# Appendix — Southern R. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1843%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 442 U.S. 444 ## Text } oe Fes: —— I Supreme Court, U. & "% | i ie e & D | ry APPENDIX | ioiag veer | In the Supreme Court of the United States OcTOBER TERM, 1978 No. 78-575 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner v. SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., ET AL. Respondents. No. 78-597 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Petitioner Vv SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., ET AL. Respondents. No. 78-604 SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., Petitioners V. SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., ET AL. Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Petitions for Certiorari filed in No. 78-597 and No. 78-604 October 10, 1978 Certiorari Granted January 8, 1979. a a ne hte. 14 atc 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Certified List of Relevant Documents as Filed by the ICC with United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Certified General Docket List - United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (CC8) (Docket Nos. 77-1729 and 77-1770) Document Reference Document Dated ICC-1 Southern Freight Associa- Aug. 15, ’77 tion’s Justification State- ment. ICC-2 Letter- Notifying Com- Aug. 15, 77 mission of Corrections to SFA Justification Statement ICC - 19 Verified Complaint, Pro- Sept. 6, ’77 test and Petition for Sus- pension and Investigation of Southern Poultry & Egg Association ICC - 22 Verified Complaint, Pro- Sept. 6, ’77 test and Petition for Sus- pension of Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, St. Louis Grain Corporation, FS Services, Inc., Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Grain Corporation 97 99 141 Document Reference Document Dated Page ICC - 23 Protest and Petition for Sept. 6, 77 Dixie Portland Flour Mills, Inc., Seaboard Allied Mill- ing Corp. ICC - 24 Petition for Rejection of | Sept. 6, ’77 Tariffs of Archer Daniels Midland Company, Conagra, Inc. Dixie Portland Flour Mills, Inc., Seaboard Allied Mill- ing Corp. ADM Milling Co. ICC - 28 Southern Freight Associa- Sept. 8, 77 tion’s Reply to Protests and Petitions for Sus- pension ICC - 29 Supplementary Petition Sept. 12, ’77 for Rejection of Tariffs of Archer Daniels Mid- land Company Conagra, Inc. Dixie Portland Flour Mills, Inc., Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. ADM Milling Co. ICC - 31 Interstate Commerce Sept. 14, ’77 Commission Order Deny- ing Petition for Rejection 174 242 249 280 284 Document Reference Document Dated Page ICC - 32 Interstate Commerce Sept. 14, ’77 Commission Order De- clining Petitions for Sus- pension and Investigation ICC - 33 Southern Freight Asso- Sept. 13, ’77 ciation Reply to Supple- mentary Petition for Re- jection of Tariffs (ICC-29) CC8 - 10 Court Order Temporarily Sept. 14, ’77 Staying Interstate Commerce Commission Order of September 14, 1977 (ICC-32) and Enjoining Respondents from Per- mitting Tariffs from Becoming Effective. ICC - 34 ICC Order Reopening Sept. 15, ’77 Proceeding Solely to Comply with Court Order CC8 - 40 Court Order Dissolving Sept. 22, ’77. Temporary Stay ICC - 37 Interstate Commerce Sept. 23, ’77 Commission Order Allow- ing Respondents to Cancel Tariff Supplements Post- poning Effective Date of Seasonal Grain Rate In- creases. itt 286 292 295 296 298 301 Document Reference Document CC868 Judgment-Opinion by the Feb. 16, ’78 Honorable Judge Van Oosterhout CC8 - 80 Court Order Denying May 12, ’78 Interstate Commerce C ‘ssion’s Petiti for Rehearing (CC8 - 73) Orders of the Supreme Jan. 8, ’79 Court of the United States Granting Petitions for Issu- ance of a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit iv 317 319 Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Certified List of Relevant Documents as Filed by the ICC with United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20423 Office of the Secretary I, H. G. HOMME, JR., Acting Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission, do hereby certify that the attached document-index is a true representation and listing of all formal filings and Commission issuances in the proceeding docketed and identified as No. 36663, (DEMAND SENSI- TIVE RATES ON GRAIN AND SOYBEANS - SOUTH- ERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION TERRITORY). Collec- tively, the documents listed on the attached index represent the entire formal record in said proceedings, the originals of which are on file and of record in the Office of the Sec- retary of this Commission, and are available for review, upon request. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said Commission this 12th day of October, A. D., 1977. s/s H. G. Homme, Jr. ACTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (SL/L) ®9%-aS (staeg ‘gq “y Aq) ANVdWOO NOILVNUYVO €& LL/9/6 ‘ea0ge GF Wez Uy WBIFE} JO ‘NOILVNUIANOO ‘02 (pAoyy “y “W Aq) (suor4etsosse Azyjnod 40430 § pu’) TY LA ‘NOILLVIOOSSV “uo eSySeAu pue uoisuedsns 10.4 -NOILLIL AULSNGNI AULTNOd VAVEVIV OF LL/9/6 “dd pu® LSALOUd ‘LNIVIdWOO GaIdINGA ‘6I (y8neqzey “W “OD 4q) AOUAWWOO GNV AYNLINO ‘uorj881}SeAu! pue uorsuedsns 104 ‘IHDV JO LNAWLYVdaC VINIDUIA 21 LL/9/6 *‘NOLLILGd Pu® LNIVIdWOO GaIdIuaA ‘SI (uesuey ‘dD ‘¢ Aq) ‘ONI ‘THNOSSIW ‘ALIO “uorsuedsns 104 :‘NOLLILId SVSNVM JO AGVUL AO GUVOE AHL 6 LL/9/6 pue LSALOUd ‘LNIV1d WOO GaIdIuaA “LT (sueaq “M “Y Aq) ‘uorsuedsns 104 ‘NOLLILAd ANVdWOO GNV LLOTLYVE 9 LL/S/6 pus LNIV'IdWOO GaIdIuaA ‘9I (puourerq “f¢ Aq) ‘uorsuedsns 104 ‘NOILILAd se) ‘ONI‘STTIN UNOTA ATIIASALVIS S$ LL/$/6 put LNIVIdWOO GgaIdIuaA ‘ST (329g “Y “mM Aq) ‘uorsuedsns 104 :NOILILAd ‘ONI ‘STTIW GNOWGGId S LL/S/6 pue LNIVIdWOO GaIdINAA FI + (uosTT#D “CO Aq) ‘ONI‘STTIN TVHANAD = ZI LL/Z/6 ‘uoIsuedsns pu’ u0TzeBIzS0AU! JOJ -NOILLILAd ‘SI (Auzeq “g “5 Aq) ‘ONI ‘NVAUNE NOILVLYOdSNVUL ‘uorsuedsns 104 -NOILLILAd GNV OlddaVUL SNVATHO MAN eI LL/2/6 put LSALOUd ‘LNIVIdWOO CAIdINaA “ZI (mmig “yf 4q) Worze8rSeAuT pue ANVdWOO ONIMGYE ZLITHOS ‘SOr 2 LL/Z/6 uorsuedsns 104 :NOILILAd PU ISALOUd ‘II NOISSINWOO/ ALUVd SA9Vd dZOMAUaS/ONITIA LNAWN90d JO ‘ON dO ‘ON 4O ALVG FONVLISENS/ ATLLLL 478 6ZLI-LL VOINAWNYV JO SALV.LS GC&ALINN pue “A TV Ld “duOo ONITIIN GaITIV GUVOdVaS ‘HID ‘ON _NOISSINWOO JOUANWOO ALVLSUSALNI TVdddV NO aSVO SaDvd 9 E (8) @ aDVd LaaHS NOILLVONILNOO ONIXGGNI ONITIA — AUVLAYNOUS AHL AO AOIAAO OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY — FILING INDEXING SHEET PAGE 1 OF 6 PAGES CASE ON APPEAL SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., INTERSTATE COMMERCE NO. CIR. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, ADM MILLING CO., COMMISSION and UNITED CONAGRA, INC., and DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC. V. STATES OF AMERICA 77-1729 8th COMMISSION DOCKET NO. TITLE — DEMAND SENSITIVE RATES ON GRAIN AND SOYBEANS — PROCEEDING No. 36663 SOUTHERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION TERRITORY = VOLUME I TITLE /SUBSTANCE DATE OF NO. OF NO. OF DOCUMENT FILING/SERVICE PAGES PARTY /COMMISSION 1. JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT 8/16/77 80 SOUTHERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION (by B. B. Bowers) 2. LETTER: Advising of corrections of typo- 8/16/77 2 SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD graphical errors in item next above. COMPANY (by W. Poynter) 3. PROTEST and PETITION: For suspension. 8/28/77 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF _ AGRICULTURE (by J. A. Graham) N 4. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and Dated 8/31/77 19 MFC SERVICES (AAL) PETITION: For suspension. (by H. L. Bass) 5. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and 8/31/77 5 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PETITION: For suspension. _ AGRICULTURE (by L. M. Rife) 6. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 8/31/77 31 THE EARLY AND DANIEL CO., INC. TITION: For suspension and investigation. (by J. H. Sisson) 7. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/1/77 12 INDIANA COMMISSIONER OF AGRI- TITION: For suspension and investigation. CULTURE (by R. D. Orr) 8. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/1/77 12 GARVEY, INC. (by J. I. Irlandi) TITION: For suspension and investigation. 9. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/1/77 2 CARNATION COMPANY TITION: For suspension and investigation. (by A. P. Davis) 10. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and 9/2/77 26 INDIANA GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCI- PETITION: For suspension. ATION, INC.; and GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS (by R. L. Cole and H. H. Hoemann) SE-46 (7/75) (SL/L) 94S "199}BUI STY} 10zTUOUI AjasoTD 07 suOIzBIedO jo nveINg pue JUseUIeDI0JUq pue suOT}eSIyS0A -U] JO NBeINg INO yep TIM eM ‘ueuldmbe peumo-Ayo} B8ALId peuMO-peoTel useM} 0q 3U9UI}881} 33 SIp peZeye ue Zuruss9u02 SuorjeZaT]e estei s3UBS9}0Id [BIBAes BDU “UOISSTUIWMIOD SITY} Aq UOT}BITFIpOU JO jUeUI a qoefqns ¥ queuremnbe. sty], ‘@AIsnpour “ABpsoupe M 07 ABpsiny], woI uni TT’ys ‘Burpessoid sty3 jo asodind 943 103 ‘yoom V “320m 310da1 ay} Jo pus ay} 10338 syoom ae an ee yoeg “Buynpeydses seddrys jo soueptae (¢) pue ‘UOISI@AIP JO aoUapLAe (f) ‘AyIpouruIOD pue ed A} zeo Aq sSurpeojied (¢) ‘uorMeuTysep pue UTZLI0 JO SU01}83S 94} Pus SetjIPOUTUIOD dyT uw uO peseq SzUSUIBAOU! UTeI3 (Z) *( zed Aq siepio payyun pue per) woryezqyryn 19 (1) (aqediorzed you JO SULIe} UI Se_Npeyos oy JO 490}j0 43 BurzeTeI PIp UBIISIIYD JeuoIssTMUIOD pue ddeyyD 8y10de1 ‘uoIssTUIUIOD STY} JO A1B}0190g 943 usulaTey) 821A) NOISSINWOO AHL Ad t LL/#1/6 YW ‘OflJ SIVLLIBD 4 243 32UL‘UACHO ‘ZE (e3ed10131ed you prp . ddgjD seuorssyurm0D) ddeyd pue ureysein ‘Patuap st ‘pejueusiddns se Aydin sisuorssturwi0D ‘Z NOISIAIG _i LL/¥1/6 ‘QA0ge FZs WiSz! UT UOTIed 843 IVYL -YACUO “IE "UOTJUSAIIZUT 1OJ UOTZTIEd OTTZ 07 (ueqystupg “T “Y Aq) GUNLINOINDV eur} Zusenbe1 pus uonedyjecany pus dO LNIWLYVdad VNITOUVO HLYON I LL/#1/6 uorsuedsns 10; ysanbar ‘380}01g ‘WVHDFIAL ‘Oe NOISSINWOO/ ALUVd SA9Vd dOMAUgS/ONITIA LNAWN90d JO ‘ON dO ‘ON dO ALVG GFONVLSENS/ ATLL 478 6ZLI-LL VOIYAWNV 40 SALV.LS GALINN pue “A TV Ld “dO ONITIIW GaITIV GUVOEV ‘uID ‘ON _ NOISSINWOO0 SOHAWWOO ALVLSUALNI TVdddV NO aS¥O SadDvd 9 E (8) ¢ GDVd JaaHS NOILVONILNOO DNIXGGNI DNITId — AUVLAYOAS AHL AO FOLAAO OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY — FILING INDEXING CONTINUATION SHEET PAGE 3 OF 6 PAGES CASE ON APPEAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NO. CIR. SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., ET AL Vv. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 77-1729 8th TITLE /SUBSTANCE DATE OF NO. OF NO. OF DOCUMENT FILING/SERVICE PAGES PARTY /COMMISSION 21. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/6/77 19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TITION: For suspension and investigation. AGRICULTURE (by C. M. Pearson) 22. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/6/77 34 BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF TITION: For suspension and investigation. CHICAGO; ST. LOUIS GRAIN COR- PORATION; FS SERVICES, INC.; ILLINOIS FARM BUREAU; and ILLINOIS GRAIN CORPORATION (by T. F. McFarland, Jr.) 23. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/6/77 76 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND TITION: For suspension and investigation. COMPANY; ADM MILLING CO,; CONAGRA, INC.; DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC.; and SEABOARD ~~ ALLIED MILLING CORP. (by P. A. Greene) 24. PETITION: For rejection of tariffs. 9/6/77 7 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY; ADM MILLING CO.; CONAGRA, INC.; DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC.; and SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP. (by P. A. Greene) 25. VERIFIED COMPLAINT, PROTEST and PE- 9/7/77 8 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER TITION: For suspension and investigation. COOPERATIVES (by J. S. Krzyminski) 26. PROTEST 9/8/77 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- ‘ CULTURE (by D. Conner) 27. PROTEST 9/8/77 1 KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- CULTURE (by T. O. Harris) 28. REPLY: to protests and petitions for 9/8/77 39 SOUTHERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION suspensions. (by B. B. Bowers) 29. SUPPLEMENTARY PETITION: For rejection 9/12/77 5 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND of tariffs. COMPANY; CONAGRA, INC.; DIXIE PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS, INC-.; SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP.; and ADM MILLING CO. (by J. H. Caldwell) SE-46a (7 /75) (SL/L) ®96-aS see eeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeceeeeeeceeeeeeeceeeeceeeceececeeceeceeeeeceereeceee eee esre £ ets ‘seded [B70], ‘ONIGAAO OUd SIHL GNV I WNTOA 40 GNA ‘gMIND YIYSIq ey} 10; ‘Tanne JANOD $8783 perUs) ey} s10jeq te ‘ © d . 4 BuIA OAUI ; / ¥ 8 Areqeiveg Bur2y “Ur ‘AWWOH ‘D “H LL/62/6 pamnaneur Noose Fanos IOLLON "729}J@ Ul UTBUIGI SB[NPSyIS PSAOAu! oy} poried 4} 10} peurezuTeul eq [[eys pue ‘yoy SIIBUIWIOD 3987819}U] BY} JO (8)(g)GT UOTIIeg jo sjusuemnbes [[e Jeeul estmsey}0 [Teys ‘pred e718 SJUNOWe oyj JTBYeq BsOyM UO pue (G.LNOO) ‘LE NOISSINWOO/ ALUVd Sd9vd AOIAUTS/ ONITIA LNAWN90d AO ‘ON a eer = 40 “ON 40 ALVdG AONVLSENS / ATLL : “1 IYGWV JOSALVLS CALINN pue ‘A IV La “du uIO ON NOISSINWOO SOHAWWOO ALVLSUALNI rsichacibiasion aa Vaddv NO aSVO Sad9Vvd 9 (8) 9 GDVd LaAaAHS NOILVONILNOO ONIXGGNI DONITIA — AUVLAYOUS AHL AO AOIAAO armen OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY — FILING INDEXING CONTINUATION SHEET PAGE 5 OF 6 PAGES CASE ON APPEAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NO. CIR. SEABOARD ALLIED MILLING CORP., ET AL Vv. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 77-1729 8th TITLE /SUBSTANCE DATE OF NO. OF NO. OF DOCUMENT FILING/SERVICE PAGES PARTY /COMMISSION 33. REPLY: To supplementary petition in item #29 9/15/77 5 SOUTHERN FREIGHT ASSOCIATION above. RAILROADS (by C. N. Marshall) 34. ORDER: That this emges is reopened for the 9/15/77 1 ACTING CHAIRMAN CLAPP st cumiivinn 27 ths order of The nited States of A For the Eighth Circuit; solely in obedience to the Court’s order as specified, the operation of until further order. 35. PETITION: To intervene. 9/16/77 6 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (by R. L. Griffin) 36. LETTER: Addressed to R. L. Edmiston, advising 9/21/77 2 H. G. HOMME, JR., Acting Secretary that the petition in item next above was re- ceived at the Commission too late to be con- sidered. The petition should have reached the Commission not later than vd bel —, ingly, your petition is being passed to without further handling. 