36672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices

be deemed finally accepted and the

Final Order issued on the 16th day.

21. Red Rock and Blackjack have

recently become members of the

American Fireworks Standards

Laboratory (AFSL). Based on current

data, the Commission staff believes that

fireworks imported under the AFSL

testing and certification program are

more likely to comply with the

Commission’s Fireworks Regulations

than non-AFSL fireworks are.

Accordingly, the Commission will not

pursue FHSA violations against Red

Rock and Blackjack for those fireworks

products legitimately tested and

certified by AFSL as complying with the

Commission’s Fireworks Regulations, as

the AFSL program is currently

structured and administered. However,

the Commission staff will continue to

monitor the AFSL program. If the

Commission staff determines that the

AFSL program does not adequately

assure compliance with the fireworks

regulations, it will notify Red Rock and

Blackjack in writing. After providing

such written notice to Red Rock and

Blackjack, the Commission staff will

have the enforcement discretion to

pursue violations of the FHSA and the

Commission’s Fireworks Regulations

against Red Rock and Blackjack for

AFSL tested fireworks products

received and/or imported by Red Rock

and Blackjack after such notification

date. The Commission staff’s

determination on the adequacy of the

AFSL testing and certification program

is neither reviewable nor subject to

challenge by Red Rock and Blackjack

nor provides a basis for Red Rock and

Blackjack to challenge this Agreement.

22. This Settlement Agreement may

be used in interpreting the Order.

Agreements, understandings,

representations, or interpretations apart

from those contained in this Settlement

Agreement and incorporated Order may

not be used to vary or contradict its

terms.

23. The provisions of this Settlement

Agreement and Order shall apply to Red

Rock and Blackjack and each of their

successors and assigns.

24. Upon final acceptance of this

Agreement, the Commission shall issue

the attached Final Order.

Respondent’s Red Rock Trading Company,

Inc. and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc.

Dated: March 13, 2000.

Tim McCoy,

President, Red Rock Trading Company, Inc.

and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc., 6000 South

Eastern, Suite 11E, Las Vegas, NV 89119.

Commission Staff

Alan H. Schoem,

Assistant Executive Director, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, Office of

Compliance, Washington, D.C. 20207–0001.

Eric L. Stone,

Director, Legal Division, Office of

Compliance.

Dated: March 16, 2000.

Dennis C. Kacoyanis,

Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of

Compliance.

Order

Upon consideration of the Settlement

Agreement entered into between

Respondents Red Rock Trading

Company, Inc., a corporation, Blackjack

Fireworks, Inc., a corporation, and the

staff of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission; and the Commission

having jurisdiction over the subject

matter and Red Rock Trading Company,

Inc. and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc.; and

it appearing that the Settlement

Agreement and Order is in the public

interest, it is

Ordered, that the Settlement

Agreement be and hereby is accepted;

and it is

Further ordered, that upon final

acceptance of the Settlement Agreement

and Order, Red Rock Trading Company,

Inc. and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc. shall

pay a civil penalty in the amount of

ninety thousand and 00/100 dollars

($90,000.00) in three (3) payments. The

first payment of forty thousand and 00/

100 dollars ($40,000.00) shall be due

within twenty (20) days after service

upon Red Rock Trading Company, Inc.

and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc. of the

Final Order of the Commission

accepting the Settlement Agreement

(hereinafter, the ‘‘anniversary date’’).

The second payment of twenty-five

thousand and 00/100 dollars

($25,000.00) shall be paid on or before

August 1, 2000. The third payment of

twenty-five thousand and 00/100 dollars

($25,000.00) shall be made within one

year of the anniversary date. Upon the

failure of Red Rock Trading Company,

Inc. and Blackjack Fireworks, Inc. to

make a payment or upon Red Rock

Trading Company, Inc. and Blackjack

Fireworks, Inc. making a late payment

(a) the entire amount of the civil penalty

shall be due and payable, and (b)

interest on the outstanding balance shall

accrue and be paid at the federal legal

rate of interest under the provisions of

28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (c).

Provisionally accepted and Provisional

Order issued on the 5th day of June, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–14543 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Reissuance of MFTRP No. 1A as

MFTRP No. 1B, Including PowerTrack

Requirements

AGENCY: Military Traffic Management

Command, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Military Traffic

Management Command (MTMC), as the

Department of Defense (DoD) Traffic

Manager for surface and surface

intermodal traffic management services,

hereby cancels MTMC Freight Traffic

Rules Publication (MFTRP) No. 1A in its

entirety and replaces it with MFTRP No.

