thermore, if the tariffs remained unchanged our determination would serve as a guide for their application in the future which both carriers and shippers would be obligated to follow.

The complainants contend that the assailed rules are void for uncertainty and that, therefore, the classification rating of first class was the applicable basis of rates on chips when the shipments in question moved. Complainants take the position that the terms "light and bulky," as used in the rules, are too general and are subject to differences of opinion between carriers and shippers as to whether a particular article is within the meaning of the terms. Removed from their context, the terms are indefinite. Tariff provisions, however, must be considered in their entirety and given a fair and reasonable construction. The rules provide tests for determining whether any shipment comes within the meaning of such words. For example, in the rule reproduced in appendix A, the test was whether the shipment measured in excess of 64 cubic feet and weighed less than 8 pounds a cubic foot. In the current rule, shown in appendix B, the measurement and weight tests are 50 cubic feet and 10 pounds a cubic foot, respectively. The complainants also contend that the specific classification rating on chips takes precedence over the general description used in the rules. The latter are not exceptions ratings, but general rules governing the defendants' class rates. The effect of such rules, if applied, is to supersede the ratings. We conclude, however, that the rules were applicable on complainants' shipments which met the tests provided thereby.

No evidence was adduced with respect to the measurements of the complete shipments listed in the complaint, nor of the number of boxes in each shipment. The rules then in effect applied only when the shipment measured in excess of 64 cubic feet and weighed less than 8 pounds for each cubic foot of space occupied. The 18 past shipments, with but one exception, each weighed 320 pounds or more. Since complainants' most heavily packed box weighs approximately 4.4 pounds a cubic foot, it is obvious that at least 17 of those shipments occupied more than 64 cubic feet of space. The remaining shipment weighed 192 pounds. Considered from the standpoint of the average shipping density of complainants' boxes, approximately 3 to 4.4 pounds a cubic foot, this shipment might or might not have exceeded 64 cubic feet. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., however, seeks to collect additional charges thereon based on a constructive weight of 480 pounds, which, at 8 pounds a cubic foot in accordance with the then effective rule, would indicate that the shipment measured only 60 cubic feet. On the evidence before us, we conclude that, on the shipment of July 25, 1942, weighing 192 pounds, from Portland to Everett, the applicable charges were those based on the first-class rate at actual

weight; and that, on the remaining 17 past shipments in issue herein, the applicable charges were those based on first-class rates at the constructive weight of 8 pounds a cubic foot provided in the assailed rules.

The next question for consideration is whether the applicable rates and charges on chips were and are reasonable and otherwise lawful. Complainants contend that the classification rating of first class on chips in less than truckloads represents a reasonable maximum. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the maintenance of the assailed rules on light and bulky articles for approximately 6 years raises a presumption that those rules and the resulting charges are reasonable. The Office of Price Administration takes the position that a finding which would have the effect of increasing the transportation charges on chips would result in demands for an upward adjustment of price ceilings on this commodity and consequently would have an inflationary tendency.

The line-haul equipment utilized by the motor carriers in the territory here considered consists primarily of combinations of a twoaxle truck towing a two-axle trailer. The average capacities of the van-type trucks and trailers are 757 and 943 cubic feet, and 11,000 and 20,000 pounds, respectively. To load each of such vehicles to these weight capacities would require lading having minimum densities of 14.54 and 21.2 pounds a cubic foot, respectively. As already indicated, chips weigh from 3 to 4.4 pounds a cubic foot. Based on these densities, from 5,100 to 7,480 pounds of chips would occupy the entire loading space in a truck and trailer combination. Under the current rule, which provides a constructive weight of 10 pounds a cubic foot, the charges on a truck-and-trailer load of chips from Portland to Seattle, for example, computed on a constructive weight of 17,000 pounds at the first-class rate of 88 cents for the 190 miles, would result in revenue of $149.60 or 78.7 cents a truck-and-trailer mile. Based on the actual weight of such a load at the first-class rate, as sought by complainants, the revenue would range from $44.88 to $65.82 a load, or from 23.6 to 34.6 cents a truck-and-trailer mile. The actual weight at the proposed basis of one and one-half times first class would yield revenues ranging from 35.4 to 52 cents a truck-and-trailer mile. Chips have never moved, however, except in small shipments weighing a few hundred pounds.

Defendants say that the assailed rules are necessary to insure adequate compensation for the use of their vehicles. They contend that provisions for the use of constructive weights in computing charges on articles of unusual size or bulk are not unlawful. They refer to rule 29 of the railroads' Consolidated Classification which provides that, when a less-than-carload shipment, on account of its

length, cannot be loaded in one car, a minimum charge based on 7,500 pounds at the first-class rate for each car used shall apply; also, that a minimum charge, based on 4,000 pounds at the first-class rates shall apply on a shipment which cannot be loaded through a closed car's center side doorway 6 feet wide by 7 feet 6 inches high. Likewise, a minimum charge based on 1,000 pounds at the first-class rate applies on shipments exceeding 24 feet, but not exceeding 40 feet 7 inches in length, and not exceeding 15 inches in diameter or other dimension. Defendants argue that this rail classification rule of long standing is intended to apply to conditions similar to those confronting motor carriers in transporting light and bulky articles.

The rail classification rule does not remove the application of rates or ratings on the long and bulky articles, but provides minimum charges thereon. Defendants' rules, however, except on small shipments, have the effect of completely superseding the classification ratings on articles weighing less than a stated number of pounds a cubic foot.