37. ORDER: That respondents may cancel on one 9/23/77 2 ACTING CHAIRMAN CLAPP day’s notice those supplements omy Sorgg effective date of the specified schedules; that, consistent with the court’s admonishment, respondents keep account of all amounts re- ceived because of these increased rates and charges. The account shall specify by whom (CONT’D.) SE-46a (7/75) Re are Pa RR Bea 8 ow Ate, Bala ASG eg asl oe ae ad Dati AR BEEN 5 AE WON Ee Ph 2X Certified General Docket List - United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (CC8) (Docket Nos. 77-1729 and 77-1770) GENERAL DOCKET UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL FROM PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CASE NO. 77-1770 Consolidated w/ 77-1729 TITLE OF CASE Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, FS Services, Inc., Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Grain C Son and St. Louis Grain Corporation, Petitioners, vs. Interstate Commerce Commission, and United States of America, Respondents. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Southern Railway Company, Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, Intervenor-Respondents. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Harold E. Spencer Thomas F. McFarland, Jr. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert L. Thompson Christine N. Kohl (ICC) Intervenors-Respondents: Charles N. Marshall Adrian L. Steel, Jr. Wandaleen Poynter DATE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT Received Disbursed Remarks 1977 Sept. 30 Docketing fee EH&C 50.00 10 GENERAL DOCKET UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1977 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 77-1770 FILINGS - PROCEEDINGS FILED Sept. 30 Docketed case Sept. 30 Petition for Review of Order of Interstate Com- Oct. 5 Oct. 11 Oct. 12 Oct. 20 Oct. 21 Oct. 21 Oct. 21 Nov. 8 Nov. 11 Dec. 5 Dec. 5 Dec. 9 Dec. 9 Dec. 9 merce (1) Appearance petitioners (2) Appearance respondents (3) Mo Seaboard Coast Line Rr. Co., Southern Rr. Company, Louisville and Nashville Rr Co., IC. Gulf Rr. Co. and St. Louis-San Francisco Rr Co. for lv to intervene & to consolidate w/1729 (4) Order: Petitions for review of orders of Interstate Commerce Commission are consolidated for brief- ing and submission to court; Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company; Southern Railway Company, Louisville and Nashville Railway Company; Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company; and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company may intervene as parties-respondents w/77-1729 Appearance respondents (5) Appearance Intervenors-respondents (6) Appearance Intervenors-respondents (7) Brief petitioner wiser 0 +3 (Intervening petitioner in 77-1729) CERTIFIED LIST OF PROCEEDINGS BE- FORE ICC (8) Mo respondent for extension of time to file brief, with 77-1729 Order: Respondents may have thru December 8 to file briefs w/1729 Brief Respondent w/ser. 10 copies (USA) Brief appellee wiser. 10 copies (Interstate Com- merce Commission) Brief of Railroad Intervenors wiser. 0 +4 Dec. 13 Dec. 15 Dec. 15 Dec. 19 Dec. 20 Dec. 20 Dec. 23 Jan. 3 Jan. 5 Jan. 5 Jan. 12 Jan. 13 Feb. 16 11 Mo petitioners for extension of time to file reply briefs, with 77-1729 Mo Intervening Respondent Railroads for lv to file reply brief, with 77-1729. Order: Petitioners may have thru January 5 to serve and file reply briefs; appendix remains due to be filed by January 6, 1978 w/77-1729 Transferred to January session. Motion of railroad intervenors for leave to file a 20'/2-page supplemental brief Order: Motions of intervenor-respondents, Rail- roads, for leave to file w/1729 reply brief granted; Railroads may file reply brief not to exceed twenty typewritten pages w/77-1729 ' Objection of petitioners Chicago Board of Trade, et al., to reply brief of intervenor-respondent rail- roads, with 77-1729. (9) Appendix 10 copies w/77-1729 copies to panel Reply Brief Petitioners w/ser. 0 +3 (10) Supp brief of Railroad Intervenors w/ser 0 + 4 w/77-1729 Bnef of respondent, I.C.C. Printed copies w/service w/1729 Argued and submitted (with 1729) to Judges Gib- son, Van Oosterhout & Matthes and John Cald- well for petitioners in 1729; Harold Spencer for petitioners in 1770; Robert L: Thompson, Dept. of Justice for U.S.; Charles White for ICC; Charles Marshall for Southern Ry; Wandaleen Poynter for Seaboard Coast Line. Rebuttal by Messers. Cald- well and Spencer. Recorded. Opinion by Judge Van Oosterhout. (Printed & Pubiished) w/1729. 12 Feb. 16 JUDGMENT: Commission’s order terminating April 28 its investigation of patent illegal charges is vacated and cases are remanded to Commission for fur- ther proceedings in accordance with opinion. w/1729. | Mo ICC for ext of time to file pet for reh and sugg for reh en banc, with 1729. Appearance for respondent ICC. (11) Order: ICC granted to 4-3-78 to file petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (with 1729) Petition of respondent ICC for rehearing en banc and rehearing w/ service. w/ 1729 Mo petitioners for addtnl 10 days to respond to pet for reh and reh en banc. w/1729. ORDER: On motion of certain petitioners all par- ties desiring to respond to Commission’s petition for rehearing, etc., are to have response in the of- fice of the Clerk of Court in St. Louis, Missouri no later than 4/28/78 (w/77-1729) Response of respondent, United States of Ameri- ca, to Commission’s petition for rehearing en banc wi/ service. w/ 1729. Response of petitioners (in 77-1770) Board of Trade of the City of Chicago; FS Services, Inc., Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Grain Corporation and St. Louis Grain Corp. to Commission’s petition for re- hearing en banc. w/ service. (77-1729) (12) Response of petitioners/intervenors respondents, Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., et al. and interve- nors Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, State of North Carolina and State of Indiana w/ service. w/1729 Mo of Intervening Railroad Respondents for lv to file memorandum in support of ICC’s pet for reh eg Oe Ie it ae Oe ge eee eo Sept. 8 Sept. 8 Sept. 8 13 with suggestions for reh en banc, with 1729. Opposition of petitioners to granting lv to RR in- venors to file memo in support of ICC’s pet for reh. (13) ORDER: Petition for rehearing en banc and re- hearing filed by respondent, ICC, is denied, w/77- - 1729. Certified copies of judgment forwarded to counsel (with 1729) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-115 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-106 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file peti- tion for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-165 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-115 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file peti- tion for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-106 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file peti- tion for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-165 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file peti- tion for writ of certiorari, with 77-1729. 14 i 15 a GENERAL DOCKET Oct. 13 Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in Su- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS preme pee: At as Case #78-575 (as of | FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 10/6/78), with 77-1729. e | Oct. 16 Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in Su- APPEAL FROM preme Court of U.S. as Case # 78-597 (as of | PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF ICC 10/10/78) with 77-1729. Oct. 31 Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in CASE NO. 77-1729 Supreme Court of U.S. as Case #78-604 (as of 10/10/78), with 77-1729. consolidated w/ 77-1770 A true copy. | TITLE OF CASE Attest: /s/ Robert C. Tucker Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., Per A.K. | Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. | ae oo Petitioners, VS. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Respondents. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Southern Railway.Company, Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company and St. Le ais-San Francisco Railway Company, Intervenor-Respondents. 16 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Peter A. Greene John H. Caldwell Neal A. Jackson Arthur J. Cerra (Harold E. Spencer (Intervenors (Thomas McFarland StL Grain, etc. (W. Thomas McGhee) David C, Todd (Intervenor Miss. Poultry Assn) William G. Mundy Michael A. Yuhas ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert Lewis Thompson Charles N. Marshall (Intervenor Southern Railway) Wandaleen Poynter (Intervenor R.R.) Adrian Steel, Jr. (Intervenor R.R.) Christine N. Kohl (ICC) No. below: 36663; 67123 Judge below: Date of Judgement: Sept. 14, 1977 Notice of appeal filed: DATE ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT Received Disbursed REMARKS 9/14/77 Docket fee Jackson 50.00 — | 17 GENERAL DOCKET UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 77-1729 w/ 77-1770 DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS FILED 1977 Sept. 14 Petition for Review of Order of ICC (1) Sept. 14 Motion for Stay (2) Sept. 14 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Stay (3) Sept. 14 Affidavit of Donald J. Stone. (4) Sept. 14 Affidavit of John R. Staley (5) Sept. 14 Affidavit of James R. Woolery (6) Sept. 14 Appearance for petitioners (7) Sept. 14 Appearance for petitioners (8) Sept. 14 Certificate of Service of Petition and Motions (9) Sept. 14 Order: Order of ICC of September 14, 1977, is stayed and respondents are enjoined from per- mitting the subject rate tariffs from becoming ef- fective until further order of the court; respondents may have thru September 21 to respond to peti- tioners’ motion for stay (10) Sept. 15 Mo of ICC for a hearing to lift order of 9/14 to be held on P.M. of 9/16/77, or as soon as possible thereafter. U.S. concurs. (11) Sept. 16 Reply of petitioners to request of respondents for hearing. (12) Sept. 16 Order of ICC concerning rate tariff schedules. (13) Sept. 16 Affidavit of John E. Harvey. (14) Sept. 16 Mo Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Southern Railroad Company, Louisville and Nash- ville Railroad Co., Illinois Central Gulf Railroad 18 Co. and St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. for lv to intervene (15) Sept. 16 Order: Hearing in this case set at 1:30 p.m. Thurs- day, September 22, 1977; counsei will be heard on all matter pertaining to the issuance or continuance of interlocutory injunctive relief in this cause; any briefs or responsive memorandums are to be filed with the clerk by 9/21/77 (16) Sept. 19 Affidavit of John E. Harvey. (Verified) (17) Sept. 19 Petition of St. Louis Grain Corporation, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, FS Services, Inc., Illinois Farm Bureau and Illinois Grain Corpora- tion for leave to intervene. (18) Sept. 20 Mo Alabama Poultry Industry Association, et al for lv to intervene. (19) Sept. 20 Mo Mississippi Poultry Association, et al., for lv to intervene. (20) Sept. 20 Memo in further support of motion for stay. (21) Sept. 20 Verified Statement of Allan Rahn (Exhibit I) (22) Sept. 20 Affidavit of William Roenigk. (Exhibit I) (23) Sept. 21 Response of ICC in opposition to continuance of stay entered without jurisdiction. (24) Sept. 21 Mo State of Indiana and Robert D. Orr, Lt. Gov. and Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Indiana by Theodore L. Sendak, Atty.Gen. of In- diana and William G. Mundy, Deputy Atty Gen- eral for lv to intervene. (25) Sept. 21 Mo Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty.Gen.of North Caro- lina for lv to intervene. (26) Sept. 21 Aff. of James A. Graham, Commnr. of Insurance for N. Carolina. (27) Sept. 21 Supplemental memo in support of issuance and continuance of interlocutory injunctive relief.. (28) iat A acchsh hs ated 19 1977 Sept. 21 Received Intervening respondents’ (Seaboard Coast Line Rr. Co., Southern Rr. Co., Louisviile and Nashville Rr Co., Ill. Central Gulf Rr Co. and St. Louis-San Francisco RR Co.) reply in opposition to mo for stay, pending review. Sept. 21 LC.C. Ex Parte No. 324 - Decided 1/28/77. = (29) Sept. 22 Appearance for respondents (30) Sept. 22 Appearance for petitioner (31) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor St. Louis Grain, et al (32) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor Southern Ry (33) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor Railroads (34) Sept. 22 Argued and submitted to Judges Matthes, Web- ster, Henley on motion to set aside Court’s stay order, injunction, of 9-14-77; Charles H. White, Jr. for 1.C.C. & United States; Charles Marshall for Intervenor(respondent) Southern R.R.: Wandaleen Poynter for Intervenor (respondent) Railroads. John Caldwell for Petitioners; Harold Spencer for Intervenor (petitioner) St. Louis Grain, et al. Con- cluded by Mr. White. Recorded. Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor (petitioner) St. Louis Grain et al (35) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor (petitioner) St. Louis Grain et al (36) Sept. 22 Appearance for petitioner (37) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor (Respondent) Rail- roads (38) Sept. 22 Appearance for Intervenor (Petitioner) Missis- sippi Poultry (39) Sept. 22 Rec’d Motion to Continue Stay by Intervenors St. Louis Grain Corp et al Sept. 22 Rec’d Memorandum in Support of Motion to Con- tinue Stay Sept. 22 Rec’d Joinder in Motion for Stay from Atty Gen- eral of Indiana . 20 Sept. 22 Order: Temporary stay heretofore granted should be dissolved, etc., all pending motions to intervene are granted (40) Sept. 23 Appearance respondent (41) Sept. 27 Appearance petitioner (42) Oct.4 BRIEFING SCHEDULE: Appellants’ briefs due 11/7/77, appellees’ briefs due 12/5/77, appellants’ reply briefs due 12/19/77 Oct. 12 Mo Seaboard Coast Line RR Co., et al., for lv to intervene & to consolidate w/77-1770; filed in 77- 1770 Oct. 13 CERTIFIED LIST OF PROCEEDINGS BE- FORE ICC. (43) Oct. 19 Mo for lv to proceed under Rule 30c). (44) Oct. 19 Order: Counsel may file deferred appendix pur- suant to rule 30(c) FRAP (45) Oct. 20 Order: Petitions for review of orders of Interstate Commerce Commission are consolidated for brief- ing and submission to court; Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.; Southern Railway Company; Louis- ville & Nashville Railroad Company; Illinois Cen- tral Gulf Railroad Company; and St. Louis San Francisco Railway Company may intervene as parties-respondents (46) Nov. 7 Notice of Alabama Poultry Industry Asscn., et al., that these intervenors will not file a separate brief. Adopt brief of petitioners, w/77-1770. (47) Nov. 8 JIntervening brief petitioner w/ser. (Brief petitioner in 77-1770) (48) Nov.9 Bnef petitioners wiser. (Intervenors Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association and State of North Carolina (49) Nov.9 Bnef of Intervening petitioner, State of Indiana Rob- ert D. Orr, Lieutenant Governor & Commissioner 21 Of Agriculture Of the State Of Indiana w/ser. 27 copies (50) Dec.5 Mo respondent for ext of time to file brief, with 77-1770 (51) Dec.5 Order: Respondents may have thru December 8 to file briefs (52) Dec.9 Brief appellee wiser. 10 copies (USA) (53) Dec.9 Bnef appellee wiser (Interstate commerce commis- sion) (54) Dec.9 Bnef of Railroad Intervenors wiser. 