1B, effective September 30, 2000. The

actual text of the 1B will be available on

the Internet at MTMC’s website at

www.mtmc.army.mil by clicking in

succession on: (1) Transportation

Services, (2) Freight Logistics, (3)

Freight Traffic Rules Publications and

then clicking on the appropriate box

indicating the 1B. In conjunction with

the replacement of the 1A with the 1B,

use of the PowerTrack automated billing

and payment system will become

mandatory on September 30, 2000 for

all DoD freight shipped in accordance

with the 1B motor rules publication.

Specifically, motor carriers wishing to

transport DoD freight effective

September 30, 2000 must have a signed

agreement with US Bank and be

PowerTrack certified to be eligible to

pick up shipments on or after that date.

The 1B is being issued by MTMC

Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia;

however, responsibility for the

publication after its original issuance

will pass from MTMC Headquarters to

MTMC’s Deployment Support

Command at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

DATES: MFTRP No. 1A is cancelled and

MFTRP No. 1B is effective September

30, 2000.

ADDRESSES:

(Until September 30, 2000)

Headquarters, Military Traffic

Management Command, ATTN:

MTOP–MRM, Room 10N–07,

Hoffman II Building, 200 Stovall

Street, Alexandria, VA 22332–5000,

attn: Jerome Colton, e-mail:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices 36673

coltonj@mtmc.army.mil

(After September 30, 2000)

MTMC Deployment Support

Command, attn: Steve Lord, Room

201, Bldg. 664 Sheppard Place, Fort

Eustis, VA 23604, e-mail:

lords@mtmc.army.mil

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information contact Mr.

Jerome Colton at 703–428–2324.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

change is effective on September 30,

2000. A notice proposing this change

was published in the Federal Register,

Vol. 64, No. 245, page 71742,

Wednesday, December 22, 1999. In

response to this notice, a total of three

(3) letters (two from carriers and one

from a carrier association) were received

during the 60-day comment period. The

synopsis of the comments and MTMC’s

responses appear below. Comments

pertaining to material which did not

change from the 1A from the 1B will be

referenced but not synopsized, and will

be followed by the standard response

‘‘There has been no substantive change

from the 1A to the 1B’’. The comments

and responses are as follows:

Comment: Electronic Commerce/

Electronic Data Interchange and

PowerTrack (Items 16 and 20). Will

there be ample time to implement these

programs prior to their becoming

mandatory? When will these programs

be mandatory? Some aspects of these

programs impose an unfair burden on

carriers.

Response:

(a) PowerTrack and other automation

programs are required by the Secretary

of Defense under Management Reform

Memorandum Number 15.

(b) Motor carriers wishing to transport

DoD motor freight must have a signed

agreement and be PowerTrack certified

by September 30, 2000.

(c) These initiatives were publicized

at various times in the past year

including announcements at workshops

and symposia and carriers have had

ample time to prepare. Item 20 of the 1B

draft text, referenced in the Federal

Register announcement of and posted

on MTMC’s website since December 22,

1999 stated: ‘‘Implementation of

PowerTrack began in 1999, and is

expected to become mandatory in

September 2000 * * *, at which time it

will become the exclusive mechanism

for payment of freight bills by DoD.

Carriers are therefore strongly

encouraged to become PowerTrackcertified as soon as possible.’’ Qualified

motor carriers still not PowerTrack

capable who wish to continue carrying

DoD freight after September 30, 2000 are

urged to contact US Bank immediately

at 1010 South Seventh Street,

Minneapolis, MN 55415, Tel: 612–973–

6597. Additional information on

PowerTrack is available at

www.usbank.com/powertrack.

(d) Over three hundred MTMCqualified motor carriers already have a

signed PowerTrack agreement with US

Bank.

(e) Although MTMC is not privy to

the individual PowerTrack agreement

between US Bank and each carrier, it is

our understanding that the fees charged

are well within industry norms and

lower than those charged by factoring

companies. This is in part due to the

elimination of paper from the billing

process and the benefits of automation,

which has also resulted in carriers being

paid in a fraction of the time it has taken

in a non-automated environment.

Overall response to PowerTrack has

been overwhelmingly positive.

Comment: After-the-fact negotiations

(Items 18 and 21).

