STANDARD TIME ZONES In our last annual report we mentioned that petitions from various cities, towns, and organizations in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana, seeking modification of our previous orders in docket No. 10122, Standard Time Zone Investigation, so as to extend the eastern zone to embrace eastern and central Kentucky, Tennessee east of the Tennessee River, and a large part of Indiana, were pending. The hearings in all of these proposals were concluded. Effective April 3, 1960, the definition of the limits of the eastern and central zones was modified so as to extend the eastern zone to embrace a large portion of eastern Kentucky and a small portion of northern Tennessee, by our order entered with our thirty-fourth supplemental report in this proceeding, 309 I.C.C. 780. The proposals to extend the eastern zone still farther west in Kentucky and to include a large part of middle and western Tennessee and the eastern two-thirds of Indiana were still pending. In the above supplemental report, we again referred to our narrow authority in this field due to the limited scope of the Standard Time Act and to the doctrine of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525, that the provisions of that act govern only the Federal purposes specified and no inconsistency was found between those provisions and the provisions of State statutes or local ordinances providing a different standard of time for other purposes. We again noted, also, the general difficulty and confusion which occurs when, for local purposes, the State or locality requires, either for a seasonal period or for the entire year, the observance of a standard of time differing from that provided under authority of the Standard Time Act. With regard to the substantial divergence from sun time, the supplemental report included the following at page 796: Our original policy of fixing the boundary line as close as practicable to the median line (midway between the time meridians) was adopted at a time when the law contemplated the national observance of daylight-saving time, which for a point no farther west than the median line would provide during the summer months a time an hour and a half faster than mean sun time. Since the repeal of national daylight-saving time, we have found it necessary to yield to local pressure to place the zone boundaries somewhat farther west. With the exception of Kentucky and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the boundary between the eastern and central zones has gradually been moved westward so as to provide a standard of time for points in the western part of the eastern zone generally 40 to 45 minutes faster than mean sun time, rather than the difference of 30 minutes 144 as a maximum which was at least the ideal toward which the Commission's original endeavors in this proceeding were directed. Provisions of the Standard Time Act frequently overlooked are those relating to the time of performance of any act by officers and departments of the United States, or by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or the time within which rights under the laws of the United States shall accrue or determine. The act definitely provides that in all such statutes, orders, rules, and regulations "it shall be understood and intended that the time shall be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed." In view of the widespread observance of a time differing from the Federal standard by the officers and departments of the United States Government, in some instances even where it is sanctioned neither by local nor Federal laws, we question the desirability of continuing this 1918 provision. There is no more important standard of measurement in this age than that of time. The precise content of the second, the minute, the hour, et cetera, are matters on which, fortunately, there appears to be universal agreement; and there has been no difficulty, at least in this country, concerning the identity of minutes. Thus when it is 20 minutes after the hour in one part of the country it is 20 minutes after the hour in every other part of the country, and in most foreign countries. But when it comes to the precise identification of the hour and day applying in terms of local time at many points in the United States, it is difficult to determine with any degree of confidence. For example, when it is 1:20 a.m. Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the prevailing time at points in Indiana, western Kentucky, or western Tennessee, all in the central time zone, where a 1-hour difference would be expected, might be 1:20 or 12:20 a.m. Tuesday, or as early as 11:20 p.m. Monday, depending on the season and the provisions of the State statutes and local ordinances as interpreted by the Courts. It is paradoxical that, during the horse-and-buggy days, when sun time was in vogue, the confusion caused by errors of a few minutes was found intolerable; but during this jet age we must learn to tolerate a "system" of time under which mistakes of 1 or 2 hours by intelligent and well-informed persons are frequent. The mounting inconvenience, confusion, and sometimes even danger brought about by this situation is too great a price to pay merely to preserve the right of local option in matters of standard time. We renew our recommendation that there be a thorough survey of the entire field of standard time for the purpose of determining (1) whether there is any need for a Federal law fixing the standards of time; (2) whether the Standard Time Act should be repealed or broadened in scope and strengthened by the addition of more definite standards to be followed in determining the limits of the zones and by provisions for administration and enforcement; and (3) whether this Commission is the most appropriate agency to administer the provisions of the existing law or any future law relating to standard time. ACCOUNTING, COST FINDING AND VALUATION These functions, which are performed by the Bureau of Accounts, embrace the promulgation of uniform accounting systems and rules for carriers subject to our jurisdiction; the periodic examination of their records, reports, and practices to assure compliance with these rules and to determine the reliability and integrity of data reported; the analysis and preparation of cost data for use in Commission rate proceedings; and the maintenance of inventories and development of valuation data pertaining to railroad and pipeline properties. The following table shows the numbers and classes of carriers subject to accounting regulations prescribed by Commission: Railroads, class I.. Railroads, class II. Railroad switching and terminal companies. Railroad lessor companies - - Motor carriers (passenger)... Motor carriers (property): Class I-1,065; Class II-2,380 Oil pipelines.. Water lines... Electric lines___ Freight forwarders__. Refrigerator car lines.. Express companies.. Sleeping car company. Stockyard companies.. Holding companies. Total. 110 309 191 168 222 3, 445 86 136 32 61 7 2 1 42 4 4,816 In addition, periodic reports are received from the following types of carriers for which accounting regulations have not been prescribed: Car lines (companies which furnish cars for use on lines of railroads) – Class III motor carriers of property..- Water carriers (less than $100,000 gross revenue). Freight forwarders (less than $100,000 gross revenue). Several major revisions in the accounting rules and related regulations were made in order to keep them abreast of present-day con 147 ditions in the several modes of transportation. The uniform system of accounts for carriers operating on inland and coastal waterways was reissued with major changes in the form and substance of the balance sheet, income statement, and the operating statement reflecting the sources of revenues and classes of expenses. The uniform system of accounts for the refrigerator car lines subject to the act, likewise was reissued. In the new issue of the car-line accounting regulations, the income and balance sheet statements were revised to correspond with those prescribed for railroads, with which the car lines are closely associated in working arrangements, thus simplifying and improving the accounting and reporting requirements. The accounting rules prescribed for motor carriers of property and of passengers applicable to acquisition of property and operating rights from other motor carriers through purchases, mergers, and consolidations were modified. Under the revised rules, acquisitions of property, other than transfers from controlled companies, are recorded in the asset account at the purchase price but not in excess of fair market value, which must be evidenced by report of an independent appraiser. The cost of operating rights is retained in the asset account unless it becomes reasonably evident that the value has become limited or is otherwise impaired. Regulations were formulated and prescribed requiring that companies which are subject to section 220 of the act by reason of control over one or more motor carriers through ownership of their securities (holding companies) maintain suitable records and file consolidated statements of the combined financial condition of the constituent companies after elimination of intercompany profits and boldings. Rules were issued prescribing the accounting to be followed where claims for refund of prior years' income taxes are made under provisions of the Technical Amendments Act of 1958. A report was issued affirming the existing accounting rules prescribed for cost of betterment and replacement of track property, thus closing the proceeding in docket No. 32153, Betterment and Depreciation Accounting, Railroads, 309 I.C.C. 289, which was referred to in our last report. Applications were received and special accounting rules issued in 29 cases, involving adjustment of capitalization, abnormal losses due to retirement of track property and facilities, income taxes, stock dividends, and other items. A study and analysis of the accuracy of depreciation rates prescribed for equipment and property of carriers and the reasonableness of reserves was continued during the year. Orders were issued prescribing new or revised depreciation rates in 14 cases. Special rules were issued to meet unusual or extraordinary conditions in 180 cases. Financial data were examined in 104 proceedings involving aban |