B-148380, JUN. 7, 1962

B-148380, JUN. 7, 1962

GULF, MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 5, 1962, FILE GOVT. G- 47016-CL25, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES OF $106.10 ON THE SHIPMENT MOVING FROM LACARNE, OHIO, TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, UNDER BILL OF LADING WY- 2238345 DATED DECEMBER 29, 1953.

THE PAYMENT RECORDS SHOW THIS SHIPMENT CONSISTED OF ONE GUN, NOIBN, BORE UNDER 6" BUT NOT LESS THAN 3/4 INCHES, MOUNTED, WITH EQUIPMENT OF EXTRA PARTS AND WEIGHED 7,640 POUNDS. FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED, YOUR COMPANY ORIGINALLY BILLED AND WAS PAID FREIGHT CHARGES OF $302.45 COMPUTED ON A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 10,000 POUNDS AT A RATE OF $2.63 PER HUNDRED POUNDS, PLUS THE 15 PERCENT EX-PARTE INCREASE. THEREAFTER, BY BILL G-47016-B, YOU CLAIMED ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $106.10 WHICH REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARGES ORIGINALLY PAID AND THE CHARGES ASSERTED TO BE DUE BASED ON THE LESS-THAN- CARLOAD CLASS 150 RATE OF $4.65 PER HUNDRED POUNDS, PLUS THE 15 PERCENT EX-PARTE INCREASE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BASED ON RULE 15 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION 20 WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE CHARGE FOR A LESS THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENT MUST NOT EXCEED THE CHARGE FOR A CARLOAD OF THE SAME FREIGHT AT THE CARLOAD RATE SUBJECT TO THE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT.

IN REQUESTING REVIEW AND PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM, YOU CONTEND THAT IF THE CARLOAD BASIS IS APPLIED,THEN THE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 10,000 POUNDS MUST BE INCREASED TO 14,200 POUNDS UNDER SECTION 7 OF RULE 34 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION 20, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER PLACED FOR A CAR OF A SPECIFIED LENGTH, THE MINIMUM WEIGHT SHALL BE THAT FIXED FOR THE CAR USED.

IN PENN METAL CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA V. DELAWARE AND H. R.CORP., 227 I.C.C. 167, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN CONSIDERING A SIMILAR SHIPMENT, POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NEITHER CUSTOMARY NOR PERMISSIBLE FOR A SHIPPER TO ORDER A CAR FOR A LESS-THAN- CARLOAD SHIPMENT. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT WHILE SECTION 1 OF RULE 15 DID NOT DEFINE MINIMUM WEIGHT, SECTION 2 PROVIDED THAT IN THE EVENT THE CARRIER LOADED THE SHIPMENT THE MINIMUM WEIGHT WOULD BE BASED ON THE SIZE CAR REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE THE SHIPMENT, RATHER THAN THE SIZE CAR USED. THE COMMISSION ALSO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT, ON CARLOAD TRAFFIC, RULE 34 PROVIDES THAT IF THE CARRIER IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE SHIPPER A CAR OF THE LENGTH ORDERED, AND FURNISHES A LONGER CAR AT ITS CONVENIENCE, THE MINIMUM WEIGHT SHALL BE THAT FIXED FOR THE SIZE CAR ORDERED IF ADEQUATE FOR THE SHIPMENT. IN VIEW OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE BASIC MINIMUM WEIGHT WITHOUT INCREASE UNDER RULE 34 WAS APPLICABLE TO THE SHIPMENT.

SEE ALSO INFILCO, INC. V. DELAWARE AND H. R.CORP., 293 I.C.C. 768, 771, WHERE THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE MAXIMUM-CHARGE PROVISIONS OF RULE 15 DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CONVERTING LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS INTO CARLOAD SHIPMENTS, AND HELD THAT HIGHER MINIMUM WEIGHTS ESTABLISHED ON CARLOAD TRAFFIC DID NOT HAVE APPLICATION IN COMPUTING THE MAXIMUM CHARGES UNDER RULE 15 ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS.

THUS THE MAXIMUM FREIGHT CHARGES UNDER RULE 15 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ARE THOSE COMPUTED ON A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 10,000 POUNDS AT THE CARLOAD RATE. SINCE THE PAYMENT RECORDS SHOW THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS PAID ON THIS BASIS, THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED, AND IS SUSTAINED.