0 +4 (55) Dec. 13 Mo petitioners for extension of time to file reply briefs, with 77-1770 (56) Dec. 15 Mo Intervening Respondent Railroads for lv to file reply brief, with 77-1770. (57) Dec. 15 Order: Petitioners may have thru January 5 to serve and file reply briefs; appendix remains due to be filed by January 6, 1978 (58) Dec. 19 Transferred to January session, w/1770 Dec. 20 Motion of railroad intervenors for leave to file a 20-page supplemental Dec. 20 Order: Motions of intervenor-respondents, Rail- roads, for leave to file reply brief granted; Rail- roads may file reply brief not to exceed twenty typewritten pages (60) Dec. 23 Objection of petitioners Chicago Board of Trade, et al., to reply brief of intervenor-respondent rail- roads, with 77-1770. 1978 , Jan. 3 Appendix 10 copies w/77-1770 copies to panel. Ex- tra copies in Ex. Rm. (61) Nov 9/77 Brief Petitioners (printed copies) 10 copies (62) Jan.5 Reply Bnef (Southeastern Poultry & Egg Associa- tion & State of N.C.) (63) Jan.5 Reply bnef (Intervening Petitioner Robert Orr) wiser 0 +26 (64) Jan. 5 Jan. 9 Jan. 11 Jan. 12 Jan. 13 Feb. 16 22 Supp. brief of Railroad Intervenors wiser 0 +4 w/77-1770 (65) Cert. of ser. for Reply brief of Southeastern Poultry (66) Recieved 25 copies of Exhibit A of Reply brief of Intervening Petitioner Robert D. Orr. Copies to panel. Brief of respondent, I.C.C. Printed copies w/service w/1770 (67) Argued and submitted to Judges Gibson, Van Oosterhout & Matthes. John Caldwell for peti- tioners in 1729; Harold Spencer for petitioners in 1770; Robert Thompson, Dept. of Justice for U.S.; Charles White for ICC; Charles Marshall for South- ern Ry; Wandaleen Poynter for Seaboard RR. Rebuttal by Messrs. Caldwell and Spencer. (with 1770) Recorded. Opinion by Judge Van Oosterhout. (Printed & Published) w/1770. (68) Feb. 16 JUDGMENT: Commission’s order terminating Mar. 1 Mar. 1 Mar. 7 Apr. 3 Apr. 18 its investigation of patent illegal charges is vacated & cases are remanded to Commission for further proceedings in accordance with opinion. w/ 1770. (69) Mo ICC for ext of time to file pet for reh and sugg. reh en banc, with 77-1770. (70) Appearance for respondent ICC. (71) Order: ICC granted to 4-3-78 to file petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (with 1770) (72) Petition of Respondent ICC for rehearing en banc and rehearing w/service. w/1770. (73) Mo petitioners for addtn! 10 days in which to file response to pet for reh. and reh. en banc. w/1770. (74) Apr. 20 Apr. 26 Apr. 28 Apr. 28 May 9 May 12 May 22 Aug. 10 Aug. 11 23 ORDER: On motion of certain petitioners all par- ties desiring to respond to Commission’s petition for rehearing, etc., are to have response in the office of the Clerk of Court in St. Louis, Missouri, no later than 4/28/78. (w/77-1770.) (75) Response of respondent, United States of Ameri- ca, to Commission’s petition for rehearing en banc w/ service. w/ 1770. (76) Response of petitioners (in 77-1770 only) Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, FS Services, Inc., Miinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Grain Corp. and St. Louis Grain Corp. to Commission’s petition for re- hearing en banc w/ service (1770) Response of petitioners/intervenor respondents, Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., et al. and interve- nors Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, State of North Carolina and State of Indiana w/ service. w/ 1770 (77) Mo of Intervening Railroad Respondents for lv to file memorandum in support of ICC’s pet for reh with suggestion for reh en banc, with 1770. (78) Opposition of petitioners to granting lv to RR in- tervenors to file memo in support of ICC’s in sup- port of ICC’s pet for reh, etc. (79) ORDER: Petition for rehearing en banc and re- hearing filed by respondent, ICC, is denied, w/77- 1770. (80) Certified copies of judgment forwarded to counsel. (with 1770) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-115 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (81) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Sept. 8 Sept. 8 Sept. 8 Oct. 13 Oct. 16 Oct. 31 24 Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-i06 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (82) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-165 granting extension of time to 9/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (83) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-115 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (84) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-106 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (85) Letter from Clerk of Supreme Court stating Mr. Justice Blackmun signed order in Case No. A-165 granting extension of time to 10/9/78 to file petition for writ of certiorari, with 77-1770. (86) Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari in Su- preme Court of U. S. as Case #78-575 (as of 10/6/78), with 77-1770. (87) Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari to Su- preme Court of U.S. as Case #78-597 (as of 10/10/78), with 77-1770. (88) Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari to Su- preme Court of U. S. as Case #78-604 (as of 10/10/78), with 77-1770. (89) A true copy. Attest: /s/ Robert C. Tucker Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. Per A. K. ICC - 1 Southern Freight Associa- tion’s Justification State- ment. * Aug. 15, '77 * Corrections stated in ICC-2 have been made in this copy. Ne Sy oe ae ee eee ee ae a Ee ale Sa A OT et A a se 25 BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 49 C.F.R. §1109.10(f) ON THE PUBLICATION OF TARIFF SUPPLEMENTS CONTAINING DEMAND- SENSITIVE RATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF 49 C.F.R. §1109.10(b) Effective Date: Tariff Reference: Subject: Within: Of Counsel: September 15, 1977 through December 15, 1977 Supplement Nos. 201, 137 and 23 to SFTB Tariff Nos. 988-A, I.C.C. S-909, 908-B, I.C.C. S-999 and 972-F, I.C.C. S-1359, Respectively, Joint and Local All-Rail Rates, Also Distance rates on Grain, Carloads Demand-Sensitive Rates on Whole Grain & Soybeans Southern Freight Association Territory, including Certain Official Territory Points in Indiana and Illinois Submitted by: BATES B. BOWERS, CHAIRMAN Southern Freight Association 151 Ellis Street, N.E. CHARLES N. MARSHALL WANDALEEN POYNTER 26 BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 49 C.F.R. §1109.10(f) ON THE PUBLICATION OF TARIFF SUPPLEMENTS CONTAINING DEMAND- SENSITIVE RATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF 49 C.F.R. §1109.10(b) May it please the Commission: Come now the railroads operating within Southern Freight Association (“SFA”) Territory (“Railroads’’), and, pursuant to the Commission’s regulations, codified after hearing in Ex Parte 324 - Standards and Expeditious Procedures for Es- tablishing Carload Rates Based on Seasonal, Regional or Peak-Period Demand for Services (““Ex Parte 324’’), at 49 C. F. R. §1109.10, file this statement to justify to the Com- mission the application of a 20 percent increase on grain movements effective from September 15 through Decem- ber 15, 1977. The filing of Supplement Nos. 201, 137 and 23 to SFTB Tariff Nos. 988-A, ICC S-909, 908-B, ICC S-999 and 972-F, ICCS-1359, respectively, are made pursuant to the authority of Section 15(17) of the Interstate Commerce Act. L THERE IS A PEAK-PERIOD DEMAND OR SEA- SONALITY TO THE MOVEMENT OF GRAIN. Exhibit I, which contains several separate graphic illus- trations of the yearly movement of grain, standing alone, proves that grain is a commodity on which a demand-sensi- tive rate should apply in response to the mandate of Con- Ses a ee ee LOO ED eo BS Sha a eget me Nay tals es 27 gress set in motion through Section 202(d) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (“4R”). A fact verbalized by Chairman O’Neal as recently as July 29, 1977, in a speech in which he gave credence to elasticity studies which indicate that a 35 per cent seasonal rate in- crease on grain could be effective in “spreading out’’ ship- ments, (See Exhibit VI). As a matter of further emphasis, a graphic illustration of 1976 grain carloadings within the Southern Territory,* in- cluding origin points in Indiana and Illinois, is reduced and reproduced immediately below. \ 17600 3 | i : F i i 122004 ' ese + t t 11000 tt nese AAR, CS54a 1 TT ttt at JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. = This graph plots carloading statistics for Seaboard Coastline Rail ville Railroad Company 28 As the Verified Statement of Mr. A. C. Jones, Jr., Exhibit IX, outlines, there is a need both from an operational view- point and a cost viewpoint to influence the spreading out of grain carloadings, which equate to movements, over a longer span of time than the three-month critical peak period which is repeated annually on all lines moving grain within the Southern Territory. The concurring Verified Statement of R. A. Wharton, Exhibit X, points out also the opposite ad- verse effect, the idling of expensive equipment in off-peak seasons. It is therefore obvious that the Southern Territory carriers moving most of the grain which is covered by the tariff supplements to which this justification statement is addressed have suffered and continue to suffer increased costs and operational inefficiencies because of the peak- period movement. It would be inconsistent with good business practice for the railroads to purchase equipment or expand facilities to meet peak-period demands. This principle is especially true when the shippers and receivers of the involved commodi- ties have not made a sufficient attempt to share the burden of a glutted market. As the Commission noted in its Report and Order in Grain By Rent-A-Train, IFA Territory To Gulf Ports, 339 1.C.C. 579 (1971) at page 582: “Rail carriers have traditionally had to contend with the problem of grain moving during the rela- tively short harvest season in such tremendous volume as to overtax the car supply.”’ The Order went on to express the opinion that an incentive to shippers to spread their traffic over a substantially ex- tended period of time and to construct new distribution cen- ters was a desirable consequence of proposed unit-train rates. Ate Cl 2 anno eee ar eed AaB aw epi teas thinks aise 29 It is obvious that the basic problems of the grain hauling railroads and the clear solutions to those problems have long been recognized and appreciated by the Commission. It is hoped that the new spirit of cooperation which the Commis- sion has strongly urged in Ex Parte 324 will prevail and that the result of these experimental seasonal rates and the ones to follow will redound to the credit of the grain interests as well as to the railroads and the general public interest. Il. THE INCREASES WHICH ARE PROPOSED WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INCENTIVE TO SHIP- PERS TO REDUCE PEAK-PERIOD SHIPMENTS, THROUGH RESCHEDULING AND ADVANCE PLANNING. The Railroads will readily admit, primarily because of in- experience in the formulation of incentive rates of this na- ture, that there is a possibility that the 20 per cent increase which will be applied will not net the results which they have been published to accomplished. However, serious consideration, as shown by the Verified Statement of R. E. Thompson, Exhibit II, which included benefit of shipper input, was made before the increases were filed. The Com- mission has recognized and indeed encouraged experimen- tation with demand-sensitive rates. While the rates can be classified as experimental, since similar rates have not been applied on grain in the Southern Territory, there is a con- fident feeling among the chief traffic officers charged with the duty of formulating rates that these rates are appropri- ate and will accomplish the purpose for which they have been designed. It is apparent that the only way to make a final determination is to experience the effects of the rates. To quote from the Exhibit Vi general comments of Chair- man O’Neal on the 4R Act: 30 “.. To some degree the effects of this law are not yet clear, and in most instances legislative changes do not appear desirable until more experience has been gained. The full impact of some of the Com- mission’s regulation’s has yet to be felt... .” In anticipation of protests which will be made by inter- ested shipper groups, it is pointed out that the increase will not be unfair to the shippers who now ship on a year-round basis. First, because it results in only a five per cent in- crease when projected to a yearly basis and secondly be- cause a shipper can refrain from shipping during the demand period and suffer no increase at all. Further, a five per cent increase is below the seven per cent increase that the South- erm Territory railroads could publish under the provisions of Section 15(8\c) of the Interstate Commerce Act.* Critical to a justification of a seasonal rate is the conclu- sion that an incentive is required and that there will be a desired result. Obviously, the initial result which is desired is the leveling of the peak movements over additional months so that net revenue will increase commensurate with the increase in efficient handling of equipment and use of physi- cal plant. Also, there should be incentive provided to ship- pers and receivers of grain to provide adequate storage facilities to shift to them some of the burden that is created by the sudden influx of grain during a short period of time. At the present time, as Exhibit V indicates, the states within SFA Territory have less storage capacity than any other grain producing or consuming areas. It is evident, as a mat- ter of fact, that the Southeastern consumers, primarily poul- try, egg and dairy producers, have made little effort to in- crease storage capacity sufficiently to enable them to receive shipments on a less than frantic demand basis. Also, the * See Exhibit II - Verified Statement of R. E. Thompson. Ate: 31 Official Territory origin areas in Indiana and Illinois have also been reluctant to expand their storage capacity in an amount directly proportional to their increased production. In short, the railroads have been placed in a position of accepting almost the total burden of seasonal production and movement. The 4R Act intended to allow railroads to alleviate this situation by formulating a rate structure that would create, in essence, an artificial movement schedule. It is of course, as briefly touched upon above, impossible to calculate this type of increase with certainty, a fact rec- ognized by the Commission in their findings in Ex Parte 324, as indicated by the willingness of the Commission to allow ‘“‘experimental” rates which will be subject to cancel- lation on 30-days notice with no possibility for a period of three years after the date of initial publication of suspension of the cancellation supplement. In the opinion of the rail carriers party to these SFA proposals, the seasonal rates are not so excessive ‘as to result in severe economic harm to shippers not in a position to respond to the incentive as intended. * To anticipate another position that may be taken by some protestants, as indicated by representations in the proceed- ings in Ex Parte 324 and shipper hearings at the SFA it was not feasible to lower non-peak season rates in the Southern Territory. It is a well-recognized fact, specifically recognized by the Commission, that the rates in Southern Territory are “depressed.’’