Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37085

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Spanish airworthiness directive 10/96,

dated November 5, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 1,

1998.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18155 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 103

RIN 1506–AA22

Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network; Bank Secrecy Act

Regulations; Suspicious Transaction

Reporting by Casinos and Card Clubs;

Open Working Meetings

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network, Treasury.

ACTION: Meetings on proposed

regulations.

SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network (‘‘FinCEN’’) will

hold four working meetings to give

interested persons the opportunity to

discuss with Treasury officials issues

regarding proposed Bank Secrecy Act

regulations relating to suspicious

transaction reporting by casinos and

card clubs.

DATES: Meeting 1: July 14, 1998 from

9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., New Orleans,

LA.

Meeting 2: July 23, 1998 from 9:00

a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Chicago, IL.

Meeting 3: August 6, 1998 from 9:00

a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Scottsdale, AZ.

Meeting 4: September 9, 1998 from

9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., New York, NY.

ADDRESSES: Meeting 1: The Westin

Canal Place, 100 Rue Iberville, New

Orleans, LA 70130.

Meeting 2: Holiday Inn, Chicago City

Centre, 300 East Ohio Street, Chicago, IL

60611.

Meeting 3: Scottsdale Hilton, 6333

North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, AZ

85250.

Meeting 4: New York Hilton and

Towers, 1335 Avenue of the Americas,

New York City, NY 10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

About the proposed regulations: Len

Senia, Senior Financial Enforcement

Officer, FinCEN, at (703) 905–3931, or

Cynthia Clark, Deputy Chief Counsel,

FinCEN, at (703) 905–3758.

About meeting registration: Anna

Fotias, Financial Crimes Policy Analyst,

FinCEN, at (703) 905–3695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

18, 1998, FinCEN issued proposed

regulations (63 FR 27230) relating to

suspicious transaction reporting by

casinos and card clubs. The proposed

regulations would require casinos and

card clubs to report to the Treasury

Department suspicious transactions

involving at least $3,000 in funds or

other assets, relevant to a possible

violation of law or regulation. The

proposed regulations would also require

casinos and card clubs to establish

procedures designed to detect

occurrences or patterns of suspicious

transactions and would make certain

other changes to the requirements that

casinos maintain Bank Secrecy Act

compliance programs.

FinCEN is announcing today that it

will hold four meetings to discuss issues

relating to the proposed regulations.

Although persons attending the

meetings are encouraged to discuss any

of their comments, concerns, or

suggestions about the proposed

regulations, FinCEN hopes that the

meetings will include discussion of the

following matters: (1) the $3,000

threshold for reporting suspicious

transactions, (2) detecting suspicious

transactions, (3) compliance program

requirements for casinos and card clubs,

and (4) specific areas in which

additional guidance would be helpful.

The meetings are not intended as a

substitute for FinCEN’s request for

written comments in the notice of

proposed rulemaking published May 18,

1998. Rather, the meetings are intended

to help make the comment process as

productive as possible by providing a

forum between the industry and FinCEN

concerning issues relating to the

proposed regulations. The meetings will

be open to the public and will be

recorded. A transcript of the meetings

will be available for public inspection

and copying. Accordingly, oral or

written material not intended to be

disclosed to the public should not be

raised at the meetings.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Stephen R. Kroll,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Financial

Crimes Enforcement Network.

[FR Doc. 98–18126 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–03–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6121–9]

National Priorities List Update; Golden

Strip Septic Tank Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Golden Strip Septic Tank Superfund

Site from the National Priorities List

(NPL).

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (US

EPA), Region 4, announces its intent to

delete the Golden Strip Septic Tank

Superfund Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public

comment on this proposed action. The

NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR

part 300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environment

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) have

determined that all remedial action

objectives have been met and the Site

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment. Therefore,

further remedial measures are not

appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before August

10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Craig Zeller, P.E., Waste Management

Division—North Site Management

Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., SW,

Atlanta, GA, 30303. You may also

submit comments electronically, at the

following Email Address,

Zeller.Craig@EPAMail.EPA.gov.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available through the public

docket, which is available for viewing at

the Golden Strip Septic Tank Site

information repositories at the following

locations:
37086 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Hendricks Branch Library, 626 N.E.

