[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36672-36674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14677]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[[Page 36673]]
[email protected]
(After September 30, 2000)
MTMC Deployment Support Command, attn: Steve Lord, Room 201, Bldg.
664 Sheppard Place, Fort Eustis, VA 23604, e-mail: [email protected]
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 PowerTrack-certified 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 MTMC-qualified 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 after-the-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
[[Page 36674]]
(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 non-paper 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