** It is a matter of rate history now that the initiation of the innovative Big John rates in the early 1960’s actually allowed all Southern railroads to eventually break * The 35 per cent seasonal rate increase which Chairman O’Neal sug- ~ as appropriate is substantially above the increases that are now on file. ** Feed Grain To New England, 1.C.C. Docket No. 35786 32 into the movement of grain. In spite of material reductions in the coarse grain scale in 1957 and 1959 in the South and publication of even lower specific commodity rates from Chattanooga to destinations in Georgia, the Carolinas and Florida, grain continued to move in very large quantities into and throughout the South by both barge and truck. The sys- tem of single-car rates subject to transit privileges was simply not effective in increasing the movement of grain by rail. Despite marked growth in grain shipments into the South, rail grain traffic remained relatively static, evincing that, in the late 1959’s the railroads were participating in a declin- ing share of a larger market as shippers of grain and grain products turned more and more to other modes. In endeavoring to meet this situation, the Southern Rail- way sought to improve its equipment and increase its oper- ating efficiency through the development of extra-large alu- minum covered hopper cars, popularly termed Big John cars, capable of handling a revenue load in excess of 100 tons and representing a major breakthrough in the control of costs and a notable advance in the art of railroading. In connection with these new cars, the Southern, in 1961, proposed to establish substantially reduced all-rail rates, minimum 90 tons per car, 450 tons per shipment, on grain, but not products of grain, in multiple-car lots from certain Ohio and Mississippi River crossings to specified points in Southern Territory. As the capacity of the newly acquired, extra large aluminum covered hopper cars exceeded the proposed 90-ton minimum, the intended rate for the 450- ton shipment would require only five cars. After thorough inquiry and very careful examination, the Commission found, as the Southern contended, that the overwhelming and dominant movement of grain into the South was by truck, and that unregulated truck transportation of grain, tl we thn AEF Pain tk, ee Sa ob nee 5 att oem eee etntn Olin 38 6 Rt Bi te ok ot 8 ott 1 Dc hin Oe cP AIO thst did tliat dcthipmaetel, 33 which had increasingly depleted the Southern’s prospective grain revenues, was the most substantial and rapidly grow- ing competition facing the rail and easily comprised the dominant competitive force. Upon consideration of the magnitude and effect of this unregulated movement, it was concluded that the Southern’s rates were proposed to meet truck competition, and were necessary if the Southern was to participate effectively in the movement of grain. The Commission thus found the Southern free of any predatory intent to close the rivers to barge transportation of grain, and concluded that the new rates fell short of a destructive competitive practice violative of the National Transportation Policy. It further found that the rates contemplated by other rail carriers, to apply in relation to conventional equipment, subject to 50 tons per year, minimum 450 tons per ship- ment, would not be compensatory, and ordered them can- celed.* While some economists express the opinion that freight rates do indeed affect pricing of grain, there is very little proof that this statement ‘s true and can be substantiated. However, freight rates do effect the growth of markets and the Big John rates, and their progeny, have influenced greatly the growth of the poultry, egg and dairy industry in the Southeast. Exhibit IV, which shows the USDA production figures from 1953 through 1974 clearly indicates that the expansion of production of one of those grain-dependent industries in the Southeast has been phenomenal. In the same manner, a seasonal adjustment in freight rates in the sense contemplated by the framers of the 4R * Grain in Multiple - Car Shipments - River Crossings to the South, 318 1.C.C. 641 (1963), 321 I.C.C. 582 (1963) and 325 I.C.C. 752 (1965). 34 Act can influence the manner in which industrial consumers conduct their business. The preplanning and scheduling which is specified in the Commission’s regulations on sea- sonal and peak-period rates can be accomplished through the seasonal increases to become effective September 15. This Commission has recognized that the implementation of the Big John rates, or modified Big John rates, and the purchase of equipment over the last 15 years by Southern Territory carriers has created a needed market in the South- east for the product. The movement of grain into the South has been considered a favorable objective by the Commis- sion as illustrated by the attitude which surfaced in the order dealing with the merger of the MONON Railroad into the L&N.* The Commission observed: “New traffic in grain shipments will be devel also as a result of the proposed merger. LaN ea substantial transporter of grain and grain products with 109,509 carloads an 5,904,235 tons of such traffic handled in 1967 yielding revenue of $15,141,- 541. L&N has substantially increased its grain traf- fic to the South in recent years due to the establish- ment by L&N and carriers of reduced in- centive loading rates and the development of the “Bi Blue” 100-ton covered hopper cars of which presently has in operation a total of 642 cars. The Monon has been unable to attract much grain traffic to its lines. In 1967, it only carried 6.9 percent of the grain produced in the counties of Indiana served by it. With one factor incentive loading rates on grain in effect to southern districts after merger, sub- stantial reductions would be made in the present ae i _ gee 9 on grain from and to in theast, with a resultant generati of new traffic over the Monon route.” wis . oe & N.R.Co. - Merger-Monon Railroad, 338 1.C.C. 134 at 213 Ee 6 ce eee ce! ton ames EP teats 35 The Southeastern market is no longer the infant it was in the “‘60’s”. During the last 15 years the Southeastern mar- ket has grown, become innovative and established and should now be in a position to accept the responsibility of expand- ing their storage capacity, not unlike their sister grain deficit areas. Ill. THE DEMAND-SENSITIVE RATES WILL GEN- ERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE SOUTH- ERN TERRITORY RAILROADS It is indeed important that the proposed rates do generate additional revenue. However, the additional revenue will not necessarily accrue because of the three month 20 per cent increase, but from the cost saving which will occur because of the resultant increased efficiency in operations and better utilization of equipment. Of course, it cannot be denied that some additional revenue will be enjoyed by Rail- roads as a direct result of the 20 per cent increase, but this should not be considered the only objective of the rates. As the statement of Francis M. Spuhler, Exhibit III, states, the Railroads do not consider the demand-sensitive rates as cost- based rates. They are purely and simply a matter of incen- tive, the shipper who wishes to pay for the privilege of ship- ping during a period of time which has been recognized and factually defined as a high-peak movement period, should be expected to pay for that privilege. Also in answer to an anticipated basis of protest, it should be understood that not all of the “benefit” will run to the Railroads as a result of these demand-sensitive rates. Some benefit will run to low volume shippers who are now unable to acquire a sufficient supply of cars during the peak season and have no reasonable access to storage facilities or the 36 ability to construct their own storage. Shippers who have been in a pos'tion to store grain yet have chosen to ship at peak periods will now have an incentive to ship earlier or later in the year, thereby releasing cars into the pool for use by other shippers. IV. THE RATE INCREASES WILL PROVIDE AN IN- CENTIVE WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE IM.- PROVEMENT IN THE OVERALL PATTERN OF GRAIN MOVEMENT The improvement in the annual utilization of car sup- ply will be two-pronged. Not only will there be an improvement in the overall utilization of the grain car fleet in the Southern Territory, but generally in the vtilization of power and all other cars. As the state- wed rei A. C. Jones, Jr. and Mr. R. A. Wharton its X) indicate, the cost of handling equipment generally escalates during the peak movement season. Not only does movement become a problem, but the car supply generally is affected. In response, normally to the Commis- sion’s emergency car service orders (See Exhibit VIII), cars service. This deprives shippers who normally have access to these nondedicated cars of their supply. It also reduces the net revenue, because of increased costs, and results in a lowering of the variable cost ratio. It is interesting to note that the Commission has determined that application of Big J ohn Formula Rates can only be compensatory when re- stricted to the jumbo hopper cars.* With this basic finding in mind, examination of Exhibit XI alone should satisfy the most skeptical individual that there is a revenue loss to at * Grain in Multiple-Car Shipments - River Crossi 752 at 769 (1965). ? Crossings to South, 325 LC.C. 37 least one Southern Territory railroad during the peak grain season. Generally, the proposed rates should indeed improve the level of employment by railroads. Stability in employment is a critical and primary factor to the labor market. At pres- ent, demand periods require excessive overtime for existing employees but do not permit, under sound managerial dis- cretion, the employment and training of acditional person- nel. A more efficient use of facilities would guarantee, as intended by many provisions in the 4R Act, increased move- ment and stabilization of movement of commodities. It is therefore probable that stabilization would increase the total carloads carried and result in additional employment and training of personnel. The primary factor in looking at the stability or instability of the grain producers and consumers, the market served by Railroads, is a determination of whether or not their de- pendence on the railroad is such that any change in practice or pattern would substantially interfere with normal business operations. Apparently, because of a general absence of storage facilities in the South, the market dependence on the railroads is disproportionately large. There is a need for a more sophisticated approach to stockpiling and price fore- casting within the Southern markets and an incentive, such as this seasonal rate increase, may be the very factor which will trigger a restructuring of attitudes. As indicated before in this justification statement, the innovative movement of grain from Official Territory producing points to the South actually created the markets which now exist. At least in great part. It is therefore logical to conclude that another adjustment in the Railroads’ rates would have a comparable effect on attitudes of the now established markets. 38 V. CONCLUSION The Commission has recognized and adequately verbal- ized the intent of Congress in the Ex Parte 324 proceeding and ultimately in the promulgation of regulations to guar- antee the proper publication of demand-sensitive rates. The intent is to aid the railroads in solving a problem of long- standing that could have been solved in part by shippers who have shown little or no concern toward taking suffi- cient steps to coordinate with the railroads in an effort to improve the overall movement of grain and grain products in the public interest. Suffice it to say that the more protests filed with this Commission the clearer the indication that the rates pro- posed will accomplish exactly what they are intended to accomplish. The graphic representations of the peak moving season cannot be refuted. The comments which have been received through formal shipper hearings and informal dis- cussions indicate that there is some inclination on the part of protestants to take the position that grain movements are not seasonal. Whether seasonal or just peak-period move- ments, there is no question that there is a need for demand- sensitive rates. The Commission should recognize that there have been no major adjustments in SFA Territory rates (including the origin points in Indiana and Illinois) in 15 years. This fact in itself could account for the strong attitudes which have been expressed by those affected by this seasonal rate ad- justment. It is always a difficult task to disrupt patterns and practices of long standing. In the opinion of the Rail- roads this is, in fact, the reason that Congress felt it neces- Re ESO sare 39 sary to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to allow the publication of seasonal rates, 1.