Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Notices 30479

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ CITATION OF

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 63 FR 28370.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: 2 p.m., Monday, June 15, 1998.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission changed the meeting to

discuss adjudicatory matters to

Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 2:30 p.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 418–5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–14962 Filed 6–2–98; 11:20 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Friday, June

30, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington,

D.C., 9th Floor, Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202–418–5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–14963 Filed 6–2–98; 11:20 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 98–2]

In the Matter of Central Sprinkler

Corporation and Central Sprinkler

Company; Prehearing Conference

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of first prehearing

conference.

DATES: This notice announces a

prehearing conference to be held in the

Matter of Sprinkler Corp., and Central

Sprinkler Co. on June 16, 1998, at 10:00

a.m.

ADDRESSES: The prehearing conference

will be held in hearing room 420 of the

East West Towers Building, 4330 East

West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland

20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information contact Sadye E.

Dunn, Secretary, U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C.; telephone (301) 504–

0800; telefax (301) 504–0127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

public notice is issued pursuant to 16

CFR 1025.21(b) of the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission’s Rules of

Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings to

inform the public that a prehearing

conference will be held in an

administrative proceeding under

Section 15 of the Consumer Product

Safety Act (CPSA) captioned CPSC

Docket No. 98–2, In the Matter of

Central Sprinkler Corp.; and Central

Sprinkler Co. The Presiding Officer in

the proceeding is United States

Administrative Law Judge William B.

Moran. The Presiding Officer has

determined that, for good and sufficient

cause, the time period for holding this

first prehearing conference had to be

extended to the date announced above,

which date is beyond the fifty (50) day

period referenced in 16 CFR 1025.21(a).

The public is referred to the Code of

Regulations citation listed above for

identification of the issues to be raised

at the conference and is advised that the

date, time and place of the hearing also

will be established at the conference.

Substantively, the issue being

litigated in this proceeding is described

by the Presiding Officer as whether the

‘‘Omega’’ series automatic fire

sprinklers, manufactured by the Central

entities, do not and will not function in

a significant percentage of instances and

consequently are defective, presenting a

‘‘substantial product hazard’’ and

creating a ‘‘substantial risk of injury to

the public.’’ See 15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2)

and 16 CFR 1115.4.

Should the allegations be proven,

Complaint Counsel for the Office of

Compliance of the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission seeks a

finding that the product presents a

substantial product hazard and that

public notification be made pursuant to

15 U.S.C. 2064(c) and that other

appropriate relief be directed under 15

U.S.C. 2064(d) of the CPSA as set forth

in the Complaint.

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–14878 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Program for Qualifying Department of

Defense (DOD) Brokers

AGENCY: Military Traffic Management

Command, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In previous Federal Register

notice (Vol. 62, No. 27, pages 5962–

5963) Monday, February 10, 1997, the

Headquarters, Military Traffic

Management Command (HQMTMC)

announced a request for comments on

the Program for Qualifying Department

of Defense (DOD) Brokers. Comments

received were about equally divided in

favor and in opposition to the proposal.

By notice published in the Federal

Register (Vol. 63, No. 57, page 14431)

Wednesday, March 25, 1998, HQMTMC

announced its decision to test the broker

program for a period of one year,

beginning June 1, 1998. The Carrier

Qualification Program is being amended

to add qualification standards for

brokers and to expand the Basic

Agreement to include brokers. The

effect is that brokers will be eligible to

qualify to compete in DOD

transportation procurements on the

same or similar terms as other carriers,

except shipments requiring

Transportation Protective Service (TPS).

Under MTMC’s new policy, brokers,

interested in competing for DOD traffic

(except TPS shipments) can apply for

qualification by executing the Basic

Agreement, and by complying with the

requirements for submission of evidence

of insurance (cargo and public liability),

a list of underlying carriers which the

broker intends to use in the movement

of DOD shipments, a performance bond,

and other standard requirements. A

copy of the Agreement between MTMC

and brokers is available upon request.

An analysis of the comments in

opposition to the proposal is set forth

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rick Wirtz, MTOP–QQ, Telephone 703–

681–6393; Headquarters, Military

Traffic Management Command, ATTN:

MTOP–QQ, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls

Church, Virginia 22041–5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following comments in opposition to

the broker proposal were received from

industry:

Comment 1. Several comments object

that MTMC’s treatment of brokers in the

Basic agreement is inconsistent with the

definition of brokers contained in the

ICC Termination Act. Thus, the National

Motor Freight Traffic Association,
30480 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Notices

Incorporated (NMFTA) contends that

brokers, as defined at 49 U.S.C.

13102(2), legally may not conduct

carrier operations or perform

transportation unless independently

authorized to do so as a motor carrier or

freight forwarder. Similarly, Monheim &

Guilbert object that MTMC’s Basic

Agreement (‘‘undertakes to carry and

deliver. * * *’’) converts a broker into

a carrier, imposes loss and damage

liability, and imposes a public liability

insurance requirement. MCD

Transportation, Incorporated, objects to

the requirement for cargo insurance.