Main Street, Simpsonville, SC 29681,

(864) 963–9031.

U.S. EPA, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., SW,

Atlanta, GA, 30303, Mrs. Debbie

Jourdan, 404–562–8862.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Zeller, P.E. (404) 562–8827, or

Cynthia Peurifoy (404) 562–8798, or toll

free at 1–800–435–9233, at U.S. EPA,

Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta,

GA 30303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region 4 announces its intent to

delete the Golden Strip Septic Tank Site

at Simpsonville, South Carolina, from

the National Priorities List (NPL),

Appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR part

300, and requests comments on this

deletion proposal. EPA identifies sites

that appear to present a significant risk

to public health, welfare, or the

environment and maintains the NPL as

the list of these sites. As described in

§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted

from the NPL remain eligible for

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

actions.

The EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site for thirty

days after publication of this notice in

the Federal Register.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Golden Strip Septic Tank

Site and explains how the Site meets the

deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that sites may be deleted from,

or recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a site

from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in

consultation with the State, whether any

of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate response actions

under CERCLA have been implemented,

and no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,

where hazardous substances, pollutants,

or contaminants remain at the site above

levels that allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure, EPA’s policy is

that a subsequent review of the site will

be conducted at least every five years

after the initiation of the remedial action

at the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)

EPA Region 4 has recommended

deletion and has prepared the relevant

documents; (2) The South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) has

concurred with the proposed deletion

decision; (3) Concurrent with this

Notice of Intent to Delete, a notice has

been published in the local newspaper

and has been distributed to appropriate

federal, state, and local officials and

other interested parties announcing the

commencement of a 30-day public

comment period on the Notice of Intent

to Delete; and (4) All relevant

documents have been made available for

public review in the local information

repository and in the Regional Office.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

information purposes and to assist EPA

management. As mentioned in Section

II of this Notice, Section 300.425(e)(3) of

the NCP states that deletion of a site

from the NPL does not preclude

eligibility for future response actions.

For deletion of this Site, EPA will

accept and evaluate public comments

on this Notice of Intent to Delete before

making the final decision to delete. If

necessary, the Agency will prepare a

Responsiveness Summary to address

any significant public comments

received during the comment period.

The deletion occurs when the

Regional Administrator places the final

notice on the Federal Register.

Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions

in the final update following the Notice.

Public notices and copies of the

Responsiveness Summary will be made

available to local residents by Region 4.

IV. Basis for Intended Deletion

The following Site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the proposal

to delete this Site from the NPL.

A. Background

The GSST Site is located on a 55-acre

parcel near Simpsonville, South

Carolina. The Site is situated in a semirural area on a portion of a farm owned

by Mrs. Lucille Rice, and is surrounded

by the Holly Tree residential

subdivision on the east, west and north

sides. Primary access to the site is off

Adams Mill Road which borders the site

to the south. The Carrington Green

subdivision is located across Adams

Mill Road along the Site’s southernmost

boundary.

B. History

From 1960 through 1975, Mr. Buck

Rice (now deceased) operated a septic

tank hauling and disposal service from

the GSST Site. During this period of

active operation, industrial and septic

wastes were discharged into five

unlined wastewater lagoons located on

Site. The total capacity of these five

lagoons has been calculated at nearly

2.8 million gallons. Waste hauling and

disposal activities at the GSST Site were

reportedly discontinued in 1975. By

1978, three of the five lagoons (2, 3 and

5) were backfilled by pushing in the

side walls of each unit and covering the

sludge.

Preliminary investigations of the Site

conducted by SCDHEC and EPA

confirmed the presence of inorganic

constituents such as cadmium,

chromium, copper, lead and cyanide in

the lagoon water and sludge. In June

1987, EPA placed the GSST Site on the

National Priorities List (NPL).