¢., demand-sensitive rates. WHEREFORE, the Southern Territory Railroads repre- sented by the Southern Freight Association, respectfully file this statement of justification for publication concurrently with the filing of the demand-sensitive rates in Supplement Nos. 201, 137 & 23 to Southern Freight Tariff Bureau Freight Tariff Nos. 988-A, I.C.C. S-909, 908-B, I.C.C. S-999 & 972-F, I.C.C. S-1359, scheduled to become effective Sep- tember 15, 1977. Respectfully submitted, BATES B. BOWERS Of Counsel: CHARLES N. MARSHALL General Attorney Southern Railway System Post Office Box 1808 Washington, D. C. 20013 s/s WANDALEEN POYNTER WANDALEEN POYNTER Assistant General Attorney Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Date: August 15, 1977 40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing docu- ment upon all known parties of interest* by United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 16th day of August, 1977. s/s Wandaleen Poynter Wandaleen Poynter *See Verified Statement of R. E. Thompson, Exhibit II. SH99M VPSS) -s0In0g 2S IS OS 6b BF Lb OF SP FF EF Zb I OF GE BE LE YE SE WE EE ZE IE OF GZ BZ LZOTSZHTETZZIZOTGIBILIGISIFIEIZIIOl 6 8 L9SHFETZI ean TTT ' aha cS ee — oom See Bee: it —— ——— —— = ae ee =. —" nd etl 4((a) l 88 & (¥) I LIGIHXa sour] Ajiuej uo papeoy] sie) NIVaD 40(b) S¥22 MA W-PS-SD_:20.M0G ZS IS US 6F Sb LP Yb Sb bh Sb Zh OIF OF GE BE LE YE SE FE CE ZE LE OF 62 BZ LZ YZ SZ HZ LZ Ze Ie OZ 6I SI ZI OSI SI PL ELZITI0lé6é 8 29S PE ZI WH s LL6l = = N14 4 40 / PAGEL LS 5 7 " See e= (Lf 4 _ Ss N = pt —— — Ve) BS oe) — a ae w nt ad on me w N w =— — ww N wo —— nd a ae w BS i?) => ae SZol Sol Sell OSIT SLIT 0021 Seal os2l clel 00eT S2eT OSel clst OOF S2rl OSFI SLbl 00ST SZsT OSST SLST 009T S291 OS9T S29T 00LT Sell speojie) = eae —— aan a } + (@) I LIGIHX4 Ua TOs uo pepeoy sie) NIVaAD 4((c) eeeeeeeee TA —+ EXHIBIT I (C) August 5, 1977 7 ‘Marketing Research Dept. - peti Lad W. J. Powell 4 4 N J. R. Harrell, Jr. 4 CARS LOADED ON L& - R. A. Sewell, Jr. - I | La ant | 977 f \ \ \ \ I L \ I \ | ® eat ey . aval : \ OV: fiat \ I 9 | ‘ | 110 \I ea f- £ r 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 25 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Sup JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 4((d) 961 Jad AON LOO dds ONV TNf NOf AVW UdV YPW daa Nv 1 (qd) I Hqryxy (V-¥S-SO UVV 04n0S) 9/6T - SONICVOTUVD AVMTIVY NUAH.LAOS OMAVAL NIVAD SadVvOTaVD me et et ee 41 EXHIBIT II VERIFIED STATEMENT OF R. E. THOMPSON My name is R. E. Thompson. I have been employed by Southern Freight Association (hereinafter referred to as SFA) for approximately four years as Manager of Commerce. Prior to that time I was employed for more than 31 years with The Atlanta and West Point Railroad-Western Railway of Alabama and Georgia Railroad. (A&WP-WofA-GA RR) serving in practically every clerical position in the Freight Traffic Depart- ment, including five years service on the rate quota- tion desk and several years as Executive Rate Clerk and Chief Divisions Clerk. Subsequent positions in an official capacity with the Traffic Department of those railroads included three years as Assistant to General Freight Agent, three years as Assistant General Freight Agent, four and one-half years as General Freight Agent and as Traffic Manager from June 1, 1973, to October 15, 1973, at which time I accepted an appointment with Southern Freight Association as its Manager of Commerce. During my employment with the A&WP-WofA- GA RR, it was my responsibility to supervise the rate making functions which included all freight rate mat- ters and any adjustments relating to accessorial serv- ices. I also served those carriers as their represen- tative on the Executive Committee and General Freight Committee of Southern Freight Association, as well as numerous special committees. The rail carriers involved in the instant publications have caused to be published a 20% seasonal increase 42 in rates on whole grains and soybeans in railroad- owned cars during the period September 15, 1977 through December 15, 1977, from, to and between points in Southern territory, including certain points in Illinois and Indiana; and from Southern territory origins and certain origins in Illinois and Indiana to Florida, Gult, South Atlantic and Virginia ports, for export. Exact details of the publication are outlined to the Commission in Exhibit A of Assistant Tariff Publishing Officer Twiggs’ Application For Special Permission No. S-8472, dated August 1, 1977. The proposed seasonal rates are in compliance with the desires of Congress wherein that body granted railroads authority to establish rates based on seasonal, regional or peak period demand for services in Public Law 94-210 or the so-called 4-R Act and which the Commission has placed in effect its guidelines in Ex Parte 324, Standards and Ex- peditious Procedures For Establishing Railroad Rates Based On Seasonal, Regional, Or Peak-Period De- mand For Services. Likewise, the Congress and Com- mission have urged the railroads and shippers to take advantage of these new rules and to cooperate in establishing such procedures. This the railroads have done. In connection with the efforts the railroads have made in cooperating with their shipper and receiver patrons, I think it proper to advise the Commission of the extensive handling the Southern territory railroads have given this matter with the shipping public. In August of 1976, the Southern carriers filed a proposal (Emergency Proposal 3983) suggesting seasonal rates on whole grains and soybeans almost PE I? 43 identical to those suggested in the instant publica- tion. This proposa! followed the normal course of ac- tion in connection with our Section 5(b) Agreement. In fact, there was not only extensive correspondence be- tween the shippers, railroads and the Southern Freight Association but a public hearing held by the SFA Executive Committee on November 10, 1976. This proposal was later cancelled as no conclusive ac- tion had been taken within 120 days as required under the 4-R Act. In December of 1976, another proposal (Emergency Proposal 33) was filed by the Southern carriers again suggesting almost identical provisions as that in the instant publication. This proposal was likewise sub- ject to extensive handling and accorded a public hear- ing before the SFA Executive Committee on January 12, 1977. There were some 24 representatives at this hearing, including representatives from Georgia Feed and Grain Association, Georgia Poultry Federation, National Broiler Counsel, Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, South Carolina Poultry Improve- ment Association, North Carolina Poultry Federation, Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association and Georgia Freight Bureau. This proposal was postponed after the hearing before the Executive Committee and later withdrawn. In June of this year Emergency Proposals Nos. 179 and 180 were filed suggesting the seasonal rates that are involved in the instant publication. As previously stated, these rates are very similar to those that were suggested in 1976, later withdrawn, and on which the carriers and shippers have had a full opportunity to exchange and benefit from each other’s views as a 44 result of correspondence and two public hearings. Therefore, the according of a shipper hearing in con- nection with the instant publication (resulting from Emergency Proposals 179 and 180) would have been redundancy in view of the prior hearings held previously on November 10, 1976 and on January 12, 1977. Under the Section 5(b) procedures no shipper hearings are required in connection with emergency proposals even though, as a matter of discretion, the Chief Traffic Officers may schedule a shipper hearing in those instances where an objection is filed by a member line to an emergency proposal causing it to be considered by the Executive Committee. There were no objections filed by member lines to these pro- posals. Complete details of the handling given these pro- posals are outlined in Exhibit A. Shown in Exhibit C is a list of all known parties who have expressed in- terest in SFA Emergency Proposals 179 and 180 — ‘Seasonal Rates On Whole Grains and Soybeans” —. Exhibit B is a list of shippers who have expressed in- terest in previous proposals suggesting seasonal rates on whole grains and soybeans. Further, a copy of this justification statement is being furnished to all known parties of interest shown in Exhibit Nos. B and C. The proposed 20% seasonal increase during the harvest season will primarily affect those who con- tribute to the peak demand for transportation. Ship- pers who purchase grains and soybeans throughout the year will pay increased rates for only three months or only on twenty-five percent of their shipments. In other words, the 20% increase in rates during the harvest season will only amount to a five percent (5%) OER Oe 45 increase throughout the year. Thus, this amounts to a lesser increase than the 7% carriers could obtain under the so-called yo-yo provisions of the 4-R Act. As the Commission is aware the rail carriers are faced with a serious shortage and delay of cars during the peak season and of course the proposed seasonal increase of 20% should help alleviate this problem on this very costly equipment. For example, on the Fami- ly Lines (primarily the L&N and SCL) the cost of a 100-ton covered hopper car has increased from $19,000 in 1973 to $27,900 in 1977, or an increase in a four-year period of approximately 47%. As shown in Mr. Sphuler’s Exhibit No. III corn con- stitutes 79% of the total grain products that will be subject to the proposed 20% seasonal increase. Shown in my Exhibit No. D is corn production in the ten (10) states involved in the instant publication. It will be noted there has been an increase every year since 1972 with the exception of 1974. Also, when this ten state production is compared to total U.S. production, there has been a percentage increase every year since 1972. Also of interest is Exhibit No. E which shows the price of corn per bushel for each month of the years 1974 through 1976 and the first seven months of 1977. While the price of corn fluctuates from month to month, it can be seen from this Exhibit that, with the exception of the year 1974, the price of corn per bushel generally drops during the peak periods or seasonal months, September 15 through December 15. Therefore, with publication of the 20% increase in rates and the reduction in the price of corn per bushel during these seasonal months there will not likely be an increase in the total cost to the shipping public. 46 Therefore, it should be obvious that discouraging peak period movements will not force shippers to sell at depressed prices. VERIFICATION STATE OF FLORIDA _) ) SS COUNTY OF DUVAL _) R. E. Thompson, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing statement and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true as stated. a ‘ ye ae rive )6 LA Signed: R. E. Thompson Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of August, 1977. Is/ Notary Public My Commission expires: SEAL 47 EXHIBIT A Statement Showing Various Proposals that have been Issued Suggesting Seasonal Rates on Whole Grains and Soybeans SFA Emergency Proposal 3983, dated August 27, 1976. Shipper hearing SFA Executive Committee, under Subject No. 5415, 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, November 10, 1976. SFA Emergency Proposal 33, dated December 20, 1976. Shipper hearing SFA Executive Committee, under Subject No. 32, 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, January 12, 1977. SFA Emergency Proposal 179, dated June 20, 1977. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 756, dated June 21, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated June 25, 1977. Amendment 1 to SFA Emergency Proposal 179, dated July 1, 1977. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 758, dated July 5, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated July 2, 1977. Disposition Advice 4789, dated July 29, 1977. Was issued to cover SFA EmPro. 179. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 763, dated August 9, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated August 13, 1977. SFA Emergency Proposal 180, dated June 20, 1977. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 756, dated June 21, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated June 25, 1977. 48 Amendment 1 to SFA Emergency Proposal 180, dated July 1, 1977. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 758, dated July 5, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated July 2, 1977. Disposition Advice 4790, dated July 29, 1977, was issued to cover SFA Em.Pro. 180. Advertised to Public in Weekly Docket No. 763, dated August 9, 1977, and Traffic Bulletin, dated August 13, 1977. Publication of rates authorized by Disposition Advice Nos. 4789 and 4790 made in SFTB Tariffs Nos. 988-A, ICC S-909, 908-B, ICC S-999 and 972-F, ICC S-1359, scheduled to become effective September 15, 1977. SS Rn Soe ERTS EXHIBIT B LIST OF SHIPPERS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PREVIOUS PROPOSALS SUGGESTING SEASONAL RATES ON WHOLE GRAINS AND SOYBEANS BUT NOT > EMERGENCY PROPOSALS 179 AND 180 Mr. Fred Miles Interstate Milling Co. P. O. Box 1165 Charlotte, North Carolina 28231 Mr. John E. Harvey Archer Daniels Midland Co. P. O. Box 1470 Decatur, Illinois 62525 Mr. John R. Staley, GTM Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. 1550 W. 29th Street, Box 19148 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Mr. R. Kober, VP-Traffic Continental Grain Co. 277 Park Avenue New York, N. Y. 10017 Mr. James R. Woolery ADM Milling Co. P. O. Box 7007 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66207 Mr. H. E. Welch, GM Mobile Transportation Rate Bureau, Inc. 509 Commerce Building P. O. Box 223 Mobile, Alabama 36601 Mr. Sid Austin Traffic Manager Lapeyrouse Grain Company P. O. Box 926 Mobile, Alabama Mr. J. E. Mitchem L. A. Parish Co. 61 Saint Joseph Street P. O. Box 231 Mobile, Alabama 36601 Mr. J. R. Venters, TM Indiana Grain Queen City Operations Div. of Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc. P. O. Box 14668 Annex Station Cincinnati, Ohio 90 Mr. A. T. Walters, AGTM Allied Mills, Inc. 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Mr. Ray F. Swain Attorney at Law 114 West Raleigh Street P. O. Box 787 Siler City, North Carolina 27344 Mr. L. M. Commeree Manager-Railroad Transportation-Supply General Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 1113 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Mr. Bernard F. McCoy Senior Rate Clerk The Andersons P. O. Box 119 Maumee, Ohio 43537 Mr. James W. Gieseler Manager-Rate Analysis International Mineral & Chemical Corp. Mundelin, Illinois 60060 Mr. N. Ed Shineberger, ATM Penick & Ford, Limited P. O. Box 428 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 Mr. Robert P. Post, AVP-T Cargill, Inc. Cargill Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Paul Stepner, DT The Pillsbury Company 608 2nd Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Thomas C. Adam, AGTM Central Soya Co., Inc. 1300 Ft. Wayne National Bank Building Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46802 Mr. John C. Chambers North American Car Corp. 222 S. Riverside Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60606 Mr. Clarence Alicz, TM North American Car Corp. 222 S. Riverside Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60606 Mr. P. J. McLaughlin, Manager-Mtl. American Maize Products Company 113th Street & Indianapolis Boulevard Hammond, Indiana 46326 Mr. A. J. Giuchi Assistant Transportation Manager Rail Rate CPC International Inc. International Plaza Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 TS FRESE 20d a a Mr. R. K. Alexander Executive Secretary Alexander & Company 710 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Paul L. Mills, Chief Transportation Services Branch United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service Washington, D. C. 20250 Mr. Henry O’Bryan, President James C. Ellis Grain Company P. O. Box 332 Henderson, Kentucky Leeco Farm Center, Inc. Dawson, Georgia 31742 H. B. Arnold Co., Inc. Dawson, Georgia 31742 Mr. J. R. McGarrh Assistant Cost Analyst- Transportation Cook Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 16912 Memphis, Tennessee 38116 Mr. J. B. Bell | P. O. Box 66 Pantego, North Carolina 27860 51 Carolina Brokerage Company P. O. Box 3276 Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 Carolina Dixie Grain Co. P. O. Box 189 Kinston, North Carolina 28501 Mr. K. S. Crittendon P. O. Box 15253 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 E. and B. Grain P. O. Box 158 Battleboro, North Carolina 27809 Enfield Grain Enfield, North Carolina 27823 Fox Grain Marketing Box 2419 Raleigh, North Carolina 27202 Golden Grain and Feed Co. Box 595 Monroe, North Carolina 28110 Goldsboro Milling Co. Drawer 7 Goldsboro, North Carolina 27530 Morgan Grain and Fertilizer P. O. Box 9 Farmville, North Carolina 27821 New Bern Oil and Fertilizer 202 Guion Street New Bern, North Carolina 28560 Parker Grain Company P. O. Box 251 Farmville, North Carolina 27821 Tri-County Seed Mills P. O. Box 427 Bethel, North Carolina 27812 Wayne Grain Company Goldsboro, North Carolina 27530 Harper & Bowers Estill, South Carolina 29918 Roanoke Farmers Exchange P. O. Box 236 Plymouth, North Carolina 27962 Ed E. Smith Company 3166 Maple Drive, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Smith and Wiggins 906 South Finance Building Augusta, Georgia 30902 A. D. Swindell Farms P. O. Box 278 Pantego, North Carolina 27860 Harris Grain Incorporated 6230 Fairview Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Mr. L. N. James P. O. Box 338 Bethel, Norta Carolina 27812 Lentz Brokerage 620 Archdale Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 McCanless and Company P. O. Box 214 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Mr. Bill Smith, Partner Edward E. Smith & Company 3166 Maple Drive, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Mr. T. F. Toohey, EVP Agricol Georgia, Inc. 15 Dunwoody Park, Suite 100H Atlanta, Georgia 30341 Mr. Ray Jones, President Crystal Farms, Inc. P. O. Box 101 Chestnut Mountain, Georgia 30502 Oe in OO nes 53 Mr. John P. Jefferson Assistant to the Manager Indiana Grain Division of Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc. 47 South Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Mr. R. E. Newborn Eastern Traffic Manager Bunge Corporation Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 Mr. Tom Bennett, Traffic Manager Archer Daniels Midland Co. P. O. Box 1470 - Decatur, Illinois Ralston Purina Co. P. O. Box 26987 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Mr. Richard Ross Interstate Milling Co. 620 W. 10th Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Assistant Chief Transportation Services BRT and W Division U. S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. 