Response: There has been no

substantive change from the 1A and 1B.

Comment: GBL Correction Notices

(Item 19). The thirty-day time limit for

carriers to request a Correction Notice is

restrictive, unfair, and unrealistic, and

not in the spirit of related statutes

which provide for a 180-day time limit.

Response: In accordance with the

implementation of PowerTrack which

will eliminate GBLs, the new

PowerTrack procedures will come into

effect vice GBL Correction Notices.

Comment: Alternation—Item 60. (1)

Transportation Officers (TOs) should be

permitted to authorize a non-alternating

point-to-point tender in special cases or

by specifying same on the GBL; (2)

Sixteen point-to-point exceptions in

PowerTrack territorial tenders will not

be sufficient; (3) Alternation to the

lowest rate will result in service

degradation, as certain shipping lanes

have special requirements.

Response: (1) Both the automated

environment and necessary

administrative procedures make it

unfeasible to allow TOs to authorize

non-alternating point-to-point tenders.

(2) The 1B has increased point-to-point

exceptions from six to sixteen. Sixteen

exceptions is more than sufficient for

virtually all situations, as confirmed by

both experience and multiple informal

conversations and meetings with

carriers. If ever a rare case arises where

this is insufficient, that one tender can

be restructured or divided using various

options, such as reducing the size of the

territory covered. (3) Shipping lanes

with special requirements should be

listed as one of the exceptions to the

territorial rate.

Comment: Customs or In Bond Freight

(Item 80). Why is this deleted?

Response: This Item is deleted

because it is virtually never used.

Customs fees are rarely, if ever, applied

to DoD shipments. DoD does not ship

items on a COD basis.

Comment: Detention (Item 85).

Response: There has been no

substantive change from the 1A to the

1B.

Comment: Expedited Service (Item

110).

Response: There has been no

substantive change from the 1A to 1B.

Please note that the redundant phrase

‘‘in addition to all other transportation

charges’’ which appeared throughout

the 1A in describing various accessorial

services has been deleted in favor of a

single sentence to be inserted in Item 13

stating that accessorial charges shall be

paid in addition to line haul rates.

Comment: Handling of Freight at

Positions Not Immediately Adjacent to

Vehicle (Item 125). Why is this rule

eliminated? There is no justification for

converting this service, for which a

price can legitimately be set, to an afterthe-fact negotiation.

Response: Item 125 has been restored.

Comment: Routing—Items 200, 300,

400. (1) Some shipments and/or routes

require mileages in excess of the

applicable DTOD module. (2)

Implementation of the 1B should be

held up while a study of DTOD’s

accuracy is conducted. (3) A MTMC

letter authorizing payment on these

extra miles should be (but has not been)

incorporated into the 1B.

Response: This issue will be largely

eliminated as the majority of such cases

arise for Overdimensional/Overweight

(ODOW) Shipments, which will become

moot under the 1B, which requires that

ODOW shipments be handled under

Spot Bid (under which mileage

calculations do not exist) except in

special circumstances (see Item 400).

However, for those few remaining cases

where such issues will continue to arise:

(1) It is a well-established principle

that a discrepancy between actual

mileage and the mileage listed by a

Governing Mileage Guide (GMG) is

resolved in favor of the GMG. Any

discrepancy or anomaly in a particular

lane should be reported to the GMG

manager for correction.

(2) DTOD is currently in effect under

the 1A, so DTOD as such is not a 1A to

1B issue.

(3) The new rule reflects both

commercial transportation practice and

the realities of an automated

environment such as PowerTrack

whereby the GMG is the sole mileage

authority. The relevant rule in the 1A

36674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices

(which was so confusing and

impractical that the cited letter has to be

written to interpret it) was changed

because it: (a) Is not feasible in a nonpaper environment, (b) does not

correspond to commercial practice of

using a GMG as the sole arbiter of

mileage, and (c) resulted in an

unrealistic administrative burden

calculating and reconciling mileages in

each and every state through which a

shipment passed, and typically involved

adding mileages from one state line to

the next.

Comment: Towaway Service (Item

228) This new Item does not fairly

divide liability issues between shipper

and carrier; instead all liabilities are

imposed on the carrier.

Response: We have adopted the

language ‘‘or other failure to properly

maintain * * *’’. We have considered

the additional request that DoD assume

liability, including attorney fees, for

third-party claims resulting from

Towaway Service. We cannot assume

this liability and do not believe that it

would be equitable to do so. Each claim,

if any, would have to be decided on a

case-by-case basis.