C. Characterization of Risk

A group of responsible parties, known

as the Golden Strip Task Group (GSTG),

conducted the RI/FS under an

Administrative Order by Consent (AOC)

with EPA. RMT, Inc., on behalf of the

Task Group, conducted the RI field

work from September 1989 to March

1991, under EPA and SCDHEC

oversight. Lagoon sludges and soils in

close proximity to the lagoons were

found to be impacted with inorganic

constituents. Specifically, maximum

concentrations detected in soil and

sludge were 12,000 mg/kg cadmium,

97,200 mg/kg chromium, 69,900 mg/kg

copper, 4,520 mg/kg cyanide, 5,290 mg/

kg lead and 77,600 mg/kg zinc. Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP) analyses of lagoon sludge and

affected soil demonstrated hazardous

characteristics for cadmium. An

estimated 1.9 million gallons of water

was impounded in Lagoons 1 and 4 and

this surface water was found to contain

elevated levels of similar inorganic

constituents. Three rounds of

groundwater sampling indicated that

groundwater quality had been affected

to a limited extent in the immediate

vicinity of the lagoons, but a discernible

plume of groundwater contamination

was not identified.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37087

The Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA)

concluded that the principal threat to

human health posed by this site was

exposure to impacted soils and sludges.

A residential future-use scenario was

utilized in the BRA to develop remedial

action target concentrations (RATCs) for

impacted soils/sludges. Site specific

RATCs were calculated for each

Constituent of Concern (COC) identified

in the BRA. Data generated during the

RI estimated that 28,000 cubic yards of

soil/sludge exceeded the applicable

RATCs. A Feasibility Study (FS) was

performed to evaluate feasible remedial

alternatives to address all soil/sludge

above applicable RATCs, surface water

impounded in Lagoons 1 and 4, and site

groundwater.

On September 12, 1991, the Regional

Administrator signed a Record of

Decision (ROD), which selected a

remedy for the GSST Site that was

protective of human health and the

environment. The major components of

the selected remedy included:

• Excavation of all soil/sludge above

applicable RATCs and treatment by

solidification/stabilization to remove

hazardous characteristics. Backfilling of

treated material into on-site excavations

within defined Area of Contamination

(AOC);

• Establishment of Alternative

Concentration Limits (ACLs) for on-site

groundwater combined with a long-term

monitoring program to monitor the

effects of source control on the

groundwater;

• Discharge of surface waters

impounded in Lagoons 1 and 4 to

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTW); and

• Establishment of Conservation

Easement to control future use of

property.

Active groundwater remediation in

the vicinity of the lagoons was not

determined reasonable or technically

practicable using the decision criteria

for ACLs specified in Section 121 of

CERCLA. Generally, these include: (1)

there is no discernible plume; (2) there

are known or projected points of entry

of site groundwater into surface water;

(3) there is no statistically significant

increase in waste constituents in the

groundwater or in the surface water at

the point of entry; (4) the selected

remedy includes source control

measures that are expected to have a

positive influence on groundwater; and

(5) the selected remedy includes

enforceable measures that will preclude

human exposure to groundwater.

D. Implementation of the Selected

Remedy

In April 1992, the GSTG entered into

a Consent Decree with EPA for

implementation of the selected remedy.

RMT, Inc. was selected by the task

group to perform the necessary

Remedial Design and Remedial Action

activities required for successful remedy

implementation and completion.

Extensive treatability studies were

conducted to identify cost-effective

solidification/stabilization additives

that could meet the established leaching

and compressive strength performance

criteria. It was determined that 30

percent Type I/II Portland cement

(based on the dry weight of the soil/

sludge matrix) could effectively stabilize

and solidify the Site COCs.

The conservation easement, which

placed certain restrictions on future site

development and usage of the

groundwater underlying the site, was

filed in Greenville County R.M.C. on

January 12, 1994 by Mr. Robert E.

Dryden, on behalf of the task group.

EPA and SCDHEC granted final

approval of the Remedial Design

documents and Performance Standards

Verification Plan in February 1994. The

Remedial Action Work Plan was

accepted as Final by EPA and SCDHEC

in July 1994. Heritage Environmental

Services was selected as the Remedial

Action contractor in June 1994 and

began initial mobilization to the site on

July 6, 1994.

The remedy was initiated in August

1994 by pre-treatment and discharge of

the water from Lagoons 1 and 4 to the

local sewer. The sludge in each lagoon

was then stabilized with affected soil

and cement kiln dust. The stabilized

sludge and affected soil were then

excavated and temporarily staged.

Several pilot scale field demonstrations

were conducted on the soil/sludge

treatment system to evaluate scale-up

effectiveness and to implement

refinements, where necessary. Heritage

Environmental Services demobilized in

September 1994, while a supplemental

sampling and analysis program was

conducted to develop detailed

excavation plans.

Screening sampling and analysis,

confirmational sampling and analysis,

and geostatistical modeling were

employed to develop detailed

excavation plans for the affected soils

and to confirm that the affected soil and

sludge had been removed. Heritage

remobilized to the site in April 1995

and made several modifications to the

pug-mill treatment system. In May 1995,

full scale excavation began in Lagoon 1

and proceeded to Lagoon 5. These areas

were excavated first so that the final

landfill footprint could be excavated,

prepared, and confirmed clean prior to

the placement of treated soil/sludge. In

August 1995, EPA and SCDHEC

confirmed achievement of all excavation

performance standards in this area and

granted approval to proceed with

placement of treated material.

Following a final treatment system

demonstration, full-scale treatment of

affected soils and sludges and further

excavation activities proceeded

concurrently. Once affected soils were

removed, they were fed into a pug mill

where they were blended with 30

percent Type I/II Portland cement and

water to produce a soil-cement material.

This soil-cement material was then

taken to the on-site landfill, spread in 1-

foot lifts, and compacted. The

compacted soil-cement quickly

hardened with a compressive strength of

greater than 250 psi. This finished

landfill was capped with more than 30

inches of soil and a vegetative cover was

re-established. An approximated total of

57,000 cubic yards of soil-cement was

placed into the on-site landfill cell.

On April 25, 1996, a Pre-Final

Inspection was held on-site to verify

that all punch list items had been

completed. A detailed site walk

revealed that all substantive items had

been completed with the exception of

establishing a vegetative cover and

submittal of as-built drawings. The

Remedial Action Report was submitted

by RMT in June 1996 and approved by

the EPA’s North Site Management

Branch Chief on July 12, 1996. The

Final Close Out Report, which

documented that the remedial action

was successfully completed, was

completed by EPA in September 1996.

The GSST Site meets all the site

completion and close out procedures for

NPL Sites as specified in OSWER

Directive 9320.2–09, Close Out

Procedures for National Priorities List

Sites (EPA/540/R–95/062, August 1995).

Specifically, excavation verification

sampling confirms that all soil above

RATCs has been removed, treatment

verification sampling confirms that the

solidified soil-cement matrix meets

leachate and compressive strength

performance standards, and that all

cleanup actions specified in the ROD

have been implemented. Confirmatory

stream sampling, groundwater

sampling, and a clean cap with

vegetative cover provide further

assurance that the site no longer poses

any risks to human health and/or the

environment. The only remaining

activity to be performed is O&M which

will be conducted by an assigned
37088 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

representative of the Golden Strip Task

Group.

E. Operation and Maintenance

Post-closure activities at the GSST

Site will be conducted by the GSTG’s

assigned representative following the

guidelines contained in the EPA/

SCDHEC approved Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Those O&M

activities address a 30-year post-closure

care monitoring period as specified by

the ROD. These post-closure care

activities include the following:

• Periodic inspections to verify the

integrity of the cap, cover and security;

• Ongoing landscape maintenance to

keep the integrity of the landfill cap

intact;

• Periodic stream and groundwater

monitoring to verify the performance of

the remedy; and

• Submission of O&M evaluation

reports to EPA/SCDHEC containing

observations and any corrective actions

taken to address issues of concern.

The surficial aquifer underlying the

GSST Site has been monitored via

sampling and analysis of 22 monitoring

wells since 1989. Water quality and

sediments of an unnamed stream

passing through the site have also been

monitored. Since only intermittent

exceedances of drinking water standards

were observed during the RI/FS, EPA

and SCDHEC established ACLs for the

site groundwater. During the Site

Remedial Action, these ACLs have not

been required, as groundwater quality

has consistently remained below

federally established drinking water

levels (Maximum Contaminant Levels).

Stream monitoring results continue to

verify that the water quality or

sediments have not been affected by

past waste disposal activities.

F. Five-Year Review

Semi-annual groundwater and stream

monitoring will continue up to the 5-

year review which shall be conducted

by July 1999. EPA and SCDHEC will

evaluate the scope of future monitoring

requirements at the completion of the

five-year review.

One of the three criteria for deletion

specifies that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if the responsible parties

or other parties have implemented all

appropriate response actions required.

EPA, with the concurrence of SCDHEC,

contends this criterion has been met.

Subsequently, EPA is proposing

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

Documents supporting this action are

available from the public docket.

Dated: June 22, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA

Region 4.

[FR Doc. 98–18083 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 514

[Docket No. 98–10]

Inquiry Into Automated Tariff Filing

Systems as Proposed by the Pending

Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

SUMMARY: The purposes of this Inquiry

are to determine an approach that will

produce automated tariff publication

systems that best comport with the

directives of S. 414, the Ocean Shipping

Reform Act of 1998, and its legislative

history, and to determine whether ocean

common carriers should be required to

file service contracts electronically. The

proposed legislation would alter, among

other things, the manner by which

ocean common carriers publish their

tariffs under the Shipping Act of 1984,

46 U.S.C. app. § 1701 et seq., by

requiring them to publish their tariffs in

private automated tariff systems.

Comments are solicited on the possible

requirements for such tariff filing

systems and on the electronic filing of

service contracts and publication of

essential terms.

DATES: Comments due on or before

August 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (original

and 20 copies) to: Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20573–0001, (202)

523–5725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Director, Bureau of

Tariffs, Certification and Licensing,

Federal Maritime Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20573–0001, (202) 523–5796 and

Thomas Panebianco, General Counsel,

Federal Maritime Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20573–0001, (202) 523–5740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

21, 1998, the Senate passed S. 414, a bill

entitled the ‘‘Ocean Shipping Reform

Act of 1998’’ (‘‘Reform Act’’). The bill

was subsequently referred to the House

of Representatives, where it is presently

awaiting either referral to appropriate

committees or a vote by the full House.

If the latter occurs prior to adjournment

in the fall, the Federal Maritime

Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

will have the task of proposing and

adopting rules to implement the Reform

Act in a very short time period, since

the Reform Act generally takes effect on

May 1, 1999, and the bill requires final

implementing regulations to be

promulgated by March 1, 1999.

The Reform Act amends the Shipping

Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. § 1701 et

seq.) (‘‘1984 Act’’) in several areas,

altering the manner by which the

United States regulates international

ocean shipping. One of the most

significant changes is in the treatment of

common carrier tariffs, the publications

which contain the rates and charges for

their transportation services. Currently,

common carriers and conferences must

file their tariffs with the commission’s

Automated Tariff Filing and Information

System (‘‘ATFI’’). Under the Reform

Act, carriers no longer will have to file

with the Commission, but will be

required to publish their rates in

private, automated tariff systems. These

tariffs will have to be made available

electronically to any person, without

time, quantity, or other limitation,

through appropriate access from remote

locations, and a reasonable charge may

be assessed for such access, except for

Federal agencies. In addition, the

Commission is charged with prescribing

the requirements for the ‘‘accessibility

and accuracy’’ of these automated tariff

systems, unlike the ‘‘form and manner’’

requirements under the current law. The

Commission also can prohibit the use of

such systems, if they fail to meet the

requirements it establishes.

It is against this background that the

Commission is initiating this inquiry to

solicit comments from the ocean

transportation industry and the general

public on how best to establish

requirements for carriers’ automated

tariff systems. Such comments should

assist the Commission in formulating

and proposing a rule in this area in the

event that the House passes S. 414 and

it is signed into law by the President.

The primary function of the

publication of tariffs is to provide the

shipping public with reliable

information on the price and service

options to move particular commodities

from point A to point B. This

information would necessarily include

all applicable assesorials, additional

charges, and surcharges, so that the

shipper can obtain a ‘‘bottom-line’’ price

for the service it seeks. Consistent with

the Reform Act’s common carriage

principles, shippers should be able to

use this information to compare

competing carriers’ offerings and to

assess whether they are being