the shares of each security held at time of sale. Significant net realized and net unrealized gains and losses arising after date of the financial statements but prior to their filing, applicable to marketable equity securities owned at balance sheet date shall be disclosed below: NOTE: / / - date Balance sheet date of the current year unless specified as previous year. PART 1204 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-PIPELINE PART 1205 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-REFRIG ERATOR CAR LINES PART 1206 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-COMMON PART 1207 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-CLASS I PART 1208 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-MARITIME CARRIERS PART 1209 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS-INLAND PART 1210 - UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS—FREIGHT At a General Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 8th day of June 1977. No. 36511 ACCOUNTING FOR MARKETABLE EQUITY SECURITIES Consideration having been given to the matters and things involved in this proceeding, and the Commission, on the date hereof, having made and filed a report herein containing its findings and conclusions, which report is hereby made a part hereof: It is ordered, That parts 1201 through 1210 (except 1203) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations be, and they are hereby, revised to read as shown in appendixes A through I. It is further ordered, That the prescribed amendments shall be effective January 1, 1977. And it is further ordered, That service of the order shall be made on all affected carriers; and to the Governor of every State and to the Public Utilities Commissions or boards of each State having jurisdiction over transportation; and that notice of this order shall be given to the general public by depositing a copy in the Office of the Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C., and by filing a copy with the Director, Office of the Federal Register for publication in the Federal Register. This decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and that for good cause notice and public procedure are unnecessary under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 12, 20, 304, 913, and 1012.) 357 I.C.C. No. 36634 MONTANA INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES-1977 Decided May 12, 1978 Montana intrastate freight rates and charges found to cause unjust discrimination and undue burden on interstate commerce. Basis for removal prescribed. DECISION Of the ComMISSION DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERs Stafford, MURPHY, AND CLAPP BY THE DIVISION: The modified procedure was followed. Requested findings not specifically discussed in this report nor reflected in our findings or concluisons have been considered and found not justified. This is an investigation under section 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act concerning the lawfulness of Montana intrastate freight rates and charges. The class I common carrier railroads' (respondents) operating in Montana seek authorization to increase Montana intrastate freight rates and charges by the same percentage amounts as was authorized by this Commission on interstate traffic in Ex Parte Nos. 305-RE, 318, 330, and 336. Two Montana State agencies2 (protestants) oppose the increase. This Commission finds that the sought intrastate increases are warranted since the present level of intrastate rates results in an unlawful discrimination and an an undue burden on interstate commerce. A discussion of issues and the reasons for our ultimate finding follows. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES A preliminary issue raised by the Montana Office of Consumers Counsel concerns whether this Commission should assume its 'The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; and Burlington Northern Inc (BN). 'The Montana Department of Agriculture and the Montana Consumer Counsel. jurisdiction and investigate Montana intrastate rates since it contends that Montana railroad carriers have purposely frustrated the primary jurisdiction of the State of Montana and the opportunity for interstate parties to be heard at the State level. The facts presented show that on January 7, 1977, the named railroad carriers filed with the Montana Public Service Commission (MPSC) tariffs designed to increase rates and charges applicable to Montana intrastate rail traffic to the level set in Ex Parte No. 336. Upon protests, the MPSC ordered the tariffs suspended pending investigation. It was further ordered pursuant to Montana State law that the railroad carriers submit within 30 days of the service date of the order such testimony and exhibits as would support the proposed increased rates. On March 11, 1977, the railroad carriers suggested to the MPSC that it dismiss the rate increase application as they felt they were unable to allocate expenses for Montana intrastate operations and compute an allocated return on investment in connection with Montana intrastate traffic. On April 22, 1977, the railroad carriers informed MPSC that they chose not to defend their proposed rate increase. Under section 13(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act,3 Montana has jurisdiction over intrastate rate increases for 120 days, or until it acts finally on the carriers application, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, upon the carriers' application, this Commission has exclusive jurisdiction. Montana law requires that carriers justify their requests for increased rates by filing testimony and exhibits with the State to support the request. The Montana Supreme Court has held that, (5) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, upon application to it, to determine and prescribe intrastate rates if (a) a carrier by railroad has filed with an appropriate administrative or regulatory body of a State, a change in an intrastate rate, fare, or charge, or a change in a classification, regulation or practice that has the effect of changing such a rate, fare, or charge, for the purpose of adjusting such rate, fare, or charge to the rate charged on similar traffic moving in interstate or foreign commerce; and (b) the State administrative or regulatory body has not, within 120 days after the date of such filing, acted finally on such change. Notice of the application to the Commission shall be served on the appropriate State administrative or regulatory body. Upon the filing of such an application, the Commission shall determine and prescribe according to the standards set forth in pargaraph (4) of this section the rate thereafter to be charged. The provisions of this pargaraph shall apply notwithstanding the laws or constitution of any State, or the pendency of any proceeding before any State court or other State authority. "while the Interstate Commerce Commission may increase interstate rates for general revenue purposes without establishing a full rate case as to each item in each rate (citations) *** that rule does not apply to the State board in fixing intrastate rates.“ Montana Citizens Freight Rate Assn. v. Board of R. Com'rs. of Mont., 271 P2d 1024, 1027 (Mont. 1954). At the State proceeding the carriers did not file any evidence within the 30-day statutory period. Nor did they respond to interrogatories with substantive answers. Having no evidence, Montana could do nothing substantive within 120 days.. It lost jurisdiction. The railroads claim that no valid method exits to allocate intrastate costs.5 The appendix to this decision reproduces the railroads' analysis of four proposed methods. The railroads are correct that it is impracticable under existing methods for the railroads to present a rates case breaking down intrastate and interstate costs, revenues, and property for every increased rate. Section 13(4) states that this Commission need not consider such a breakdown. It is likewise impracticable for protestants to present a breakdown of intrastate freight cost and revenues for every rate, to rebut the railroads' case. However, protestants may justify any exceptions to the general increase that are warranted by presenting rates evidence for specific commodities. As indicated, this investigation is to determine whether intrastate rates cause an undue burden on interstate commerce. The scope of this proceeding and the evidentiary requirements differ from that of State Commission proceedings. This Commission has 'The railroads failure to do so is inconsistent with the ruling of the Montana Supreme Court. The railroads contend that they are unable to apportion the costs, expenses, and revenues. Difficulties in obtaining an exact breakdown do not absolve them from the responsibility of coming forward with the best obtainable figures under Montana State law. "The Reply Statement of the railroads states: As indicated, the parties are now participating in a proceeding that will ultimately result in a formal rate making proceeding to prescribe an allocation scheme in Montana. Until such time as an allocation scheme is prescribed, assuming one is possible at all, the Montana Railroads cannot make a prima facie case under the present interpretation of Montana law. That being the case, there is absolutely no reason for the Montana Railroads to pack witnesses, testimony and counsel off to two or three days of hearing in Helena, only to have their case dismissed at the close of their case in chief. While we acknowledge that a principal purpose of the amendments to Section 13 promulgated by the 4-R Act was to give the state the first opportunity to consider an increase, there is no indication the 4-R Act required any authority, the Montana Public Service Commission, or the Montana Railroads to go through the motions of a useless and futile act before this Commission has jurisdiction. |