very much "alive," and since a carrier is often presented with a claim for its proportionate amount due on an overcharge claim presented to another carrier, it should have its records. Furthermore, in a case in which a claim is allowed by a handling carrier, it can be assumed that the other carriers were notified prior to or at least no later than the shipper. Thus, substantial prejudice is nonexistent. The statute of limitations should not be used mechanically to prevent adjudication of a claim where the real parties in interest were at least constructively alerted to the proceedings. "The ends of justice are not served when forfeiture of just claims because of technical rules is allowed." Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel Construction Specialties Co., 382 F. 2d 103, 106.

It is recognized that courts should construe the statute of limitations liberally, allowing as much latitude as possible, to save a cause of action, if possible, from the bar of limitations. Subtleties and technical objections should be viewed in an honest effort to determine the real issues on their merits and to try to do substantial justice. Justice would not be done if notice of overcharge to one carrier did not serve as notice to all carrier participants in a joint through rate. In addition, as a matter of policy, we believe it is undesirable to require a shipper to file an initial overcharge claim with all possible future defendants as it would result in a duplication of effort on the part of both shippers and carriers.

We, therefore, find that the statute of limitations is tolled upon the filing of an overcharge claim with any carrier participating in a joint through rate.

We do not believe that bankruptcy of the carrier handling the claim is material. If the claim is timely filed with the carrier handling the claim, all carriers participating in the joint through rate are deemed to have notice and are liable for any meritorious claims. If any carrier participating in the joint through rate becomes insolvent, the other carriers are liable for the insolvent carrier's portion. If the handling carrier is insolvent, the other carriers are no less liable jointly and severally for the full amount of the overcharge. Thus, there is no reason why the timely filed claim. cannot be turned over to another carrier jointly and severally liable for handling. We are not contemplating withdrawals and refiling of the claim but a mere transfer. This is especially true once the investigation is complete and claim acknowledged as correct. Financially capable carriers should not be allowed to obtain free use of the shippers money merely because the claim has not been

processed by the trustee in bankruptcy. Thus, we find that a carrier's inability to pay or handle an overcharge claim, establishes a right to transfer the overcharge claim for handling to any connecting carrier participating in the movement.

Petitioner requests a finding that declination of a claim by a carrier constitutes a "disallowance" as that term is used in the limitations statute. The carriers argue that such an interpretation would nullify the statute. We disagree. Shippers who have had their overcharge claims declined by carriers are entitled to their day in court. If carriers which are or may be liable to the shippers for overcharges decline to handle the claim, that declination shall be deemed a “disallowance" so that shippers shall have 6 months in which to file a formal complaint with this Commission.

We find that (1) the statute of limitations on overcharge claims is tolled upon the filing of a claim with any carrier participating in a joint through rate; (2) a carrier's inability to handle an overcharge claim establishes a right to transfer the overcharge claim for handling to any connecting carrier in the movement; and (3) a connecting carrier's failure to accept a claim or notice from the connecting carrier that it will not process the claim shall constitute a disallowance of the claim as that term is used in section 16(3)(c) of the act.

We further find that 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.

COMMISSIONER HARDIN did not participate.

IT IS ORDERED, That this proceeding be, and it is hereby discontinued.

APPENDIX

Parties, in order of filing

1. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.

2. Richard Lougee

355 I.C.C.

3. Brown Transport Corp.

4. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.

5. Central Transport, Inc.

6. Boise Cascade Corporation

7. Association of American Railroads

Chessie System

Western Railroad Association (jointly)

8. National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc.

9. New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry 10. Denenholz & Janer, Inc.

11. Wilson Freight Company

12. Yellow Freight System

13. Overnite Transportation Company

14. Shippers National Freight Claim Council, Inc.

15. The Commercial Traffic Co., Inc.

16. Archer Daniels Midland

17. Motor Carriers Central Freight Association

355 I.C.C.

EX PARTE NO. 318

INCREASED FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES-1976

Decided August 2, 1976

1. Proposed increases in freight rates and charges found necessary, in part, to enable the respondents to provide adequate and efficient transportation service required in the public interest, and to the extent authorized, not unjust and unreasonable, or otherwise in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.

