other classifications, filed tariff schedules proposing increases in their line-haul rates generally of 0.5 cent in all rates not exceeding 65 cents per 100 pounds and 1 cent in all higher rates, and equivalent increases in rates published per ton or other unit, together with increases in minimum charges per shipment or per car and in charges for various accessorial services. Because of the critical need of the railroads for additional revenue, sufficient at least to offset in part increased costs not considered in prior increased rate proceedings, we promptly approved many of the proposed increases as generally just and reasonable, and they were permitted to take effect on October 24, 1960. Our findings were without prejudice to different conclusions which might be reached as to various parts of the proposal which were suspended for investigation or subjected to separate investigations only under special rules of procedure. With these increases, the average rate of return on net investment of the railroads of the country was estimated in this proceeding as 2.53 percent. Matters suspended for investigation, as well as those made subject to separate investigation only, include proposed increases in rates on fresh fruits and vegetables, coal and petroleum coke, iron ore, and pulpboard and fiberboard; proposed increases in switching charges; minimum charges per car, and charges for car detention or rental; the establishment of a charge for a third stop for transit; and a proposed reduction in the free-time allowance for detention of cars at ports. Investigations thus far completed include Ex Parte No. 223 (Sub-No. 10), Increased Freight Rates, 1960 (Rule 7), 313 I.C.C. 471, decided April 11, 1961, wherein we disapproved application of the proposed increases in the line-haul rates to each factor of combination rates, and instead authorized the application of a single increase to the through combination or aggregate; (Sub-No. 1), Minimum Charges Per Car, 313 I.C.C. 563, decided April 24, 1961; (Sub-No. 3), Increased Rates on Iron Ore, 313 I.C.C. 549, decided April 20, 1961; and (Sub-No. 9), Increased Rates on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, 313 I.C.C. 519, decided April 18, 1961, in all of which the proposed increases were approved. No. 32871, Coal to New York Harbor Area, 311 I.C.C. 355, decided October 7, 1960. In this proceeding we approved proposed reduced rates on bituminous coal from mines in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky to electric utilities at certain destinations along the North Atlantic seaboard from Salem, Mass., to Baltimore, Md., conditioned upon the receipt of at least 500,000 tons annually, the reduction applying on amounts over specified volumes. The purpose of these reduced rates was to prevent loss, to offshore residual oil, of large volumes of coal moving by rail to such utilities. No. 33316, Railway Mail Pay, 1960, 311 I.C.C. 579, decided November 17, 1960. Upon applications by the railroads of the country seeking a reexamination of the rates of pay for the transportation of the United States mail, and services rendered in connection therewith, we found that fair and reasonable compensation to be received by the southern and western applicants for such mail services on and after September 1, 1960, to and including November 30, 1960, was 13 percent, and for the eastern railroads 8 percent, in addition to the compensation paid or accrued at the established rates in effect during that period; and that on and after December 1, 1960, fair and reasonable rates of pay and compensation for the applicants were those specified in an appendix to the report, which reflected equivalent percentages of increase. I. & S. No. 6615, Equalization of Rates at North Atlantic Ports, 311 I.C.C. 689, decided December 5, 1960. The rail carriers serving the ports of Albany and New York, N.Y., and United States ports north thereof, sought to remove longstanding port differentials and thus to equalize the rates on export and import traffic, except coal, coke, and iron ore, between all North Atlantic ports and interior points in central territory generally west of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Buffalo, N.Y. We found that such equalization would be unduly prejudicial to Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia, Pa., and Norfolk and Newport News, Va., and unduly preferential of the northern tier ports. Accordingly, we required cancellation of the proposed tariff schedules, which had the effect of continuing the present port differentials on this traffic. This proceeding is pending in court. I. and S. No. M-10415 and related cases, Commodities-PanAtlantic S. S. Corp., 313 I.C.C. 23, decided December 19, 1960. In these cases we had under consideration the lawfulness of numerous reduced motor-water-motor and rail-water-rail rates of the remaining North Atlantic and Gulf coastwise lines, namely, Sea-Land Service, Inc. (formerly Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation) and Seatrain Lines, Inc., as well as all-rail trailer-on-flat-car (TOFC) rates, on numerous commodities between points in the East, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the South and Southwest; also from and to points in the South and between such points, on the one hand, and, on the other, points in the Southwest. We found that "where necessary to permit an essential, efficiently operated water carrier to participate in the economical movement of traffic, the service in connection with the water carrier should be accorded some advantage in the form of lower rates. This is so not only on traffic between the ports, but also to and from interior points, for coastwise carriers can not survive on port-to-port traffic alone.” Accordingly, we further found that "the objectives of the national transportation policy require the establishment and maintenance of a differential relationship between the rates under investigation on Sea-Land and Seatrain service, on the one hand, and the rates of the rail carriers, on the other, which will allow these water carriers operating on the coastwise trade to maintain rates that will enable them to continue efficient and economical coastwise service." We expressed the opinion that the rail TOFC rates there in issue should be maintained on a level no lower than 6 percent above the Sea-Land and Seatrain rates. The all-rail rates under investigation were required to be canceled, without prejudice to the establishment of such an adjustment. While the matter of an appropriate differential for coastwise service under the rail boxcar service was not here. directly in issue, we expressed the view that, as boxcar service is inferior to TOFC service, the differential under the boxcar rates should be somewhat less than 6 percent. Our order in these proceedings is now under attack in the courts. I. and S. No. 7250, Contract Rates, Rugs and Carpeting from Amsterdam, N. Y., 313 I.C.C. 247, decided February 13, 1961. For the first time, we had under consideration proposed reduced contract rates published to apply only upon signed agreement by the shipper that it would