To avoid the payment of higher charges based on the constructive weight at 10 pounds per cubic foot of space occupied, it is necessary under the present rules that the size of a shipment be kept below 50 cubic feet. If a shipment of 1,000 pounds of potato chips were made to one consignee, the higher charges under the rule would apply, because the shipment would occupy almost 200 cubic feet of space. If the same shipment were divided into five separate shipments, however, each moving on a separate bill of lading, the rule would not apply, even though the five shipments were consigned to the same receiver. The effect of such a rule is to force the shipper to keep down the size of shipments of such commodities as potato chips, and in doing so, to subject itself and the carriers to additional clerical work. The evidence fails to show that the assailed rules actually result in economical transportation.

It is unreasonable to exact charges on the basis of a magnified and artificial constructive weight. Articles which, in relation to weight, occupy an undue amount of space in motor carriers' equipment can be made to bear their just share of the cost of transportation through proper classification ratings and charges based on actual weights. This would be consistent with the theory underlying the general freight classification observed by respondents. The act makes no distinction between light and bulky commodities and heavy and dense commodities, with respect to the requirements of just and reasonable classification and just and reasonable rates. The rules under consideration put all commodities below a certain fixed density in the same class, notwithstanding there may be a great variance in density as between different commodities. The rule in appendix B applies

to articles having a density from 1 to 9 pounds per cubic foot. The record indicates that chips have never weighed as much as the 8 and 10 pounds per cubic foot specified in the assailed rules. Their transportation characteristics are fairly constant and for a long period have been well known to the carriers. Specific classification ratings reflecting their transportation characteristics could and should have been provided.

Although the evidence herein deals primarily with potato chips, rules of the character here considered are equally as objectionable if applied to any other commodity of low weight density. All parties to the rules, insofar as they apply in the territory within the scope of the complaint, are before us. We conclude that the assailed rules result in unjust and unreasonable charges and unduly and unreasonably prejudice commodities affected thereby, and unduly and unreasonably prefer commodities which do not come within the purview of the rules, and that the rules should be canceled.

Complainants stress the fact that from and to certain points in the States under consideration, among others, commodity rates on chips on a basis lower than first class are maintained by certain motor carriers. Most of those rates are maintained by carriers parties to tariffs issued by an agency other than the one which publishes the defendants' tariffs. Moreover, it does not appear that the transportation conditions surrounding the movement of chips under the compared rates are similar to those here considered, or that the defendants control any of such compared commodity rates.

On a large list of grocery articles, not including chips, defendants maintain any-quantity rates from Portland to certain destinations. Complainants show that the basis of one and one-half times first class on chips would result in a rate of $3.18 to Boise, for example, while the defendants, at the time of the hearing, maintained a commodity rate from Portland to Boise of $1.03 on noodles, cereals, tea, and other articles of low density included in the grocery list. Subsequent to the hearing, this rate was reduced to 97 cents. This grocery list, however, also includes articles of high density such as canned goods, flour, and sugar.

The rating of one and one-half times first class proposed on chips in I. and S. No. M-2119 is designed to relieve the product of the complaining shipper from the application of rules providing for charges on light and bulky articles, and at the same time to insure compensa. tory revenues to the carriers for the transportation of chips.

With respect to commodities shipped by rail we have held generally the weight per cubic foot is a more important factor than the value per pound. Artkraft Sign Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 225 I. C. C. 500; Better Bedding Alliance of America v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,

581984m45-vol. 43- -24

148 I. C. C. 66. In Classification Rating on Wooden Egg Cases or Carriers, 159 I. C. C. 184, it was said:

Articles of such low weight density, by the usual transportation tests, generally justify less-than-carload ratings in excess of first class.

What was there said applies with even greater force to commodities transported by motor carriers, in view of the smaller capacity of their equipment. Motor-carrier ratings of one and one-half times first class have been approved on a number of articles of density and value similar to those of potato chips, as follows: On ice-cream cones, any quantity, averaging 4.2 pounds a cubic foot, and 12 cents a pound, in Dishes or Ice Cream Cones Classification Rating, 12 M. C. C. 55; on bicycles, any quantity, ranging from 4.7 to 5 pounds a cubic foot, and 43 cents a pound, in Bicycles from Westfield, Mass., to New England and East, 42 M. C. C. 442; and on ribbon-winding spools, any quantity, 5.3 pounds a cubic foot, and 24 cents a pound, in Classifications in Middle Atlantic States, 42 M. C. C. 716, decided September 21, 1943. Considering the transportation characteristics of chips, we conclude that on less-than-truckload shipments of the commodity a rating of first class would be less than reasonable, and that a rating of one and one-half times first class would be just and reasonable.

The proposed rating of one and one-half times first class would be published as an exception to the classification rating of first class. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the chips being transported by respondents in the Pacific Northwest are materially different, from a transportation standpoint, than those being transported by these and other carriers throughout western classification territory. In Classifications in Middle Atlantic States, supra, proposals to establish, in a portion of official classification territory, exceptions ratings higher than the classification ratings applicable throughout the entire classification territory were in issue. Division 3 concluded that a rating of one and one-half times first class would be just and reasonable on certain spools, bands, or rings, but stated:

There is nothing in the record to show that the transportation characteristics of the articles transported by the respondents from and to the points between which the exception ratings would apply differ from those transported between other points by the respondents. If a rating in the general classification is too low, the carriers should correct it by changing the general classification and not by providing a higher rating in an exception to the classification. The respondents should give consideration to increasing the rating in the general classification before filing an increased rating in their exceptions to the classification. The ratings proposed for application as exceptions ratings have not been shown to be just and reasonable.

We agree with the principle there announced, and believe that in view of the transportation characteristics of potato chips, any change in the rating thereon should be established in the classification proper.