Green Valley Transportation,

Incorporated objects that MTMC is

attempting to redefine a broker as a

carrier, in conflict with DOT

regulations. Munitions Carriers

Conference contends that cargo liability

and insurance are requirements for

carriers, not brokers.

Response 1. These objections reflect

concerns about the Department of

Transportation’s (DOT) enforcement of

the Interstate Commerce Act, as

amended by the ICC Termination Act.

The Interstate Commerce Act is a statute

providing for the economic regulation of

certain carriers and brokers by the DOT

and the Surface Transportation Board.

That statute established a registration

requirement for regulated carriers and

brokers. However, that regulatory statute

is not a procurement statute, and it does

not restrict MTMC’s transportation

procurement authority. The DOD has

the right to make its own arrangements

and to contract for transportation on its

own terms. The DOD has the same right

in this regard as any commercial

shipper. In exercising its procurement

authority, MTMC has determined that

brokers should be eligible to compete

for DOD traffic on the same terms as

other carriers. For example, MTMC has

the right to contract with brokers for

standards of cargo liability, without

regard to whether any cargo liability is

imposed on brokers by the Interstate

Commerce Act. Compliance with DOT’s

registration requirements remains, as

always, a separate obligation of

regulated carriers and brokers. We will

not speculate whether brokers will

violate statues and regulations enforced

by other agencies. Under the Basic

Agreement, the broker agrees to comply

with all applicable Federal, State,

municipal, and other local laws and

regulations.

Comment 2. The American Movers

Conference contends that brokers might

violate the Anti-Kickback Act by

collecting commissions from motor

carriers for government business, and

that the brokers and motor carriers

might discuss each other’s rates in

violation of the Certification of

Independent Pricing.

Response 2. We cannot assume that

brokers and motor carriers are going to

violate the law when they participate in

procurements for DOD traffic. The

potential for illegal kickbacks and price

fixing always exists in every

government procurement, without

regard to the participation of brokers.

The possibility of illegal activities by

bidders is insufficient basis to exclude

brokers from competition.

Comment 3. TRISM Specialized

Carriers contends that MTMC’s proposal

runs the risk that carriers with an

unsatisfactory DOT safety rating may be

employed by brokers to transport DOD

shipments, presenting the possibility of

a claim of negligence on the part of

MTMC in the event of an injury or

accident.

Response 3. MTMC must defer to the

DOT in the enforcement of DOT’s safety

ratings and regulations. As a general

rule, shippers are not legally liable for

the accidents of carriers hired to

transport their goods. In any case,

MTMC’s Basic Agreement will require

brokers to purchase a minimum of $1

million public liability insurance.

Comment 4. NMFTA and American

Road Line contend that the qualification

requirements for brokers are less

onerous than the requirements for motor

carriers, thereby giving brokers an

unwarranted competitive advantage.

NMFTA contends this violates the

mandate for full and open competition

in the Armed Services Procurement Act.

Response 4. The purpose of the

proposed Basic Agreement with brokers

is to enable brokers to compete for DOD

traffic. There is no reason to believe that

continued exclusion of brokers form

competition for DOD traffic will

somehow contribute to full and open

competition. The qualification

requirements set forth in the Basic

Agreement for brokers are identical to

those contained in the Basic Agreement

for freight forwarders and shipper

agents. It would serve no useful purpose

to impose on brokers our requirements

governing vehicles and drivers of motor

carriers, because brokers, unlike motor

carriers, generally do not have vehicles

and drivers.

George R. McDonald,

Chief, Qualification Division, ADCSOPSQuality.

[FR Doc. 98–14854 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Exclusive License Announcement

AGENCY: U.S. Army Research

Laboratory.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR

404.7(a)(1)(I), announcement is made of

prospective exclusive license of U.S.

Patent 5,609,290, ‘‘Fluxless Soldering

Method’’, for the purpose of

manufacturing, using, and selling the

processes involved in this invention.

This invention is described as a

Fluxless Soldering Method. One of the

seven inventors of this invention has

assigned his rights to the United States

of America as represented by the

Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC.

The other six inventors have assigned

their rights to the University of North

Carolina at Charlotte which has

exclusively licensed all of its interest to

Integrated Electronics Innovations, Inc.

Under the authority of Section

11(a)(2) of the Federal Technology

Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–

502) and Section 207 of Title 35, United

States Code, the Department of the

Army, as represented by the Army

Research Laboratory, intends to grant a

limited term exclusive or partially

exclusive license of the above named

patent to Integrated Electronics

Innovations, Inc., a small business

which is interested in manufacturing,

using, and/or selling the processes

involved in this invention.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Norma Cammarata, Technology

Transfer Manager, Army Research

Laboratory, Attn: AMSRL–CP–TA, 2800

Powder Mill Road, Adelphi, MD 20783–

1145, 301–394–2952 phone, 301–394–

5818 fax, NORMAC@ARL.MIL, email.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(I), any interested

party may file written objections to this

prospective exclusive license

arrangement. Written objections should

be directed to the above address on or

before 60 days from the publication of

this notice.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–14853 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M