2. Authority granted respondent railroads to establish a 7-percent increase in freight rates and charges, within and between all territories, subject to indicated exceptions.

3. Authorization of considered increases found not to constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. However, a determination of the lawfulness of the rate increase on commodities moving for purposes of recycling ordered to be held in abeyance pending completion of tae Commission's investigation in Ex Parte No. 319, Investigation of Freight Rates for the Transportation of Recyclable or Recycled Materials.

4. Progress noted in respondents' updating of tariffs; continuing priority efforts found to be necessary and reporting requirement continued.

5. Service considerations and future actions discussed. Showing of improved service required as prerequisite to filing of general increase proposals. Continued filing of quarterly reports ordered.

6. Appropriate orders will be entered implementing the Commission's findings herein; proceeding discountined.

Harry N. Babcock, Robert B. Batchelder, Curtis H. Berg, R. W. Bridges, Leland E. Butler, J. T. Clark, John A. Daily, Harry L. DeLung, Jr., Louis T. Duernick, R. S. M. Emrich III, J. D. Feeney, Stuart F. Gassner, Louis Harris, Dennis J. Helfman, James L. Howe III, Charlie H. Johns, Edward A. Kaier, Richard W. Kienle, George H. Kleinberger, Howard D. Koontz, Richard D. Lalanne, Charles N. Marshall, Foster A. Mattson, John P. McCall, Don McDevitt, Richard J. Murphy, Joseph J. Nagle, Joseph M. O'Malley, John J. Paylor, C. Harold Peterson, Chas. C. Rettberg, Jr., Albert B. Russ, Jr., Scott W. Scully, John F. Smith, James L. Tapley, Wm. A. Thie, R. Everett Thompson, Thomas E. Tisza, D. M. Tolmie, Walter G. Treanor, Donal L. Turkal, John S. Walker, Sidney Weinberg, and Robert E. Zimmerman for respondents.

Charles M. Pearson and Michael E. Sullivan for the United States Department of Agriculture.

Dellon E. Coker for the United States Department of Defense. Randolph W. Deutsch, Richard D. Gravelle, and J. Calvin Simpson for the State of California and Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.

G. B. Perry for the New Orleans Traffic and Transportation Bureau, State of Louisiana.

T. M. Hogg for the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, State of Louisiana.

Honorable James B. Longley for the State of Maine.

Roger L. Mallar for the Department of Transportation, State of Maine.

James B. Boillot for the Department of Agriculture, State of Missouri.

Gene J. Carroll and Terry C. Whiteside for the Department of Agriculture, State of Montana.

Geoffry L. Brazier for the State of Montana Consumer Counsel. George H. Morin for the State of North Dakota Public Service Commission.

John Finsness for the State of North Dakota Wheat Commission. Don Dudley for the State of Oklahoma Wheat Commission. John D. Kratochvil for the Department of Agriculture, State of Oregon.

Charles Davis for the Public Utility Commissioner, State of Oregon.

Joseph H. Francis for the Agricultural Development Council, State of Utah.

William L. Johnson for the Public Service Commission, State of Wyoming.

Honorable Dr. Hugh M. Horner, Deputy Premier, and Minister, Department of Transportation; Honorable Robert Dowling, Minister, Department of Business Development and Tourism; and C. J. Roth, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Transportation, Province of Alberta, Canada.

Honorable Jack Davis, Minister, and Robert A. Edwards for the Department of Transport and Communication, Province of British Columbia, Canada.

B. B. Abercrombie, Lee Adler, D. Ainsworth, William R. Allen, Jr., Bruce Anderson, Clarence N. Anderson, Robert G. Asheim, Alan Austad, William L. Bailes, Jr., Joseph R. Baiocco, Duane A. Bartsch, W. H. Bassett, C. W. Bath, William M. Behrendt, Roy C.