20250 Ms. Joan Billingsly The Quaker Oats Co. 345 Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60654 Mr. C. D. McKenzie Interstate Milling Co. 620 W. 10th Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Mr. Stan Szczepkowski Gold Kist, Inc. P. O. Box 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Mr. John Harvey Archer Daniels Midland Co. Box 1470 Decatur, Illinois 62525 Mr. M. J. Smith Transportation Manager Cargill, Inc. Corn Starch and Syrup Plant 2330 Buoy Street Memphis, Tennessee 38118 Mr. Gerald P. Corkle Transportation Cost Analyst The Pillsbury Co. 608 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Anthony Wright Crystal Farms Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 7277 Chestnut Mountain, Georgia 30568 54 Ms. Linda Fitzhugh Regional Promotions Coordinator National Egg Co. 3169 Holcomb Bridge Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 Ms. Peggy Clark, AM National Egg Co. 3169 Holcomb Bridge Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 Mr. G. K. Revier, ATM Cargill, Inc. 2330 Buoy Street Memphis, Tennessee 38118 - sees eee ee ee mee ek oe ret ie et ec ee eee, eee 55 ~ EXHIBIT C LIST OF SHIPPERS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN SFA EMERGENCY PROPOSALS 179 AND 180 — SEASONAL RATES ON WHOLE GRAINS AND SOYBEANS Mr. V. R. Sahlin Mr. Nat Welch, EVP The Early & Daniel Company, Atlanta Freight Bureau Inc. 2434 National Bank of 525 Carr Street Georgia Building Cincinnati, Ohio 45203 Mr. R. W. Evans, TM Bartlett & Company 600 K. C. Board of Trade Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Mr. Lawrence F. Daspit, AGM New Orleans Traffic & Transportation Bureau International Trade Mart No. 2 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Mr. Thomas L. Melton Director of Transportation Gold Kist Inc. P. O. Box 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Mr. Donald J. Stone Director of Transportation ConAgra Inc. Kiewit Plaza Omaha, Nebraska 68131 34 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Abit Massey Georgia Poultry Federation P. O. Box 763 Gainesville, Georgia 30501 Mr. Allan H. Surplus, VP-Transp. Bay State Milling Co. 1776 Heritage Drive North Quincy, Massachusetts 02171 Mr. B. A. Pitt AGTM Southern States Cooperative, Inc. P. O. Box 1656 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Mr. H. J. Merwin, Traffic Manager The White Lily Foods Co. P. O. Box 871 Knoxville, Tennessee 37901 Mr. C. E. Strombeck, GTM-Pricing The Pillsbury Company 608 Second Avenue, South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Norman Walker, GTM Bunge Corp. 300 Southwest Boulevard Kansas City, Kansas 66103 Mr. Phillip L. Partin Fred Webb, Inc. P. O. Drawer 158 Greenville, North Carolina 27834 Mr. Charles W. Moses, Sou TM Ralston Purina Co. Checkerboard Square 835 So. 8th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63188 Mr. J. W. Kjellberg Manager-Rate Activity Planning The Pillsbury Co. 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 54402 Mr. Barton Ahlstrom Executive Vice President Florida Poultry Federation P. O. Box 18092 Tampa, Florida 33679 Mr. James M. Bell, TM Dixie Portland Flour Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 1259 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Mr. C. G. Buchheit C. G. Buchheit Inc. 50 Crestwood Executive Center St. Louis, Missouri 63126 Mr. Harold E. Ford Executive Director Southeastern Poultry & Egg Assn. 1456 Church Street Decatur, Georgia 30030 Mr. Howard J. Parker Strain Poultry Farms, Inc. Division of Cagle’s Inc. P. O. Box 58 Dalton, Georgia 30720 Mr. James N. Zarvos, AVP-T Continental Grain Co. 5100 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63110 Mr. W. C. Harding DofT Louis Dreyfus Corp. 24 Richmond Hill Avenue Stamford, Connecticut 06902 { Mr. Edward H. Millard, Jr. Corp. DofT Savannah Foods & Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 339 Savannah, Georgia 31410 Mr. R. E. Harridge, VP- Transportation Agway, Inc. 333 Butternut Drive DeWitt, New York 13214 Mr. J. C. Harper J. C. Harper, Inc. P. O. Box 3332-A Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Mr. James W. Stamper Manager-Supply & Distribution “The White Lily Foods Co. P. O. Box 871 Knoxville, Tennessee 37901 Mr. James A. Graham Commissioner State of North Carolina Department of Agriculture Raleigh, North Carolina Mr. John A. Green, VP Locke Farm Center, Inc. Dawson, Georgia 31742 Mr. T. S. Brockbank, President Georgia Feed & Grain Association, Inc. 1737 Waverland Circle Macon, Georgia 31201 Mr. Hubert L. Bass, GTM MFC Services 414 North Street, Box 449 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Larry P. Gunter Cameron Brokerage Company 4801 East Independence Tower Bldg. Charlotte, North Carolina 28212 Mr. Ronald K. Kolins Collier, Shannon, Rill, Edwards & Scott Attorneys at Law 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street Washington, D. C. 20007 Mr. Charles B. Cooper, Jr., EVP&GM National Egg Company 3169 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 117 Norcross, Georgia 30071 Mr. Will L. Kinard Grain Sales Company 5825 Glenridge Drive, N. E. Building “1, Suite 211 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Mr. John Guglielmi, VP Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 88 Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697 Mr. A. C. Sheeter Bunge Corporation P. O. Box 28500 St. Louis, Missiouri 63141 Mr. Dave L. Henderson Regional Transportation Manager Continental Grain Company P. O. Box 599, Worthington Station Columbus, Ohio 43085 Mr. Wayne Larsen, Manager Kentucky-Tennessee Grain Co. P. O. Box 168 Franklin, Kentucky 42134 Mr. A. J. Depiazzo Rail Transportation Department Continental Grain Company 5100 Oakland Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 631190 Mr. Ian C. Muir Manager-Domestic Transportation Processing Division Continental Grain Company 277 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 Mr. Howard Parker Georgia Poultry Feed Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 38 Dalton, Georgia 30720 58 Mr. J. E. Shipp, President Mississippi Poultry Association, Inc. P. O. Box 12182 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Mr. E. H. Fielding Campbell Soup Company Campbell Place Camden, New Jersey 08101 Honorable J. Kenneth Robinson Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Mr. Dave Yeakley Central Soya of Athens, Inc. P. O. Box 907 Canton, Georgia 30114 Mr. Donald R. Wilburn, Manager Harrison Milling Company Bethlehem, Georgia 30620. Mr. Jack Ragle Graham Grain Company P. O. Box 64 Terre Haute, Indiana 47808 Mr. Jerry M. Behimer, President Behimer & Kisener, Inc. P. O. Box 368 Wayne City, Illinois 62895 Pe Ce et ee et PCIE ir a ee ee ee o9 Mr. David Ozment Executive Vice President Alabama Poultry and Egg Assoc. P. O. Box 1010 Cullman, Alabama 35055 Mr. J. P. Davidson Manager-Grain Transportation Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. P. O. Box 1470 Decatur, Illinois 62525 Mr. T. M. Hamilton Traffic Manager-Feed Central Soya Company 1300 Ft. Wayne National Bank Bldg. Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46802 Mr. Nat Welch Executive Vice President Georgia Freight Bureau, Inc. 34 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Paul Wimpy, Manager The Planters Grain, Inc. P. O. Box 186 Guthrie, Kentucky 42234 Mr. Robert C. Haglett, General Manager The Early & Daniel Co., Inc. 2200 North Patterson Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 Mr. D. E. Orendorf, RTM- Eastern Region Cargill, Inc. 1283 North Conant Street Maumee, Ohio 43537 Ms. Gale D’Ascenzo The Quaker Oats Co. 345 Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60654 Mr. C. D. McKenzie Interstate Milling Co. P. O. Box 1165 Charlotte, North Carolina 28231 Mr. Thomas Ff. Hoskins, ATM Louis Dreyfus Corp. Suite 224 1900 West 47th Place Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66202 Mr. L. G. Smethers, Cost Analyst Cook Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 16912 Memphis, Tennessee 38116 Mr. D. C. Daup ConAgra, Inc. Kiewit Plaza Omaha, Nebraska 68131 Mr. L. L. Carlock, RTM Cargill, Inc. P. O. Box 200 Port Allen, Louisiana 70767 Marell Poultry Co. Maysville, Georgia 30558 Mr. Gary Buxton Assistant to General Traffic Manager Bunge Corp. 300 Southwest Blvd. Kansas City, Kansas 66103 Mr. K. R. Smith Manager Grain Ingredients & Packaging General Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 1113 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Mr. Tim Mehl, Mill Traffic Manager Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. P. O. Box 19148 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Mr. Mark Serepca National Broiler Council 155 15th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005 Mr. N. L. Thomas, President Thomas Milling Co., Inc. Hazelhurst, Georgia 31539 Mr. J. P. Davidson Manager-Grain Transportation Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. P. O. Box 1470 Decatur, Illinois 62525 Ms. June Varner, AGTM- Processing Group Cargill, Inc. P. O. Box 9300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Mr. Truett S. Bufkin Secretary Mississippi Feed and Grain ~ Association P. O. Box 9714 Jackson, Mississippi 39206 Mr. Jerry H. Gass, EVP Virginia Poultry Federation, Inc. P. O. Box 1036 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mr. Brian Holtz Traffic Manager-Rates Traffic Department Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Mr. H. R. Wright, President Baltic Mills 401 Ramsey Road Vincennes, Indiana 47591 G & B Grain Company 2904 South 3rd Street Terre Haute, Indiana 47808 Mr. W. P. Hudson Soybean Processing Division Gold Kist, Inc. P. O. Box 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Se es PO ere E Mr. James M. Gaston Division Manager Gold Kist, Inc. Perimeter Center Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30346 Mr. E. Douglas Smoot, President Virginia State Feed Association Box 1036 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mr. Frank E. Polon Executive Director of Transportation The Chicago Board of Trade LaSalle at Jackson Chicago, Illinois 60606 Mr. Dennis Mataya Sprinkle Elevator Carlisle, Indiana Mr. B. M. Hancock, Jr. President North Carolina Poultry Federation P. O. Box 2431 Raleigh, North Carolina Mr. R. T. Percy Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. P. O. Box 19148 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Mr. S. Mason Carbough, Commissioner Virginia Department of Agriculture and Commerce Richmond, Virginia Mr. David Ozment, EVP Alabama Poultry and Egg Association . P. O. Box 1010 Cullman, Alabama 35055 Mr. Jim Brock, Manager Feed and Production Division Crystal Farm Mills, Inc. P. O. Box 7277 Chestnut Mountain, Georgia 30502 Mr. Donald F. Owens Manager-Transportation American Maize Products Co. Hammond, Indiana 46323 Mr. J. I. Morgan, III President Morgan-Carolina Corp. 600 West Pine Street Farmville, North Carolina 27828 Mr. W. F. Hilliard, Chairman Mid-South Soybeans Mayfield, Kentucky 42066 Mr. J. E.Niemczyk, Traffic Manager Rahr Malting Co. 567 Grain Exchange Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Mr. Ted Reed Director of Purchases and Distribution Cosby-Hodges Milling Co. P. O. Box 10767 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 63 oer erm we 62 SP €6E T'9€ VVE CVE [RIO L “S'f) Jo a8eUIIIIg c£0' 9129 8P0'°L62'S I€9°€99'F 908°999'S 0ZEELS‘S TIVLOL ‘S71 LLE‘96S‘Z 0929272 9LE'P89'T 88S'Pr6 I 186'026'T STVLOL O2‘9F 06S‘8P OZE'Eh 002'9F 999° IP ‘VA C8P‘'9S 006°9€ OLL‘VE SLI‘SE 009°EE ‘"NNAL 069°9F 0S9°PE c92 TE 0S9°EZ CZ9°€Z we OOF ‘OST 0€S‘90T O8T‘9TT 008°FIT 00r‘'Z0T ‘ON 022Z‘8ET 082‘°L8 002°S6 0S8°S8 8hz'E8 ‘AM 000°€69 OPL‘ISS 099°Z8E 08h PES 9€6°L0S ‘GNI 0€8'0S2'T 096'€S2'T 002128 06S‘ 186 0SZ‘FI0'T “TI 026'EET 00FE0T 082°SOT 09T‘08 08h LZ ‘VD OFZ OE O€Z‘ LT POT '6I 029'F1 col VI ‘VTA CSE 6h 086‘ PE 00662 090°8Z 091 ‘92 ‘VIV 961 Cl6l PL6l €l6l cL6l S9}EIS Radlo of Georgia, Inc. P. O. Box 1032, Delta Drive Gainesville, Georgia 30501 Mr. Leonard J. Janofsky, Vice President (sfeysng 000‘) N&Oo ‘UOIJBITIGNY JULJSU] JY} Ul PIA[OAU]T Sa}e}S UIT 3Y} Ul O/GT YBNoIY) Z/6T Siva BY} JO} JRIY AA pue SuRaqAOS ‘UIOD Jo UOIJONPOIg 9Yy} BUIMOYS JUIUIO}EIS So RD EY PRE Oe er é g ~~ 5 8 é 3 gs | 285 4 888 5 238. ~ fuel SOosSanod Patrick G. Curran 3 oO a 5 = 3 i es he BS ub = a ZS BZ eEaCs ee ae € Jo | aBeg qd 3qIyuxy i lal ce i ak a Kansas City, Mo. 64112 R. F. Ware Kansas Board of Trade R. W. Evans, TM 4800 Main Street Bartlett & Co. © ra) nN nN + > mM =I : W. F. Ware Co. P. O. Box 144 65 ee 64 ‘9 ‘q ‘UO WuIYse MA ‘oInyNIUsy jo JuowIjIedag “Ss ‘f ‘adTAtag BuIjodey [eoNsNeIS ‘pieog Suljiodey dog ‘Arewuing [enuuy ‘uonjonpolg doi :aoin0s £8 9°8 9°8 gg c's [BIOL “Sf fo 38ejUIIIIg 80r'LFI'Z CES‘ PETZ L8T962'T LOT‘SOL'T 9€6'PPS'T ‘IVLOL ‘S'N OFZ'8LT CIZ‘Z81 Ch6 PST COL‘V6 196 O€T STVLOL 089°2 cS0'6 CLI‘OI clV'9 990'8 ‘VA C6E‘ZI 0196 Cer'6 vor'P 0gs9°2 ‘"NNUL C29°€ C8I‘P 0S6'E ASA 02L'Z we 096'9 CzS'8 006'6 00¢E‘9 002°9 ‘ON 0€2‘OI 896 TT C82'z1 ZLP'S 020°2 ‘AM 009°LS 00S‘%9 0F0'0S C09'¥Z 8P9'6E ‘GNI OST‘ OLF'L9 006‘TS 000°6€ 000°FS “TI cg9c‘e crg'€ 089°¢ OFZ'E 008°Z ‘VD 099 02S 009 099 0€9 ‘VId CLE’ OFZ'E 066'Z $20'2 002'2 ‘VIV 961 CL6I PL6l €l6l cL6l $9}B1S$ (sfeysng 000‘T) f LVAHM ¢ jog aeg d HqiIyxy Exhibit D Page 2 of 3 SOYBEANS (1,000 Bushels) States 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 ALA. 16,000 20,370 23,460 32,095 29,280 FLA. 4,872 6,096 7,533 7,080 6,890 GA. 10,050 19,950 25,755 32,130 22,090 ILL. 259,440 281,295 202,560 295,920 241,920 IND. 108,796 135,135 97,250 121,605 108,240 KY. 24,948 29,070 28,080 32,400 28,355 N.C. 29,125 34,800 30,530 33,370 23,650 oe 19,980 23,750 23,125 30,360 21,420 