Boston, Mass. 
Buffalo, N. Y. 
Chicago, Ill. 
Cincinnati, Chio 
Cleveland, Ohio 
Columbia, S. C. 
Columbus, Ohio 
Denver, Colo. 
Detroit, Mich. 
Duluth, Minn. 
Jacksonville, Fla. 
Jackson, Miss. 
Kansas City, Mo. 
Los Angeles, Calif. 
Memphis, Tenn. 
Miami, Fla. 
Milwaukee, Wis. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
Montgomery, Ala. 
Newark, N. J. 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Portland, Oreg. 
Raleigh, N. C. 
Richmond, Va. 
Rochester, N. Y. 
Sacramento, Calif. 
St. Louis, Mo. 
Salt Lake City, Utah 
San Diego, Calif. 
San Francisco, Calif. 
Fargo, N. Dak. New Orleans, La. : Seattle, Wash. 
Fort Worth, Tex. New York, N. Y. Shreveport, La. 
Harrisburg, Pa. Norfolk, Va. Tampa, Fla. 
Hartford, Conn. Oklahoma City, Okla. Trenton, N. J. 
Houston, Tex. Philadelphia, Pa. Washington, D. C. 
Indianapolis, Ind. Phoenix, Ariz. Winter Haven, Fla. 
A large percentage of the requests for inspections at receiving markets are 
for cars of produce which are believed by the receivers to have changed in condi- 
tion during the transit period. Thus, the receiver may request inspection for 
condition only. He wants the official inspection report for the purpose of show- 
ing what percentage of the stock has deteriorated and to what extent. 
The information on the report may be used’ in making final settlement with 
the shipper and for the purpose of aiding in fixing responsibility for the deteriora- 
tion. Possibly high car temperatures and lack of ice in bunkers may indicate 
that the railroad company was negligent in handling the car. Again, the inspec- 
tor may name the specific disease which causes the decay. The damage might 
have been caused by a field disease which did not develop until after the car was 
rolled. In such a case, the damage would be the shipper’s responsibility because 
the product was not in suitable shipping condition. The inspection certificate 
is of material aid in helping to fix responsibility for damage and to determine who 
shall stand the losses, if any. 
Often the receiver may question the grade of a car of produce which was in- 
spected and certified as of a certain grade at shipping point. Therefore, he 
might request an appeal inspection. For such requests, usually two inspectors 
are assigned to make the appeal inspection, in which case they would examine 
at least twice the regulation number of samples. No charge for the inspection is 
made to the applicant if it is found that the shipping-point inspection was in error 
and the report is reversed. However, a double charge for an appeal inspection is 
levied if the original inspection is Sustuned: 
Inspection procedure in receiving markets is similar to that employed by in- 
spectors at shipping points. The Federal inspector selects representative samples 
from various parts of the car or lot, analyzes them in accordance with require- 
ments of the standards, and reports the facts on the inspection certificate (fig. 8). 
Often in a car inspection it is necessary to restrict the inspection to the accessible 
portion of the load, such as the two upper layers or even between doorways if 
the car is heavily loaded or top-iced. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make 
loads accessible for unrestricted inspection and often it is necessary for him to 
furnish helpers and a truck to make the load accessible for inspection. 
The receiving-market inspection certificate differs from the shipping-point 
certificate in that separate headings are provided for the quality and condition 
statements. On the shipping- “point certificate these headings are combined. The 
quality statement, of course, pertains to permanent factors of grade which do not 
change in transit. Defects of a progressive nature, such as decay, freezing injury, 
wilting, and other factors which are subject to change during the transit period, 
are reported under the condition heading. 
24 
