BNUMBER:  B-260748
DATE:  September 19, 1995
TITLE:  Tri-State Motor Transit Company

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Tri-State Motor Transit Company

File:     B-260748

Date:     September 19, 1995

DIGEST

Under item 325(1)(c) of the Military Traffic Management Command's 
Freight Traffic Rules Publication 1A, the Department of Defense is 
charged for a minimum of 5,000 pounds when it ships a lesser amount of 
"initiating or priming explosives, wet . . . ."  Thus, when the Army 
shipped 10.2 pounds of an article that it described on the government 
bill of lading (GBL) as "CLASS A-EXPLOSIVE-INITIATING 
EXPLOSIVE-DANGEROUS-DO NOT STORE OR LOAD WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES," and 
there is nothing in the record suggesting that the article did not 
meet the definition of a Class A initiating explosive described in 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 C.F.R.),  173.70 through 
173.78, it is reasonable to conclude that the article shipped was such 
an initiating explosive.  It was not necessary to include the word 
"wet" in the GBL description because, generally, the substances listed 
in 49 C.F.R.  173.70 through 173.78 cannot be transported in a dry 
condition.

DECISION

Tri-State Motor Transit Company, requests that we review the General 
Services Administration's (GSA) denial of its claim for $643.75 as an 
additional charge in government bill of lading (GBL) transaction 
D-0,718,670.  We reverse GSA's settlement.

The facts are not in dispute.  On June 5, 1990, Picatinny Arsenal in 
New Jersey, tendered a shipment weighing 10.2 pounds to Tri-State for 
dromedary transportation service to Englewood, Colorado.  The GBL 
described the article shipped as "CLASS A-EXPLOSIVE-INITIATING 
EXPLOSIVE-DANGEROUS-DO NOT STORE OR LOAD WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES."

Tri-State argues that under item 325(1)(c) of the Military Traffic 
Management Command's (MTMC) Freight Traffic Rules Publication 1A 
(MFTRP 1A), it is entitled to rate this dromedary shipment as a 
minimum 5,000 pound shipment.  At the time of shipment, Item 325(1)(c) 
(2d Rev. page 89) stated:

     "c.  Dromedary service will be subject to line-haul rates 
     alternating between the lower minimum weight of 2,500 pounds and 
     the higher minimum weight of 5,000 pounds.  Shipments of white 
     phosphorus or, initiating or priming explosives, wet:  
     Diazodinitrophenol, fulminate of mercury, guanyl, nitrosamino 
     guanylidene hydrazine, lead azide, lead styphnate, nitro mannite, 
     nitrosoguanidine, pentaerythrite tetranitrate, tetrazene, lead 
     mononitroresorcinate, will be subject to a line-haul minimum 
     weight of 5,000 pounds or actual weight, if greater, at the 5,000 
     pound tender rate. (See Note 3)."

Note 3 after item 325(3)(c) of MFTRP 1A involved the minimum weight 
for a shipment of a commodity with additional descriptive information 
following its hazardous material description which identified it as 
"chemical ammunition with incendiary charges or white phosphorus."

In its administrative report, GSA stated that our reconsideration of 
Tri-State Motor Transit Company, B-253293 et al., Dec. 10, 1993, would 
be dispositive of the issue here.  Otherwise, in its Settlement 
Certificate, GSA denied Tri-State's claim, noting that item 325(1)(c) 
involved shipments of initiating or priming explosives, wet, while the 
shipment in issue involved Class A Explosive-Initiating Explosive.  
MTMC stated that the 5,000 pound minimum weight charge did apply to 
the commodity shipped here even though it did not include the word 
"wet" in the commodity description "because 'dry' cannot be 
transported or tendered for shipment."

The issue here is distinguishable from the one we are reconsidering in 
B-253293.2 et al.  Our reconsideration, B-253293.2 et al., involves 
the interpretation of Note 3, particularly, whether certain 
commodities were "chemical ammunition with incendiary charges or white 
phosphorus."  Nothing indicates that the commodity here involves 
"chemical ammunition with incendiary charges or white phosphorus;" 
therefore, Note 3 is not involved.  The issue is whether "CLASS 
A-EXPLOSIVE-INITIATING EXPLOSIVE," as described on the GBL, is a 
shipment of "initiating or priming explosives, wet."

In our view, the record supports the conclusion reached by MTMC that 
the commodity shipped was "initiating or priming explosives, wet" as 
described in item 325(1)(c).  The description of an article on a GBL 
is prima facie correct.  See Yellow Freight System, Inc., B-197298, 
Sept. 12, 1980, 80-2 CPD  193 and Yellow Freight System, Inc., 
B-192872, May 7, 1979.  This rule does not apply when the carrier or 
the government demonstrate that something different was shipped or 
when the GBL description was ambiguous (e.g., pertinent classification 
characteristics were missing).  Id.  But, in this case, the only issue 
raised by GSA in its audit was whether the minimum weight provision 
applied to all initiating explosives, "wet" or otherwise.

The Hazardous Materials Regulations in effect at the time of shipment, 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 C.F.R.), particularly  
173.70 through 173.78 (1989) relate to the specific types of Class A 
initiating explosives named in item 325(1)(c).  These regulations 
support the general prohibition against transporting the initiating 
explosives listed in item 325(1)(c) in a dry condition.  They also 
required the marking of the container holding the named initiating 
explosives with "INITIATING EXPLOSIVE-DANGEROUS-DO NOT STORE OR LOAD 
WITH ANY HIGH EXPLOSIVE."  The notation on the GBL involved here is 
nearly identical to the regulatory marking requirements.  Thus, the 
GBL description and associated notation suggests that the article 
involved one of the initiating explosive substances described in 49 
C.F.R.  173.70 through 173.78 and that by item 325(1)(c), MTMC 
intended to apply a 5,000 pound minimum weight when the Department of 
Defense shipped one of these substances.

In the absence of something on the record to suggest a reasonable 
basis for questioning whether the article shipped was, in fact, an 
initiating explosive, we conclude that the GBL did justify it.  GSA's 
settlement is reversed and the claim is allowed.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel