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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 /Thursday, July 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37089

1ATFI’s transaction sets prescribe specific

requirements as to the data dictionary, field size,

syntax, data elements, mandatory and optional

fields, format, and segment definitions.

unreasonably discriminated against visa-vis their competitors. In addition,

public tariff information enables carriers

to monitor their competitors and adjust

their pricing and service structures

accordingly.

A perhaps no less important function

of tariff publication is to permit the

Commission to monitor the rate activity

of carriers and conferences. In light of

the fact that the Reform Act would

continue to grant antitrust immunity for

collective ratemaking, the ability to

monitor collectively-established rates

remains particularly important. The

Commission also needs to be able to

monitor carrier rate activity to ensure

that the prohibited acts in section 10 of

the Reform Act are not violated. In this

regard, the Commission will always

need a historical record of rate activity,

perhaps commensurate with the five

year statute of limitations in the Reform

Act. In addition, the ability to monitor

the rate activity of controlled carriers is

crucial to the Commission’s

enforcement of the controlled carrier

provisions of the Reform Act.

The problem facing the Commission

and the industry is how to reconcile

these basic purposes of tariff publication

with the relative discretion Congress

would grant carriers to develop their

own automated tariff systems. The

report of the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

S. Rep. No. 61, 105th Cong., 1st Sess.

(1997) (‘‘Committee Report’’), is

instructive in this regard. The

Committee noted that innovative private

sector approaches, such as World Wide

Web pages, should be encouraged,

stating that common carriers should be

free to develop their own means of tariff

publication. Committee Report at 23.

Although the Committee reiterated that

there should be no government

restraints on the design of a private tariff

publication system, it also stated that

such systems must assure the integrity

of the common carrier’s tariff and of the

tariff system as a whole and provide the

appropriate level of public access to

tariff information. Id. The Committee

also stated that tariff information should

be ‘‘simplified and standardized.’’ Id.

The Committee further noted that the

Commission will retain its authority to

suspend or prohibit the use of tariffs

found to violate the 1984 Act or other

U.S. shipping laws. Id. at 22–23.

As a point of reference, because ATFI

uses uniform transaction sets for tariff

material,1 it presents tariff information

uniformly, and substantive tariff

provisions are located identically within

each carrier’s tariff. In addition, carriers

are required to provide electronic links

within each tariff so that shippers can

calculate a bottom-line freight charge.

Under ATFI, the Commission also

validates, among other things, specific

ports and points listed to ensure

industry-wide uniformity and requires

that equipment descriptions be

standardized.

The question thus becomes how to

meld the various Congressional

directives in the Reform Act and its

legislative history to produce tariff

publication requirements that fully

comport with the letter and the spirit of

the Reform Act. The Commission,

therefore, is seeking public comment on

how best to achieve this goal.

Commenters should feel free to address

any aspect of automated systems

relevant to this inquiry. However, we

have proposed some questions that may

focus discussion in the proper direction:

1. What are the best methods for

standardizing tariff information?

2. Should tariffs contain uniform rate/

commodity/geographic scope searching

mechanisms?

3. Describe any available options for

standardizing commodity descriptions.

4. How can we ensure that the

systems produce accurate bottom-line

freight charges for shippers?

5. Should carriers be required to use

uniform transaction sets (such as ATFI

transaction sets) for the transmission of

information in automated tariff systems?

6. How long should systems be

required to maintain historical tariff

information?

7. Describe how tariff systems can

automatically block the publication of

unlawful rate actions (e.g., an increased

cost to the shipper published to become

effective less than 30 calendar days after

publication; changes in a controlled

carrier’s tariff published to become

effective less than 30 days after

publication)?

8. How can the systems give the

Commission the ability to void tariff

material that contravenes the statute or

its regulations?

9. How should tariff systems be

structured to handle carrier requests for

Commission approval of deviations

from its rules, including increased costs

to shippers to become effective less than

30 days after publication?

10. How can the Commission meet its

responsibilities efficiently under

sections 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Act if faced

with nonuniform tariff systems?

11. Could tariff systems be designed

so that the Commission could access

certain functionalities that might not

otherwise be available to the general

public (e.g., to generate ad hoc and

recurring reports, facilitate tariff review,

and examines tariff’s history)?

12. Could tariff systems be designed

to automatically inform the Commission

when an amendment is made?

13. How can tariff systems be

designed to facilitate the Commission’s

suspension or prohibition of the use of

tariffs or tariff material found to violate

the 1984 Act or other U.S. shipping

laws?

14. What standards should the

Commission apply to measure the

accuracy and accessibility of a carrier’s

automated tariff publication system?

15. How can tariffs be simplified?

In a related matter, the Reform Act

directs carriers to file their service

contracts with the Commission on a

confidential basis. The Reform Act does

not specify that these filings be done

electronically. Service contracts under

the 1984 Act are currently filed in paper

form. In FY 1997 the Commission

received 10,500 new contracts and

nearly 29,000 amendments. This

compares with 9,400 contracts and

19,500 amendments in FY 1996. By all

indications, the number of service

contract filings will continue to increase

significantly, particularly under a

statutory scheme providing greater

confidentiality in contract terms.

Accordingly, the Commission also is

seeking comments in this inquiry

regarding the electronic filing of service

contracts with the Commission.

Electronically filed service contracts,

unlike the publicly available essential

terms, would be available only to the

Commission and its staff. Commenters

favoring electronic filing may suggest

possible approaches for implementing

such filing, including issues regarding

digitized signatures and text versus data

format. Commenters are also requested

to address the issues as they relate to the

publication of certain essential terms in

tariff format in private automated

systems.

Now therefore, It is ordered that this

Notice of Inquiry be published in the

Federal Register.

By the Commission.

Ronald D. Murphy,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18160 Filed 7–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M