Notice to the general public will be given by depositing a copy of this notice in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission for inspection, and by filing a copy with the Director of the Federal Register. By the Commission. HAROLD D. McCox, Secretary. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, COMMITTE ON PIPE LINE ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS OF THE TO COMMITTEE ON PIPELINE ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS AND INTERESTED INTER- GENTLEMEN: The Committee on Pipeline Accounting Regulations (530) and other interested parties held a meeting in the Mayo Hotel in Tulsa, Okla., on December 5, 1955, for the purpose of further discussing the matter of the petition filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission by Arthur Andersen & Co. on August 16, 1955, requesting a reconsideration of docket No. 30920. The committee also endeavored to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not they should file a report with the Interstate Commerce Commission as to the attitude of the pipeline industry in connection with said petition. The committee members and other interested parties attending the meeting were as follows: Henry J. Amend,' Sinclair Pipe Line Co., Independence, Kans. O. W. Bailey, Cities Service Pipe Line Co., Bartlesville, Okla. David B. Barlow, Salt Lake Pipe Line Co., Box 117, Salt Lake City, Utah. Harry C. Bloomfield, Interstate Oil Pipe Line Co., Box 1107, Shreveport, La. J. W. Cason,1 Interstate Oil Pipe Line Co., Box 1107, Shreveport, La. Ralph R. Clagett,1 Pure Transportation Co., 35 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill. T. J. Hayes, Price Waterhouse & Co., Tulsa, Okla. R. E. Higginbotham, Oklahoma Mississippi River Products Line, Inc., Box 2139, Tulsa, Okla. S. V. Kane, Plantation Pipe Line Co., Box 1743, Atlanta 1, Ga. C. W. Keith, Service Pipe Line Co., Tulsa, Okla. William F. Krick, Pure Transportation Co., 35 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Ill. Harry W. Kull,1 Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), New York, N. Y. John D. Marshall, Continental Pipe Line Co., Ponca City, Okla. W. E. McKee, Sohio Pipe Line Co., 407 North 8th Street, St. Louis, Mo. R. K. Pearson,1 Gulf Refining Co., Tulsa, Okla. Fred H. Pennington,' Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Box 900, Dallas, Tex. John L. Shoemaker,1 Service Pipe Line Co., Box 1979, Tulsa, Okla. Jack R. Smith, Minnesota Pipe Line Co., St. Paul, Minn. S. D. Williams,1 Sohio Petroleum Co., Oklahoma City, Okla. It was agreed that the only question at issue is the matter of equalization in connection with the tax deferment resulting from the use of certificates of necessity for Federal income tax purposes under section 124A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. There was such a divergence of opinion among the committee members and other interested parties attending the meeting, resulting primarily from the effect that the proposed treatment would have on the companies represented that no unanimous course of action could be established. Accordingly it was decided that the committee could not act for industry but that the interstate pipeline carriers, individually, should advise the Interstate Commerce Commission of their feelings in the matter. By notice of proposed rulemaking issued by Mr. Harold D. McCoy, Secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., under date of November 8, 1955, all pipeline carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, were advised that any party to this proceeding and any other person interested in the matter of income tax equalization in connection 1 Committee member or authorized representative. 98505-58-pt. 1, vol. 2————7 with amortization accounting for emergency carrier facilities may participate by submission of their views and arguments in writing together with data or other evidence. Such data, views, arguments, and evidence should be filed with the Commission on or before December 15, 1955. Yours very truly, RALPH R. CLAGETT, Vice Chairman. CHICAGO, ILL., January 16, 1956. Re Interstate Commerce Commission, docket No. 30920, amortization accounting for emergency carrier facilities AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, 1625 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (Attention Mr. James E. Moss, director of division.) GENTLEMEN: We represent Arthur Andersen & Co. in the above proceeding and we recently filed in that proceeding a statement of Mr. C. D. McDaniel, a partner in Arthur Andersen & Co., and our memorandum of authorities and supplemental memorandum of authorities in support of the petition of Arthur Andersen & Co. Copies of these documents were served on all parties of record and we shall be glad to furnish you with a copy of each in the event you desire them. We understand that you filed some data with respect to this matter with the Interstate Commerce Commission on or about December 15, 1955. Neither we nor Arthur Andersen & Co. was served with a copy and we should appreciate it very much if you would send us a copy so that our files may be complete. Yours very truly, WILSON & MCILVAINE, By CHARLES W. BOAND. JANUARY 23, 1956. Mr. CHARLES W. BOAND, 120 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill. DEAR MR. BOAND: Referring to your letter of January 16, so far as we know the API Committee On Pipeline Accounting Regulations did not make a presentation in docket No. 30920 on or about December 15. The matter was discussed in a committee meeting but it was concluded that any data filed would be by individual companies and not by the committee. It is possible that some companies may have filed but we have no knowledge of this. Very truly yours, B. H. LORD, Jr. CHICAGO, ILL., January 31, 1956. Re Interstate Commerce Commission, docket No. 30920, amortization accounting for emergency carrier facilities Mr. B. H. LORD, Jr., American Petroleum Institute, Division of Transportation, 1625 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LORD: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 23, 1956. It is true that a great many pipeline companies individually filed data with the Interstate Commerce Commission. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission informs us that the American Petroleum Institute also filed a statement in this matter. In view of this I should appreciate it very much if you would review your files and see if a statement was prepared and filed by some other office in the institute. Yours very truly, WILSON & MCILVAINE, By CHARLES W. BOAND. FEBRUARY 8, 1956. Mr. CHARLES W. BOAND, Wilson & McIlvaine, 120 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill. DEAR MR. BOAND: I have delayed answering your letter of January 31 while we made a further check as to whether a statement was filed in Docket No. 30920 on behalf of API. As reported in my letter of January 23, the API Committee on Pipe Line Accounting Regulations did not make a statement. To clear the record on this the ICC will write to you shortly informing you that a statement was not made. Very truly yours, B. H. LORD, Jr. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS, COST FINDING AND VALUATION, Mr. CHARLES W. BOAND, 120 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill. DEAR MR. BOAND: The list of companies filing comments on the petition of Arthur Anderson & Co., relative to accounting and amortization charges, which we sent to you on January 12, 1956, should not have included the American Petroleum Institute. All responses in that connection from the pipeline industry were filed by pipeline companies as their several interests appeared and not by the institute. Sincerely yours, Mr. H. J. AMEND, C. W. EMKEN, Director. Sinclair Pipe Line Co., Independence, Kans. DEAR MR. AMEND: Recently an attorney, Charles W. Boand, representing Arthur Anderson & Co. in docket No. 30920, requested that we furnish him a copy of the statement filed by API in this docket. We informed Mr. Boand that according to our files no statement was filed, but he replied that his information came directly from the ICC. Our investigation discloses that when Mr. Clagett was in Washington in December he told Commission officials that we would not file a statement and by way of confirmation handed to an assistant director copies of his letters of November 16 and December 7 to the Committee on Accounting Regulations in which that conclusion is stated. Inadvertently these two letters were placed in the docket folder and when a listing was prepared of those filing statements the API was included. The particular incident is being resolved satisfactorily by having the ICC write to Mr. Boand explaining their error. The circumstances, however, do point out the need for care in supplying committee "working papers" to Government agencies even for information. These agencies operate under laws which, with certain exceptions, require them to open their files to anyone who may walk in off the street and ask to see them. The duly approved conclusions of our committees are not confidential, but the deliberations leading to these conclusions should be available only to those having a legitimate interest. It has been our policy never to send or give anything to a Government agency automatically. Thus we place ourselves in a position where a decision must be made in each instance as to whether there is a danger that the material would be misused. This is largely a matter of good judgment and all this letter seeks to do is call this situation to your attention. Since Mr. Shoemaker may have somewhat similar problems, I am sending him a copy of this letter. Very truly yours, Mr. JAMES E. Moss, JAMES E. Moss. SINCLAIR PIPE LINE CO., Independence, Kans., February 16, 1956. Director, American Petroleum Institute, Division of Transportation, 1625 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. Moss: This will acknowledge receipt of your February 9 letter concerning copies of correspondence which Mr. Clagett left with Interstate Commerce Commission officials when he was in Washington during December. I am confident that Mr. Clagett had no idea that such letters would become a part of the official files related to docket No. 30920. I can understand, however, that wine embarrassment might result from cogies of such letters geron the 100 fle I assure you that it will be my purpose, as vice chairman of the Grammitee co Averting Bertations to work through Mr. Fayette B. Dow i aners Ta be taken up with officials of the Interstate Commerce Commissun ices a Walgr (The documents referred to on p. 50 are as follows:) Mr. CLARK KOUNIZ. Sinclair Prairie Pipe Line Co Independence, Kone. H. J. AYE DEAR CLARK: Mr. Bushnell wired you on September 4 about the InteS12 Commerce pépeline valuation communicating being seat to various eleȚEL A The institute has received a letter from the Commission's Trane of the Byreau of Valuation, Mr. Ernest L Lewis, copy of which is enclosed. Mr. Lewis s being adrised today that the matter has been referred to the state's Central Committee on Pipe Line Transportation, of which you are chairman fe basdling and that you will advise him, as promptly as you can with respect to cla ferring with a committee representing pipeline carriers within the next few weeks, as suggested by Lim. If you call a meeting, as suggested by Bushnell and as I assume you will da I suggest you advise Fayette Dow and have him present, as he has been discussing this matter with Mr. Lewis. Faithfully yours, W. R. BOTA Jr. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Washington, D. C., September 14, 1934. VALUATION OF PIPELINES The following letter has been sent to all pipeline companies which are subject to the act to regulate commerce: "Section 19a of the Interstate Commerce Act requires the Interstate Commerce Commission to value the property owned or used by every common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act. This includes all pipeline companies engaged as common carriers in the transportation of petroleum and petroleum products, either wholly by pipeline, or partly by pipeline and partly by railroad, or by water. "Plans have been tentatively prepared for making such a valuation. The law provides and requires that common carriers subject to the provisions of the Valuation Act shall cooperate in the valuation. Such cooperation is especially desirable at this time when the work should be carried forward with the greatest possible economy both to the industry and Government and with the least inconvenience to all "It is desired that all interested parties be given opportunity to express their views. In the valuation of the railroads, the carriers created an organization and committees to represent them generally. The suggestion is therefore made that the carriers by pipeline of petroleum and petroleum products take similar steps for cooperation with the Interstate Commerce Commission in the planning and carrying foward of this work. Either directly or through the American Petroleum Institute, such committees and contacts were established in the matter of depreciation charges and accounting classifications. "Our plans call for the beginning of the valuation work this fall. We would be agreeable to conferring with a committee representing pipeline carriers within the next 3 weeks. "By direction of division 1." Mr. C. H. KOUNTZ, Tulsa Ozark Club, Spavinaw, Okla. SEPTEMBER 19, 1934. DEAR CLARK: Referring to our telephone conversation, I have sent out the fice today to the Central Committee on Pipe Line Transportation, in which I have asked them to advise Lacey Walker, in New York, whether or not they will attend, so that we can gage what the attendance will be when you arrive. I have a meeting in Dallas on September 24, which may last through the 26th, and it is doubtful whether I can make the trip to New York. In any event, however, we are asking Fay Dow to be present as he would undoubtedly be the logical contact representative in Washington due to his past relationships with the ICC. If I am not present, Lacey Walker in New York will act as secretary of the meeting. C. A. YOUNG, Secretary. SEPTEMBER 19, 1934. Subject: Valuation of pipelines. American Petroleum Institute, New York City. DEAR BILL: Replying to your telegram, I got in touch with Clark Kountz today over the telephone (he has been away on a vacation) and we are calling a meeting of the central committee to be held at New York, September 28 at 2 p. m., in the offices of the institute. I have written to Lacey Walker and Fay Dow today as per attached copies of letters. It is doubtful whether I can attend this meeting due to another meeting being held in Dallas on the 24th which may carry through the 26th. This is our committee on the allocation of production, and I am very anxious to be personally present during their discussions as at that time we will perfect our plans for the special session at Dallas. Mr. Kountz has asked me to be present and I told him I would make every effort to do so, although I do not believe it is absolutely necessary. I imagine that they will perfect their plans for contacting with the ICC in which Fay will undoubtedly take a leading part, due to his long contact with that body. It occurred to me that Lacey Walker could act as secretary of the meeting. Mr. Kountz also suggested that you notify the ICC at Washington of our proposed meeting so they will be advised of the steps being taken by the pipeline group in response to their request, but Mr. Kountz does not want a representative from the ICC present. DEAR BILL: Referring to my letter of yesterday, I have just been advised of a telegram from Mr. Bushnell to Mr. Kountz in which he stresses the inadvisability of having any representative from the ICC present at the meeting in New York on September 28. I have no doubt that Mr. Bushnell has been in touch with you. Nevertheless, I wired you this morning as per attached copy of telegram. Mr. Kountz has passed on the suggestion that you might advise the ICC that the pipeline group will have a meeting some time in the next 2 weeks after which they will be glad to confer with the ICC. I sent a similar telegram to Fayette Dow and am sending him a copy of this letter for his information. Wrote you yesterday regarding meeting on New oYrk valuation of pipelines. Officers of committee particularly anxious that ICC are not invited to this meeting. Write today. C. A. YOUNG. |