 $ 72.205 1,746 3.761 23.402 10,704 ort. 1972 $168.97? $3,730 36.573 491.202 227.298 $974 7RO No, 35825 Appendix M Breakdown of Tonnage and Revenue Figures Contained In Verified Statement of T. E. Sellinger (Exhibit 11)— By State of Origin and Commodity (Penn Central-1972) Origins Commodity Cars' Tons Rev enue Ihinow Wheat 69 4,284 48.917 (O1-137-10) (Includes St. Louis. Mo ) Wheat Flour 2.449 104.354 1.276.934 (20-411-10) Semolina & y 428 6.131 Flour Mixture (20-411-15) Wheat Middlings 218 8.885 77.716 or Shorts (20-412-10) Wheat Bran & 0 825 6,182 2'o% other ingredients (20-412-15) Wheat Bran 9 1.128 11.028 (20-412-20) ‘ All shipments of wheat to Albany, Baltimore, and Nor- folk were eliminated so as to exclude export traffic. Some domestic traffic could have been also eliminated. The same procedure was not followed in connection with the figures on flour because New York City receives a great deal of domestic flour. However, apparently\there are no flov’ mills in Phila- delphia, Baltimore, and Norfolk. d-54 M-2 Origins Commodity Cars Tons Revenue Compound Flour, 65 2,021 27,383 Grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% (20-452-30) Flour, edible 915 27,923 191,193 NEC (20-452-9) TOTALS 3,894 149.745 1.845.538 Indiana Wheat wn 8 11,103 138.919 (O1-137-10) ” Wheat Flour 1,354 46,543 285.363 (20-411-10) Semolina & | 27 49 Flour Miature (20-411-15) Semolina | 42 193 (20-411-25) Wheat Middlings 107 4,521 28,338 or Shorts (20-412-10) Wheat Bran 4 128 1.400 (20-412-20) Flour, edible 234 6.763 41,158 NEC (20-452-90) TOTALS 1.807 69.127 495.6:9 Michigan Wheat 22 ju 10,835 ( Lower (O01-137-10) Peninsula) Wheat Flour 1.811 69.91) 440 285 (20-411.10) d-55 EE Oho i M-3 Commodity Wheat Middlings or Shorts (20-412-10) Wheat Bran (20-412-20) Compound, Flour, grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% ( 20-452.) Flour, edible NEC (20-452.90) TOTALS Wheat (O1-137-10) Wheat Flour (20-411-10) Semolina & Flour Mixture (220-411-158) Semolina (20-411-25)5 Wheat Middlings or Shorts (20-412-10) Wheat Bran & 29% other ingredients (20-412-18) Wheat Bran (20-412.20) d-56 289 7$ 3.728 1.414 1,729 1,205 $53 7,683 20,142 3,093 144.550 109.082 92.474 183 135 50.959 115 18,748 Revenue —————— 185,583 31,786 187,264 23,785 819 538 1,106,389 456.417 79 231.573 77.618 New York Only Buffalo Niagara Falls Lockport M-4 Commodity Compound, Flour, grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% (20-452-30) Flour, edible NEC (20-452-90) TOTALS Wheat (01-137-10) Wheat Flour (20-411-10) Semolina & Flour Mixture (20-411-15) Semolina (20-411-25) Wheat Middlings or Shorts (20-412-10) Wheat Bran (20-412-20) Compound, Flour. grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% ( 20-452-30) Flour, edible. NEC ( 20-452-90) TOTALS GRAND TOTALS d-57 Cars 336 5,258 249 16,184 45 335 442 19.866 34.553 wn 9,797 278.468 18.403 603,076 206 2.215 105,765 10,293 62 16.489 756.509 1,398,399 Revenue 116 132,269 2,007,797 116,569 4,164,998 1.913, 19.246 770.978 66.519 764 64,330 §.205.317 10,.373.809 Appendix N No. 35825 Tonnage of Wheat and Wheat Products Originated in 1972 at Principal Points in the States Named in the Verified Statement of T. E. Sellinger (Exhibit 11), Including Revenue Derived Therefrom (Penn Central) Origin Chicago Peona, Ill. Commodity Wheat 01-137-10 Wheat Flour 20-411-10 Semolina & Flour Mixture 20-411-15 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran 20-412-20 Compound Flour grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% 20-452-30 Flour, edible, NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL Wheat Flour 20-4!1-10 Semolina & Flour Mixture 20-411-15 Cars 43 141 39 21 345 Tons 2,615 5,970 211 1,125 650 8,747 26,720 153 20 Revenue 29,261 80,238 2,804 62,815 11,028 8,574 148.855 343,575 2.245 Springfield, Il. Indianapolis N-2 Commodity Flour, edible, NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL Wheat Flour 20-41 1-10 Semolina & Flour Mixture 20-41 1-15 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran & 2'’%% other ingredients 20-412-15 Flour, edible. NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL Wheat 01-137-10 Wheat Flour 20-41 1-10 Semolina & Flour Mixture 20-41 1-15 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Flour, edible, NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL d-59 Cars 22 1.024 79 1.116 27.389 779 825 8.295 37.334 743 35,898 27 3.301 82 40 051 Revenue 755 3,600 215,254 998 6,386 6,182 73,103 301.923 10.251 127,868 49 17,173 1$5.507 Origins Chelsea, Mi. Detroit, Mi. Hillsdale, Mi. N-3 Quay Wheat Flour 20-411-10 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran 20-412-20 TOTAL Wheat Flour 20-411-10 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 TOTAL Wheat Flour 20-41 1-10 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran 20-412-20 Compound, Flour grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% 20-452-30 . Flour, edible, NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL d-60 138 267 375 875 608 347 255 676 13 1,899 9,247 146 13,352 19,065 15,910 6,517 20,480 448 64,038 18,452 1,382 65,755 78,460 66,276 144,736 88,537 58,249 23,391 158,149 1.938 330,264 N-4 i Commodity Cars Tons Revenue Buffalo, N.Y. Wheat 116 10,214 82,408 01-137-10 Wheat Flour 16,177 602,840 4,163,865 20-411-10 Semolina & 6 206 1,913 Fiour Mixture 20-41 1-15 Wheat Middlings 2,602 105,765 770,978 or Shorts 20-412-10 Semolina 45 2,215 19.246 20-41 1-25 Wheat Bran 335 10,293 66,519 20-412-20 Compound, Flour 2 47 466 grain with other ingredieni: not exceeding 40% 20-452-30 Flour, edible 58 1,553 14,563 NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL 19,341 733,133 5,119,958 Fostona, Oh. Wheat 43 4,041 24,179 01-137-10 Wheat Flour 257 11,803 101,713 20-411-10 rn Wheat Middlings 49 1,893 13,145 or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran 32 960 3,891 20-412-20 d-61 Origins Toledo, Oh. St. Louis, Mo. N-5 Commodity Flour, edible. NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL Wheat 01-137-10 Wheat Flour 20-41 1-10 Semolina & Flour Mixture 20-41 1-15 Wheat Middlings or Shorts 20-412-10 Wheat Bran & 24% other ingredients 20-412-15 Wheat Bran 20-412-20 Flour, edible. NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL Wheat Flour 20-411-10 Compound. Flour grain with other ingredients not exceeding 40% 20-452-30 Flour, edible NEC 20-452-90 TOTAL d-62 Cars $72 376 52 10 1.059 Tons 22 18,719 31,914 49.833 15 21,088 115 10.828 1,343 115,136 45.755 298 Revenue 82 143,010 172,947 192.774 108 99.914 1.130 18.926 532.266 620,227 460 5.786 626.473 O-1 Appendix O No. 35825 Traffic Handled by N&W in 1972 From and To the Indicated Points, and Its Revenues Therefrom. (Export Traffic Excluded When Possible) From Chicago, Ill. Peonia, Ill. Springfield, Ill. Indianapolis, Ind. St. Louis, Mo. Buffalo, N.Y. Fostoria, Ohio Toledo, Ohio Chicago, Ill. Peona, Il. Springfield, ill. Indianapolis, Ind. St Louis, Mo. Buffalo, NY. Fosiona, Ohio 7. “do, Ohio Chicago, Ill. Peona. Ill. Springfield, III. Indianapolis, Ind. Commodity Wheat 01137 Flour 2041110 15 20 Wheat Mids & Shorts 2041210 d-63 Cars Tons Revenue 164 7.264 $ 85,381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1,109 13,819 0 0 0 57 4931 33,658 276 16,846 136,861 509 40,050 269,719 149 4,787 44.864 “ 251 2,977 1.366 55,348 368,017 112 3.419 11,855 340 «11,520 103,089 149 4,349 13,676 Ol 12,583 45,495 636 42,782 139,409 3,061 135,039 729,382 38 ~=s-:11.,526 9,587 0 0 0 382 14,369 34,987 1 464 2.159 From St. Louis, Mo. Buffalo, N.Y. Fostoria, Ohio Toledo, Ohio Chicago, Ill. Peoria, Ill. Springfield, Ill. Indianapolis, Ind. St. Louis, Mo. Buffalo, N Y. Fostona, Ohio Toledo, Ohio Chicago, Ill. Peoria, Ill. Springfield. III A Indianapolis, Ind St. Louis, Mo Buffalo, N.Y. Fostona, Ohio Toledo, Ohio GRAND TOTALS Commodity Wheat-Bran 2041220 Flour, Edible, NEC 2045290 d-64 Cars Tons Revenue 4 401 5,040 ! 42 45 103. 4,075 14.264 1.157 46,754 175,747 1696 67,651 $241,829 6 175 662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1,297 6.655 404 11,895 38,601 454 13 %67 45,918 450 18.677 207,170 0 0 0 ! 25 19 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 158 842 $41 21,347 $234,931 6.261 227,434 $1,521,779 APPENDIX E ORDER At a General Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 17th day of February, 1976. No. 35825 ” BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO v THE AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. Upon consideration of the record in the above entitled proceeding, and the petitions, filed February 5, 1976, by Western Lines and February 6, 1976, by Eastern Territory Railroads, seeking a finding that an issue of general trans- portation importance is involved: It is ordered, That the petitions be, and they are hereby, denied for the reason that sufficient grounds have not been presented to warrant granting the action sought. This decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. By the Commission. Ropert L. OSwWaLp Secretary (SEAL) APPENDIX F United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 76-1198 September Term, 1975 THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., ae Petition for Petitioners, Review of Orders of the VS. ; . Interstate Commerce THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 2 Commission. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Respondents. Motions of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., The Board of Trade of Kan- sas City, Missouri, Inc., and American Bakers Association seek- ing leave to intervene in this cause have been considered by the court and are granted. Each of the parties named above is hereby admitted to this cause as an Intervenor-Petitioner. April 29, 1976 f-1 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2102%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.