Comment: Weight Verification (Item

250).

Response: There has been no

substantive change from the 1A to the

1B.

Comment: Dromedary Services (old

Items 325 and 327). Why are these Items

eliminated? While much of the

information has been incorporated

elsewhere (e.g. Item 105), some essential

information appears nowhere in the 1B.

5000 and 10000 pound minimum

charges for regular and 410 dromedary

shipments, respectively, have been

eliminated for Dual Driver and

Protective Security accessorials, and for

White Phosphorus and similar

commodities.

Response: These provisions have not

been eliminated for the two accessorials

cited; the 1B includes them in Item 35,

para 1n, Item 40, para 2b, and Item 105,

para c. The provisions for white

phosphorus and similar commodities

have been restored, and now appear in

Item 328, paragraph 2.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: This

change is not considered rule making

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3051 et seq., does not apply because no

information collection requirement or

recordskeeping responsibilities are

imposed on offerors, contractors, or

members of the public.

Thomas Hicks,

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–14677 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers, Department of the

Army

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for

Proposed Authorization of an Ohio

River Ecosystem Restoration Program

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Intent is an

amendment to the Department of the

Army, Corps of Engineers, ‘‘Notice of

Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement for the Ohio River

Main Stem System Study,’’ published in

Federal Register, volume 63, number

203 page 56165, on Wednesday, October

21, 1998.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in

partnership with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and resource agencies

of states bordering the Ohio River, is

currently evaluating various ecosystem

restoration opportunities for the Ohio

River corridor. The proposed action is

being conducted under the authority of

United States Senate, Committee on

Public Works resolution dated May 16,

1955; and, United States House of

Representatives. Committee on Public

Works and Transportation resolution

dated March 11, 1982.

The Corps of Engineers will prepare

and circulate a Decision Document and

integrated Environmental Assessment

which will announce an intention to

prepare a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI), IF appropriate. Public

review of this report is scheduled to

begin in July 2000. Interested parties are

encouraged to send written comments

or requests for information, regarding

the proposed study process, to the

point-of-contact below. All comments

and information requests should be

postmarked no later than 30 days after

this Notice of Intent is published.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please address questions regarding this

notice to Mr. Michael Q. Holley, PM–C,

Louisville District, Corps of Engineers,

P.O. Box 59, Louisville, Kentucky

40201–0059, Telephone: (502) 582–

5152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

a. Reference Federal Register, volume

63, number 203, dated Wednesday,

October 21, 1998. Within that

document, the Corps of Engineers gave

notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Ohio River Main Stem System Study.

This study is designed to capture

foreseeable maintenance, rehabilitation

and new construction needs for the

navigation infrastructure of the Ohio

River until the year 2060 and to

investigate habitat restoration options

along the main stem Ohio River. The

study would also identify those actions

which are economically justified and

environmentally prudent.

b. As part of the Ohio River Main

Stem System Study, an environmental

team, consisting of personnel from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

natural resource agencies of six states,

and the Corps of Engineers was formed.

This team investigated opportunities

and established general goals for

ecosystem restoration projects. During

the initial study process, resource

officials of states bordering the Ohio

River, identified over 250 site-specific

environmental projects for further

analysis. Because of the considerable

interest, the Corps of Engineers, with

support from state officials, initiated a

study report for proposed authorization

of a cost shared ecosystem restoration

program for the Ohio River.

c. The Corps of Engineers originally

intended to study ecosystem restoration,

within the entire Ohio River Main Stem

System Study, as indicated in the

Supplemental Information of Federal

Register, volume 63, number 203.

However, an ecosystem restoration

program does not relate directly to

navigational improvements and can

stand independent of those

improvements. It was therefore

determined that an ecosystem

restoration program would be developed

as a separate product of the Ohio River

Main Stem System Study.

d. The primary purpose of the

proposed ecosystem restoration program

is to restore and protect aquatic,

wetland, floodplain and riparian

habitats that would benefit from such a

program for the Ohio River watershed.

These goals would be accomplished by

means of erosion control, island

restoration, bottomland reforestation,

creation of aquatic habitat, and other

generally accepted environmental

measures. As a secondary objective, the

program would preserve the historic

and cultural resources of the Ohio River

through implementation of various low

cost educational and recreational

amenities that would not detract from