TENN. 28,556 36,895 31,920 46,250 40,500 VA. 8,050 11,151 10,105 10,825 8,159 TOTALS 509,817 598,512 480,318 642,035 530,504 U.S. TOTAL 1,270,630 1,547,165 1,214,802 1,546,120 1,264,890 Percentage | of U.S. Total 40.1 38.7 39.5 41.5 41.9 EXHIBIT E. STATEMENT OF CORN, WHEAT AND SOYBEANS PRICES IN DOLLARS AND CENTS PER BUSHEL BASED ON CHICAGO, ILL. MARKET ON OR ABOUT THE 15TH OF EACH MONTH FOR THE TIME PERIOD SHOWN 1974 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Corn, 01-132 $2.90 $3.13 $2.99 $2.69 $2.70 $2.93 $3.35 $3.63 $3.55 $3.74 $3.48 $3.47 Wheat, 01-137 630 650 5.59 4.33 348 3.91 440 434 441 5.03 4.86 4.60, Soybeans, 01-144 617 639 623 5.56 542 547 697 7.55 7.57 833 7.57 7.28 os =e ° BES YE = ot ion! oS ——_ B23 n 38s fe S 5 ° - me = a*+ BS — a © | fa =} 5 52 § == “| 2 3) a 3 8 HSE. i; ANE: § - 6 gees ee Sp 2288 BelNXs § Bz gSe08 5 ae n oO a 2 No = Oo 73 821 OD/AVY OVeY 72 VISI9T “AOY 6299ZI$ B8PBlE ¢ EL88E$ 6S0ZT$ 602 $ Or9LlE$ SOD) “IBA 0006776 966€8 vOOT? 8Z60€ 9SE S}u/) ; NOS-NOS UIeIL)-ETTO INUSAIY dSSO00V" 62297 $ cIblo$ dbl9 €Z°SOT IOLS 7) SOT) 2) ® ® ® ® ABATRIOL SOTA Sol SOTA suo] Spero] uoL i ®) Je) qe) my AEM AHLNOS AHL OL AMOLIMNAL TVIOIAO WONd UNV HLNOS AHL NIH.LIM SLNANWAAOW NIVYD SZ6I uwod SdIHSNOILVTaY LSOO-ANNAATY AO LNAWdOTAAAC a XIGNAddV Box cars “‘Flaters ae Hopper cars All All Rack Gondola Refrig Tank freight- Caboose freight Year General Special General Special cars cars Open Covered erator cars carrying cars train service servicea service service top cars cars d cars 1964 $13,083 $17,534 $15,462 6 $12,000 $12,504 $10,380 $14,673 $21,914 $19,339 $14,061 $17,759 $14,085 1965 14,610 19,821 15,682 $17,371 13,311 12,451 11,085 14,582 22,359 18,150 15,448 19,752 15,466 1966 12,167 18,129 14,725 17,593 13,564 12,853 11.794 15,487 23,358 34,041 15,320 18,650 15,338 1967 11,955 17,877 16,524 19,262 12,632 13,028 10,424 15,074 25,313 27,423 14,591 21,727 14,608 1968 10,061 19,398 13,956 15,534 11,746 11,447 14,728 28,307 13,471 21,168 13,553 1969 11,733 18,007 13,759 18,107 13,754 12,558 15201 29,957 - 15,607 17,415 15,625 1970 13,355 20,912 15,534 22,275 14,203 12,726 16,221 31,592 - 17,163 19,390 17,199 1971 14,219 18,640 10,495 19,068 15,749 13,197 15,930 32,167 - 16,293 24,874 16,352 1972 19,258 23,533 _ 17,666 15,111 15,580 18,079 32,427 - 18,051 25,640 18,219 15,600 16,000 18,000 30,000 20,000 18,800 29,000 18,900 21,500 18,800 20,000 - 21,700 21,800 31,000 21,900 27,076 25,834 26,480 42,553 22,300 27,777 41,023 27,921 26,856 25,495 27,497 - - 27,983 41,648 28,099 1973 18,000 22,000 _ 18,000 1974 22,900 34,000 28,000 20,000 1975p 31,168 37,005 32,815 40.201 1976p 30,923 35,644 27.040 45,695 SATA MATAR - Reported as “automobile” prior to 1948 and included with general service box cars for years 1949 through 1954. - Included with general service flat cars. - Included with open top hopper cars. - Includes all other freight-train cars not separately shown. - Reflects installation of two experimental 38,000-gallon tank cars at a unit cost of $76,765. - Included with special service flat cars. - Prelimi - The variations in the average cost of freight cars from year to year can relate, in part, to changes in the mix of car sub-types within each category and to differences in the capacities of cars installed. Source: Interstate Commerce Commission, TRANSPORT STATISTICS IN THE UNITED STATES; Year 1975 and 1976 from Annual Reports of Railroads. evs A080 SA SJUSWOAOU UTe1S [Te aUINsse puke UOn NOG UO paseq Ie S}SOD ajqeUBA “C/G Jead oy} ST TAL Woulozeyg wos usye} eyep juswWaaow /T Jaddoy pas9a09 ul y Woy) Y| “uonepodsuely jo juauedeg JsoQ/aay oneY “Ady “da }SO7%) “1B, sylup HL VELOP$ ESP 692 $ 9S86E 6ZEFT$ LS602 bZ6901$ EPOTES? soQ/Acy ney = ‘Ady ySO%) “1B A syiuy 68LEZ$ S2e 8SSé6I cel $ ZC9L$ CLeET L8022$ G2LLb O ° UWIOY-ZETTO JSOD/AdY OeY ‘Ady ySO%) “Je A syiup 962 $ Z8b6H$ 89P ESsst$ 6LS6IT$ 88E8SC OS-dHO urelyy-eT lO CLOEV CI9LS — 2-2... a ee. 75 EXHIBIT IV Pounds of Broilers Produced in the Northeast and Southeast, 1957-1972 Year Northeast! Southeast? 1957 595,143 2,159,528 1958 642,543 2,621,541 1959 609,270 2,974,660 1960 561,635 3,223,816 1961 571,122 3,861,864 1962 543,279 3,990,327 1963 539,525 5,298,030 1964 536,945 4,500,278 1965 547,062 4,963,174 1966 555,960 5,637,463 1967 558,693 5,818,331 1968 558,580 5,979,465 1969 558,076 6,392,501 1970 588,756 6,920,095 1971 586,313 8,540,633 1972 575,372 7,578,704 00089EF~ 00069€S I8Esor$ 0008S022 16SE62$ -Jaddiys puke paumo-peojies JO s}sod ay} Ulasay sasodund 40,4 “sued -BIDOSSY jYSI01,J WiayyNog Aq paiedaid se s}sod yun G/G] UOLS Ul SUOTJBUILLI9} JO} ajduues [IGA + eSse9z$ 9096 $ 9EISL $ 90STZ $ 0L1Z9z$ Zél S8ss6 $ 101 Z91962$ 66 1/ Northeast includes New England, New York, New Jersey and Penn- sylvania. 2/ Southeast includes the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Source: Chickens, Eggs and Broilers: Production, Disposition, Cash Receipts and Gross Income, (Statistical Reporting Service, U.S.D.A., (various yearly issues)). at ae halt et ot at eh al 76 77 EXHIBIT V EXHIBIT V Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 STATE | i STATE STORAGE CAPACITY BY BUSHELS STORAGE CAPACITY BY BUSHELS . Revised Jan. 1 rie Changes Jan. 1, Jan.1, Changes State a eee State 1976 1975 + or - 76 75 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 76 75 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. a 28. Georgia 29 37,900 36,400 + 1,500 eee ee aeeooe pon 29. Maryland 28 36,490 36,790 - 300 Texas 2 752,020 719,040 + 32,980 inoi ‘ 30. Alabama 34 32,400 25,900 + 6,500 Illinois 3 664,600 627,800 + 36,800 ; 1670 Iowa 4 557,000 524,000 + 33,000 31. Arizona 30 30,580 28,910 + 1, ; 32. S. Carolina SL . geal |. 44,400 .+ 550 Nebraska 5 453,560 452,660 + 900 Paarvic : a | 33. Virginia 33 27,600 26,500 + 1,100 Minnesota 6 352,130 357,270 5,140 i 590 Ohio 7 208,000 193,000 + 15,000 ‘ 34, Pennsylvania 32 25,740 26,030 - i . 35. New Mexico 35 17,360 16,870 = + 490 Indiana 10. 201,050 186,410 + 14,640 ‘ . ' 36. Delaware 37 17,240 16,640 + 600 Missouri 8 193,270 192,730 + 546 a 37. Utah 36 =. 16,960 16,750 + 210 Oklahoma 9 190,200 191,790 1,590 | $50 «BOAO 610 . Washington 11 165,850 164,090 + 1,760 38. Wyoming 39 6, : + 39. Florida 38 5,560 5,420 + 140 . Arkansas 12 162,880 155,480 + 7,400 = 40. New England 40 3,800 3,560 + 240 . N. Dakota 13. 141,200 = 144,550 3,350 0 9370 90 . California 15 119,790 103,680 + 16,110 41. New Jersey 41 2,35 A «+ >i eae . Wisconsin 14 118,900 118,060 + 840 42. W. Virginia 43 39 ee Se Fe a ae me ct Pat AD a 113 months for producers. The graph set forth below is based upon the data compiled by Professor Rahn. 1976 Rail Shipments of Corn by Georgia Poultry Producers Tons 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Month Sources: Survey conducted by Dr. Allan Rahn (Exhibit II) 114 As demonstrated by the graph, the poultry industry not only is a stabilizing influence on grain shipment patterns in the Southern Territory by virtue of its relatively level shipment patterns, but also such minor peaks as do occur in its shipment volumes generally occur during months which are off-peak periods for the railroads. Thus, the poultry industry tends to level the peaks experienced by the railroads. The Georgia poultry industry, therefore, would ap- pear to be an ideal customer for the railroads: it already is doing what the railroads hope to encourage by the proposed rates. The effect, however, of the pro- posed rates on these ‘‘ideal customers’’ is extremely adverse, and would unfairly disadvantage them in their ability to compete with poultry producers in other areas of the country. Despite the beneficial effect of the poultry industry’s shipment patterns, the SFA has refused to acknowledge this choosing instead to characterize it as an industry unable ‘‘to receive shipments on a less than frantic demand basis.” Justification Statement, at 8. Such an allegation is entirely unwarranted and unfair in light of the fact that the poultry industry’s —— patterns are, in actuality, a stabilizing in- uence. VII. The SFA has made no effort to identify the causes of peaking. As demonstrated above, the poultry industry is a stabilizing factor in rail grain shipments. Surprisingly enough, however, the poultry industry was among those singled out for criticism by the railroads. (See Southern Freight Association Justification State- el a A ee =» 2 115 ment, at 7.) This anomaly suggests that the railroads have failed to undertake investigations adequate to determine the factors causing peaking and the categories of peak-period shippers. As discussed above, the shipping patterns of the poultry industry do not match the carloading patterns demonstrated by the railroads. This is because during the harvest months, when local feed grain is plentiful, rail shipments for feeding operations are somewhat lower than during other months. Protestants, therefore, suggest that the railroads analyze the data available to determine who the peak- period shippers are. If such shippers are found to be those using a specialized tariff, e.g., the Export Grain Tariff, it would be appropriate to limit the peak-period surcharge to the tariff or tariffs under which the peak- ing actually occurs. In any event, it is incumbent upon the SFA to propose peak-period rates that do not unlawfully penalize those shippers who are not responsible for the peak. VIII. A peak-period surcharge is unfair to year-round shippers. One of the major themes developed in Ex Parte 324 was the danger that seasonal or peak rates would be used to subject year-round shippers to increased rates. (See, e.g., Decision in Ex Parte 324, at 24, 48.) In its decision in Ex Parte 324, the Commission em- phasized that this would not necessarily be so, since a decrease in off-peak period rates is also possible. (Deci- sion in Ex Parte 324, at 48.) 116 The instant case is a good example of the concerns raised in Ex Parte 324. The Protestants and, presumably, other major segments of the grain ship- ping interests in the Southern Territory have even, year-round shipment patterns, yet they would be sub- ject to a general increase under the guise of a peak- period tariff surcharge. The SFA, in fact, concedes this to be true but argues that it amounts to a mere five percent increase on an annualized basis. (Justification Statement, pp. 6-7.) The SFA then seeks to justify such an increase as be- ing less than the seven percent which would be al- lowed without suspension under Section 15(8)(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act. (See Southern Freight Association Justification Statement, p. 7.) But such an interpretation finds no support in Section 15(8)(c), which provides that, under certain circumstances, a rate increase (or an aggregate of rate increases) not ex- ceeding seven percent of the rate in effect on January 1, 1977, may not be suspended on the grounds that it exceeds a just and reasonable level. The average over the period of a year of the effect of a peak-period rate* is not the same as an aggregate of a series of increases, and Section 202(e\2) of the 4-R Act [which added Sec- tion 15(8)(c)] lends no support to such an interpreta- tion. The current situation appears to be one in which a reduction in the off-peak period would be appropriate, as suggested by the Commission in Ex Parte 324. */ The 20 percent peak-period rate averages to a 5 percent in- crease only for year-round level shippers; it may avera substanti ces | more than 7 percent for those shippers who ship proportionally more during the peak period. ; a ‘ : j 4 a ie | % 4 4 i 4 4 7 : ; | 1 117 (Decision in Ex Parte 324, at 48.) The SFA anticipates this suggestion and counters it only with the general assertion that rates in the Southern Territory are ‘“‘depressed.”’ In fact, railroads in the Southern Ter- ritory enjoy a healthy position as indicated by their expenses to revenues ratios during 1976 and, thus far, 1977, as set forth in the table on the following page. Il. II. Source: I.C.C. Form RE&I, Code 57. EXPENSES TO REVENUES RATIOS 118 Railroad 1976 I. Southern Railway System (Consolidated quarterly report as of 1977) Alabama-Great Southern 73.37 Central Georgia 73.51 Cincinatti - New Orleans & 59.43 Texas Pacific Georgia Southern & Florida 65.59 Norfolk - Southern 74.25 Southern Railway Co. 74.69 Family Line Railroads Louisville & Nashville 76.78 Seaboard Coast Line 75.38 Georgia 77.97 Other Major Railroads Florida East Coast 78.93 Illinois Central Gulf 79.70 Ist qtr.’77 2nd qtr. ’77 69.3 78.8 72.5 80.0 73.0 79.9 67.9 _ 77.6 73.7 73.1 68.0 79.0 at sa nino, — ae 119 To the same effect, are the glowing press releases announcing second quarter 1977 profits by Southern Railways System and Seaboard Coast Line In- dustries, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibits III and IV. The Southern Railway Company trumpeted a net con- solidated income which was ‘‘the highest of any quarter in its history’’. Likewise, its railway operating revenues for the second quarter and the first half of 1977 ‘‘both were records for any quarter or six-month period.’”’ Exhibit III, at 1. In the face of such earning reports it would be unconscionable to approve of the imposition of peak rates which are not cost-based in the absence of any reason to believe that such rates would serve to alleviate the peak. By definition, such rates would not be just and reasonable. IX. Summary The SFA’s justification statement has demonstrated that there is a peak period in the rail shipment of grain, but it does little more than that. Based upon that alone, the Bureau has filed for 20 per- cent increases in the rates for grain shipments during the September 15 through December 15, 1977, period. Such an increase will substantially harm the poultry industry in the Southern Territory and have a severe adverse impact on its competitive position compared to poultry producers in other areas of the nation. > The SFA has failed to ascertain which class or classes of shippers are responsible for the peak in grain shipments or that the proposed 20 percent in- crease will alleviate the peak. 120 The poultry industry is incapable of responding to the proposed peak-period tariff by rescheduling shipments. Although the industry has storage capacities sufficient for its operational needs, the capital investment required for the additional massive storage capacities required for substantial reschedul- ing of shipments could not be justified. The present pattern of grain shipment by the poultry industry is characterized by year-round level volumes. Thus, the poultry industry already is an “ideal shipper’ from the standpoint of the railroads. The poultry industry, in fact, is already doing exactly what the railroads are seeking to encourage with the proposed peak-period rates. Under these circumstances, the effect on the poultry industry of the proposed peak-period rates would be solely punitive and would result in a windfall profit to the railroads. The intent of the 4-R Act was to level out peaks and valleys in the demand for rail services. This pro- ceeding demonstrates the necessity of careful plan- ning (absent in this instance) in the construction of demand-sensitive rates in order that they have the desired effect without harming year-round shippers, i.e., those whose shipment patterns the rates are ostensibly intended to encourage. Protestants therefore request that the effectiveness of the aforementioned supplements be suspended and an investigation into the iawfulness thereof be in- stituted. ee ee Dated: September 6, 1977 121 Respectfully submitted, David C. Todd badd Big Michael A. Floyd PATTON, BOGGS & BLOW 1200 17th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 223-4040 Attorneys for Protestants: Alabama Poultry Industry Association Florida State Poultry Federation Georgia Freight Bureau Georgia Poultry Federation, Inc. National Egg Company North Carolina Poultry Federation Poultry and Egg Institute of America Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association Virginia Poultry Federation 122 EXHIBIT I Additional Organizations Participating in this Protest The Alabama Poultry Industry Association is a trade association composed of approximately 2,500 members who, in the aggregate, account for more than 90 percent of the state’s broiler production and 80 per- cent of the state’s egg production. The state produces annually approximately 400 million broilers. Poultry production accounts for approximately 37 percent of Alabama’s farm income, an amount equal to approx- imately $528 million. The Florida State Poultry Federation is a trade association composed of approximately 350 members, representing approximately 90 percent of the state’s poultry industry. The state’s 12.3 million laying hens and production of 60 million broilers produce approx- imately $180 million in annual farm income. The Georgia Poultry Federation is a trade associa- tion composed of several thousand members who, in the aggregate, account for virtually all of the poultry production in the State of Georgia. The state’s average daily production is 5,100,000 pounds of chicken, 13,850,000 eggs, and 60,000 pounds of turkey. Georgia has been the foremost poultry pro- ducing state in the nation since 1957, currently ac- counting for approximately 20 percent of the nation’s chicken production and 8 percent of its egg produc- tion. Poultry production has been the largest segment of Georgia agriculture since 1955; in 1976 poultry represented approximately one-third of Georgia's total farm income. 7 ® Wee i os 123 The National Egg Company is an egg marketing cooperative whose 1,300 members in 15 southern states account, in the aggregate, for 45 percent of the egg production in the United States. The North Carolina Poultry Federation is the trade association of the poultry industry in North Carolina, an industry which consists of approximately 12 million laying hens and annual production of 316 million broilers and 16.5 million turkeys. The Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association is a trade association composed of more than 5,000 members in the states affected by the Bureau’s pro- posal who, in the aggregate, account for approximate- iy 70 percent of the nation’s broiler production and ap- proximately 50 percent of the nation’s egg production. The Virginia Poultry Federation is a trade associa- tion composed of approximately 940 members who, in the aggregate, account for virtually all of the poultry production in Virginia. The state’s 1976 production consisted of 88.9 million broilers representing $75.7 million in farm income, 7.3 million turkeys represen- ting $38.7 million in farm income and 66.6 million dozen eggs representing $46.5 million in farm income. 124 EXHIBIT II VERIFIED STATEMENT OF ALLAN RAHN My name is Allan Rahn. My address is Department of Poultry Science, Livestock-Poultry Building, the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, Athens, Georgia 30602. I have held the position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Poultry Science since September, 1972. In that position, I teach a course in poultry firm organization and management principles and conduct research focusing on developing analytical aids useful for decision-making for poultry firm managers. Prior to accepting that position I was an Extension Economist, lowa State University, from 1967 to 1972, and my duties were to provide research support for added substance and depth to Extension program ac- tivities in livestock marketing and price analysis. I received my Ph.D. degree in Economics in 1973 from Iowa State University, where my field of concen- tration was agricultural marketing. I received my Bachelor’s degree in 1965 and my Master’s degree in 1967 from Southern Illinois University, both in agricultural industries. 1. Based on records available to me and my general knowledge of poultry production in Georgia, I estimate that a 20% increase in the cost of interstate corn shipments by rail will cost Georgia poultry pro- ducers approximately 4.0¢ per bushel, resulting in a total additional cost to the Georgia poultry industry of 363 thousand dollars in 1977. This estimate was ar- Oe a ee ee 125 rived at as set forth in Appendix A hereto; ‘‘Estimate of the Financial Impact on the Poultry Industry in Georgia of the Rail Rate Increase Proposed by the Southern Freight Association (Emergency Proposal 179) during 1977”’. 2. I have conducted a survey of the members of the Georgia Poultry Federation regarding inter alia, the sources and modes of shipment of grain received by them and capacities of their grain storage facilities. A tabulation representing approximately 75 percent of the total Georgia poultry industry is attached hereto as Appendix B. I am satisfied that the patterns in- dicated in the tabulations are representative of the in- dustry as a whole. VERIFICATION STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF CLARKE ) Allan Rahn, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing statement and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true as ae steno MnP lah Allan Rahn Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3lst day of ea 1977. Lhartan bb. bell Notary Public SEAL My commission expires: 10/8/77. 126 Appendix A Estimate of the Financial Impact on the Poultry Industry in Georgia of the Rail Rate Increase Proposed by the Southern Freight Association (Emergency Proposal 179) during 1977 Duration of proposed 20% increase, September 15 - December 15, or 92 days Chicken inventory estimates — average number on inventory during 92 day period in 1977 Commercial egg layers — 20,612,000, up 3% from similar 1976 period Hatching egg layers — 3,884,500, no change from similar 1976 period Other chickens — 10,288,530 assumed to be equal to » 42% of all layers Broiler slaughter estimates — Number to be raised during 92-day period in 1977 Broilers — 110,124,000 up 5% from similar 1976-77 period . Feed consumption estimates: Commercial egg layers — 20,612,000 @ .22 lbs/hen/ day for 92 days => 208,564 tons Hatching egg layers — 3,884,500 @ .32 lbs/ hen / day for 92 days = > 57,180 tons Other chickens — 10,288,530 @ .13 lbs/ bird / day for 92 days = > 61,525 tons Broilers — 110,124,000 @ 3.81 lb/liveweight @ 2.0 feed conversion = > 419,572 tons 127 Feed composition assumptions Corn 49% Soybean Feed (Ibs/ton) meal (lbs/ton) Broiler ration 1200 500 Layer ration 1300 400 Other chicken ration 1500 300 Corn and soybean meal utilization estimates Corn 49% Soybean equivalents meal Broilers 251,743 tons 104,893 tons Layers 172,734 tons 53,149 tons Other chickens 46,144 tons 9,229 tons Totals 470,621 tons 167,271 tons or 16,807,893 bu. Estimated cost of production increases with 20% rail rate increase Corn: Assuming 60% of corn utilized during this 92-day period is imported into Georgia and that 90% of this movement is by rail, then (16,807,893 x .6 x .9) 9,076,262 bu. of corn would be involved. The 20% rate increase would increase the cost of imported corn by at least 4.0¢ / bu. Thus, the estimated poultry cost of production increase from corn would be 9,076,262 x .04 = $363,050. SAVG ONILVUAdO SHZI SVM 9161 NI NHOOD HOd ZDVdS ADVHOLS SAVG 40 HAEWOAN AOVUGAV 02 LYESZE IL 1L6ree 62 210b€2 00'v86899_ OB 9E9TPT $9 BLOE CL ZeRSE 19 OLOZT 6£ 69692 PL zeesl 9 LOLEI 00 OF06E og OL'¥882 cs 60Rze 6€ 12801 1929682 9L'69bL1 PZ PI6LI 0o'baeSe ‘AON 01'2662 CP ELIFE PY LIGTI 9€ 68952 0116681 06'60€81 00° LOGLE 190 OF 2162 OL OFFFE 106811 66 86852 06 L166 OVorsel 00°88 LE ‘Ldas C6 Eb6z SS'6166E 25° LLOII BF LL8SZ 9€ T1881 $9'€8081 00'SS696 50V 059006 GO'6SzSE 6z'8S601 GLBRELZ LLEvSLI £28002 00° LbERE x1nfr SE 1262 S6-ZL8LE 691511 10 86262 68°£061Z 1199681 00°0L80¢ anor 661108 OL'SS09€ ol'evezl 06°22692 ZU 86112 89°S16LI 00°2L166 AVA OW ESTE SL 18098 Ol L06II 06 L6ELZ O€ I8I8I owezl iz 00'S0e6E Wav 0L'260€ OF SES6E 16 PLSEl 60'S9882 8S'6L01Z 209912 00'0bL2> UV S#'S00E SLZ8hSe GO'PSSTT S62Z012 C6 E1e6! So'e9z6 00 LLSBE aad 00 9646 0s 8F20b 6z OFEEI TL BSt0e be LOBIZ 99° 16612 00'66LE5 NVE 4SNOL ‘IVAW NVAGAOS ov 1162 Oz b6I IF ZU'bLY9 88° LOL6S 90'6ELP 691619 oozzz9r og luz og b9ZP 08 865 0 LEIP o96le OF 09S OO 9ELF “gaa 0s 092 00'8 166 06'S96 0s Tose oF Ise 09'6z1> 00° LOE? ‘AON 0z'Sbz 09 L16e 09'91S orsise gI'Ss9 pR'SZ8e 00'Seeh “190 S¥01Z 06 PPLE LO'SSL £6 6FEE 69°916 steele 00'SolP 1das $1692 0S LOOP ate SL 6b8E SLELE SZ LIF 00' 164 SAV OL'Szz Og BLTE Or £06 06 8906 OL'L2e OE b¥zE OO'ZLSE x1nf 01 082 o9'89ze or'ais 06 ESTE OL 268 O€ 6£EE 00°219¢ anot 06 662 02 96S OLLS Of PSHE 06 0SE 019196 00'LZ08 AVA CP bOz orosez CE SSE 69°S6EZ Cb 6bZ SS FESZ 00°¥81Z Wav 05:92 00'6608 0S 966 0s beOE 0s'S82 OS Sbze 00 IESE UVW ol 662 08°6¢1Z Of SEF OL'0SLZ 01992 06 2262 00'68TE ‘aad S6eSz 01 6662 S#6Lb sl e86z $6612 Soreele OO'EI¥E NVE 4SNOL SNIVAD HAHLO oz e6zes! og Prose! £69162 Lo’sbgocet Be'egzses. 29'SZL8SII 00°266€SS1 ce POITI cg t6zall 9960981 pe Q0ESTI 62 W2EEE TL 16596 00'9166zT oa og'zvezt C6 9SIPII LE PEI €9 LSISII ZL'66ZLt 9220862 00'201121 AON OR 9FOSI ce'969611 g0'Ss91z L6'2ZbL01 Ly lzzt9 £96819 00'8206z1 190 1¥'69081 porrseezt El L910E Lg PP IEtl LL'GEOTL €Z'BLOIL oo'zteert Ldas 9662061 PI'OSLPIT So's9ziz $6'£00601 1188665 6808208 00°692061 DAV SO'eesit os'eezzit or'egzet 09°806011 IW L6ELI 6S'6LL901 OO LLINZI x1or 96°1FZI1 $S°9S061T 89° 16021 26869811 87'09961 ZL'S60S1I 00°9SL0E1 agnor oF 62421 rerglesit og 1e6€1 ov gteztt PS'ESPLI 9F P61801 00'882921 AV $6'6z0z1 SS 668211 o0'9arel 00'LPSITT 09 96SLI OF 96LL0T 00'eeesz1 ‘Wd 0S O9PII corerzizi SEO9TLI Sg LOI9TI 8P'ESLOZ 2"PIScII oo'sezeet ‘UV 6€°L9PII Izelsztt OL'2S9L1 0€' LOOLOI 96'8222z bo 1ehZ01 00'099¢21 ‘aad LZ OSI 88269111 96°806S1 $0 P96EIT SL'S9L0Z SZ LOT6OI 00'€18621 NVE 4SNOL NOD (SNOL) saaa4 saaa4 4aHLO va vi9u0a9 aLViS $1d1a9a4 HLNOK ® MIOLSAAIT AWL1NOd 40-LN0 9161 ALIGOKKO9 4o4 aasa AGOW NOLLVLUOdSNVEL NIDINO STVLOL qQ XIGNadddV 4S GNV LNAWSAOW 1V3W NVASAOS GNV NIVUD 9L6I -= 2 - = = Os or eee roe = : = ee ta r = - = FO POLIS IO He SOE Og OT 128 It is difficult to deduce the impact the Proposal. In terms of crushing capacity, Georgia has a soybean production surplus and by Georgia farmers for soybeans by the 20% rail rate increase. However, soybeans moved by rail within the State would incur higher tors on soybean crushing costs or soybean meal and oil production costs and the resulting soybean meal prices paid for formulation in transportation costs. The impact of these fac- poultry feeds is questionable. that Emergency Proposal 179 will have on soybean meal costs since it is not specified in this would tend to reduce the prices received Soybean meal: 130 EXHIBIT III SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM NEWS (Letterhead) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW YORK, N.Y., JULY 26, 1977 — Southern Railway Company today reported net consolidated income of $37,- 744,000 in the second quarter, the highest of any quarter in its history, and an increase of $15,631,000, or 70.7 per cent, over the corresponding period of 1976. Earnings were equal to $2.51 per share of common stock, as compared with $1.45 per share in the 1976 quarter. L. Stanley Crane, Southern’s president, said earnings ex- ceeded by $7,753,000, or by 25.9 per cent, the previous quarterly record of $29,991,000 earned in the second quar- ter of 1974. Six months’ earnings of $65,322,000 increased by $21,- 135,000, or 47.8 per cent, over the 1976 period. They were also a record for any six months’ period, exceeding the pre- vious record, in the first half of 1974, by $15,824,000, or 32 per cent. Total railway operating revenues, of $302,466,000 in the quarter, and $568,353,000 in the half, rose by $41,581,000, or 15.9 per cent, and $61,765,000, or 12.2 per cent, respec- tively, and both were records for any quarter or six-month period. Railway operating expenses in the quarter totaled $205,- 348,000, up by $15,779,000, or 8.3 per cent, from the 1976 quarter; in the half, $389,622,000, an increase of $25,149,- 000, or 6.9 per cent. The higher expenses in the second quar- ter were attributed partly to an acceleration of maintenance a ae 131 of way work to help make up for scheduled work not per- formed in the first quarter due to severe winter weather. Maintenance of way expenses in the second quarter in- creased by 38.7 per cent over the first quarter of 1977 and by 10.8 per cent over the corresponding period of 1976. Southern’s president credited mainly a strong second- quarter recovery in carloadings for the gains both in reve- nue and earnings. Citing revenue increases in all 12 of the leading commodity groups, he said gains in the second quar- ter ranged from 3.5 per cent for waste and scrap material to 34.4 per cent for stone, clay, glass and concrete products. Other substantial increases were in coal, up 25.8 per cent; petroleum and coal products, up 27.7 per cent; primary metal products, up 24.3 per cent; and chemicals and allied products, up 18 per cent. Revenue from “‘piggyback”’ load- ings of trailers and containers in the second quarter in- creased by 20.2 per cent over the 1976 period. While expressing satisfaction with results thus far in the year, Crane said the future is clouded by projections of some slowing in the level of economic growth in the second half. Adding to the uncertainty, he said, is the threat of work stoppages, especially in coal mining, which accounts for about 10 per cent of Southern’s total revenues and an even higher percentage for much of the railroad industry. “A prolonged shutdown of the mines would diminish the other- wise bright prospects in store for Southern and for much of the rail industry this year,” he declared. Southern’s board of directors declared the regular quar- terly dividend of 65¢ per share on the common stock, pay- able September 15, 1977, to stockholders of record on Au- gust 15, 1977. Dividends due and payable on both the pre- ferred and serial preference stocks were declared and pub- licly announced on January 25, 1977. Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries 132 STATEMENT OF INCOME SECOND QUARTER OF 1977 AND 1976 (Thousands of Dollars) Railway operating revenues: Freight Passenger Switching Demurrage Other Other income Total income Railway operating expenses: Maintenance of way Maintenance of equipment Transportation Other State and local taxes, principally property Payroll taxes Net freight car r [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1843%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.