move at least 80 percent of its traffic covered by the rates, within a period of a year, over the lines of the respondent carrier. A higher noncontract rate would have applied on all of the shipper's traffic in the event of default in performance. The agreement would have prohibited the respondent from voluntarily increasing the contract rates during the term thereof. The contract rates would have been available to all shippers or receivers willing to execute the contract. The respondent conceded that should the proposed rates be approved it would extend contract rates to other points and other commodities, and the protesting motor carriers stated that they would follow with similar rates. The evidence showed that if this occurred between points on the lines of the respondent and competing motor carriers, it could be expected to spread to other railroads and motor carriers, and eventually to encompass much or most of the common-carrier traffic of the country. In our judgment, the end result would have been the destruction, in large measure, of what is generally a just, reasonable, and otherwise lawful rate structure necessary to maintain an adequate national transportation system. Such a destructive effect upon the general rate structure could not be countenanced without strong and compelling reasons. No such reasons appeared, and we observed that "where lower rates on traffic, all of which moves under substantially similar transportation circumstances, are necessary to regain or retain traffic, the remedy of re ducing regularly published rates is available and should be used." We found that the contract rates were unjust and unreasonable in that they constituted a destructive competitive practice within the meaning of the national transportation policy. A lower court affirmed our findings and an appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. No. 32456, Hillsborough County Port Authority v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., 313 I.C.C. 691, decided May 17, 1961. In this proceeding class and commodity rates on export and import traffic between the port of Tampa, Fla., and points in central territory generally on and east. of the Mississippi River from Cairo, Ill., to Dubuque, Iowa, were found by Division 2 to be unduly prejudicial to Tampa and unduly preferential of South Atlantic and Gulf ports to the extent that they exceeded the highest corresponding rates between any of the latter ports and the same interior points. I. and S. No. M-14400 and related cases, Increased Fares Between Washington, D.C., and Virginia, 313 I.C.C. 793, decided June 1, 1961. Petitions jointly filed by the Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit Company and the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company sought to increase their motor-carrier fares between the District of Columbia and points in Virginia, and requested us to modify our outstanding orders so as to permit the establishment of the increased fares. While these proceedings were pending, the interstate compact creating the Washington Metropolitan Transit Commission, called the Transit Commission, became operative on March 22, 1961. Our jurisdiction to continue and conclude these proceedings had to be determined in the light of the provisions of the congressional joint resolution (Public Law 86-794, 86th Congress, approved September 15, 1960) authorizing the compact and creating the Transit Commission. We concluded that our jurisdiction ceased by transfer of such jurisdiction to the Transit Commission upon the effective date of the compact, and that the latter Commission had the authority under the compact to process to a conclusion any proceedings thus transferred to it. We stated that we were prepared to cooperate with the Transit Commission in carrying out its responsibilities in this respect. No. 10122, Standard Time Zone Investigation, 314 I.C.C. 101, decided June 6, 1961. Upon petitions by numerous counties and others in the affected areas, and after extensive hearings, our outstanding orders, entered under the authority of the Standard Time Act, 15 U.S.C. 261-265, were modified so as to include portions of Indiana and Kentucky in the eastern zone. Requests for further extensions of the eastern zone in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee were denied. I. and S. No. 6074 and related case, Iron Ore from Eastern Ports to C.F.A. Points, 314 I.C.C. 149, decided June 15, 1961. Certain eastern railroads filed tariff schedules which would have established rate parity on import iron ore from Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia, Pa., and New York, N.Y., to the Wheeling, W. Va., and Youngstown and Steubenville, Ohio, steel-producing areas. In a prior report, 299 I.C.C. 195, such rate parity was approved. Upon appeal to the courts, parity of rates on this traffic between New York, on the one hand, and Philadelphia and Baltimore, on the other, was enjoined, whereupon we reopened these proceedings for further hearing. Upon this further hearing, we approved rate parity as between Baltimore and Philadelphia but found that establishment of the same rates from New York would be unduly preferential of that port and unduly prejudicial to the ports of Baltimore and Philadelphia. In this same report, we affirmed a prior finding in 302 I.C.C. 109 that proposed reduced rail rates on Labrador iron ore moving from Contracoeur, Quebec, Canada, and Philadelphia to the Youngstown area were not shown to be just and reasonable, without prejudice to the establishment of rates approved in the report. A complaint has been filed in court attacking our order. No. 32533, Eastern Central M. Carriers Assn. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 314 I.C.C. 5, decided June 19, 1961. We found lawful (1) the rail rates and charges on loaded or empty trailers and containers, moving in plan III and plan IV trailer-on-flat-car (piggyback) service, and the rules in connection therewith; and (2) freight-forwarder volume commodity rates published principally for use in connection with such service. This type of service has been of material aid in attracting or retaining traffic to railroads which otherwise would move in private transportation. A complaint has been filed in court attacking our order. No. 33270, Various Class Rates, TOFC, Between TL & CFA Territories, 314 I.C.C. 261, decided June 28, 1961. Division 2 found not shown to be just and reasonable motor-rail trailer-on-flat-car joint class rates between points in Nassau and Suffolk counties, N.Y., and points in central and trunkline territories. In this first formal decision of the Commission dealing with plan V rates the evidence was found inadequate to support a determination that the proposed rates would be compensatory. A petition for reconsideration is pending. Reports affecting intrastate rates were issued in the following proceedings arising under section 13 (3) of the act: No. 32808, Oregon Intrastate Freight Rates and Charges, 311 I.C.C. 777, decided December 21, 1960. No. 33051, Minnesota Intrastate Freight Rates and Charges, 313 I.C.C. 291, decided February 20, 1961. |