# Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Incident Reporting Requirements and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 68 FR 67746
- **title:** Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Incident Reporting Requirements and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2003-12-03
- **effective on:** 2004-07-01
- **summary:** RSPA is revising the incident reporting requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations and the hazardous materials incident report form, DOT Form F 5800.1. The major changes adopted in this final rule include: Collecting more specific information on the incident reporting form; expanding reporting exceptions; expanding reporting requirements to persons other than carriers; reporting undeclared shipments of hazardous materials; and reporting non-release incidents involving cargo tanks. These revisions will assure an increase in the usefulness of data collected for risk analysis and management by government and industry and, where possible, provide relief from regulatory requirements.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-29597.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-29597.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-03-29597
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/12/03/03-29597/hazardous-materials-revisions-to-incident-reporting-requirements-and-the-hazardous-materials
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 68 Issue 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2003) [Federal Register Volume 68, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2003)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 67746-67773] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 03-29597] [[Page 67745]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and Special Programs Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Part 171 Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Incident Reporting Requirements and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2003 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 67746]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 171 [Docket No. RSPA-99-5013 (HM-229)] RIN 2137-AD21 Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Incident Reporting Requirements and the Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is revising the incident reporting requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations and the hazardous materials incident report form, DOT Form F 5800.1. The major changes adopted in this final rule include: Collecting more specific information on the incident reporting form; expanding reporting exceptions; expanding reporting requirements to persons other than carriers; reporting undeclared shipments of hazardous materials; and reporting non-release incidents involving cargo tanks. These revisions will assure an increase in the usefulness of data collected for risk analysis and management by government and industry and, where possible, provide relief from regulatory requirements. DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective July 1, 2004. Compliance Date: Only the revised DOT Form F 5800.1 (01-2004) specified in this final rule will be accepted for incidents occurring on, or after July 1, 2004. Filers must use the previous DOT Form F 5800.1 (Rev 6/89) form for all incidents up to, and including June 30, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Glenn Foster, (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration or Kevin Coburn, (202) 366-4555, Office of Hazardous Materials Planning & Analysis, Research and Special Programs Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Topics I. Background II. Current Requirements III. Summary of Issues, Comments and Changes A. Electronic Filing B. Revisions to the Form C. One-Call Reporting D. Expansion of Reporting Requirements to Persons Other Than Carriers E. Exceptions to Incident Reporting F. Criteria for Telephonic Notification G. Updates to Reports H. Reporting When No Hazardous Material is Released During an Incident I. Undeclared Shipments of Hazardous Materials That Do Not Result in a Release J. Notifying Shippers of Incidents IV. Summary and Conclusion V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Executive Order 13132 C. Executive Order 13175 D. Executive Order 13272 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Regulation Identification Number (RIN) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act I. Environmental Assessment I. Background Quality data that supports causal, trend, and risk analysis is fundamental to an effective safety program. The importance of data to the hazardous materials transportation safety program was highlighted in both a Department-wide initiative (ONE DOT Flagship Initiative on Hazardous Materials Handling/Incidents; ``HazMat Flagship'') which began in 1999 and a Department-wide Hazardous Materials Program Evaluation (HMPE) completed in 2000. The HazMat Flagship Initiative identified a set of new and ongoing actions relating to hazardous materials transportation that have the greatest potential impact on safety and program operation and that benefit from a cooperative approach. The HMPE used a multi-modal team to conduct a Department-wide program evaluation to document and assess the effectiveness of the Department's hazardous materials transportation safety program. The team's final report can be found at: http://hazmat.dot.gov/hmpe.htm . Both the HazMat Flagship initiative and the HMPE emphasized the need to obtain more accurate and complete data on incidents. The hazardous materials transportation safety program relies on DOT Form F 5800.1, Hazardous Materials Incident Report, to gather basic information on incidents that occur during transportation and that meet specified criteria in Sec. 171.16 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) last revised this form in 1989. In 2001, we received approximately 17,500 incident reports. RSPA uses the data and information reported by carriers to: [sbull] Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing regulations; [sbull] Determine the need for regulatory changes to cover changing transportation safety problems; and [sbull] Identify major problem areas that should receive priority attention. In addition, both government and industry use this information to chart trends, identify problems and training inadequacies, evaluate packagings, and assess ways to reduce releases. Although the current incident report form provides useful information and is generally recognized as being fundamentally sound, there is room for improvement. We believe the opportunity exists to obtain better, more detailed information on events, such as more descriptive information to help determine root causes of events; to offer better linkages so that data can be coupled; and to better structure the report form to facilitate complete and accurate responses. Our experience using data generated by the current form has identified certain deficiencies. Rulemakings such as Docket HM-225A, ``Revision to Regulations Governing Transportation and Unloading of Liquefied Compressed Gases,'' and Docket HM-213B, ``Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids,'' have demonstrated the difficulties involved with using DOT Form F 5800.1 data to determine precise failure modes and causes. These rulemakings also underscore the unreliability of reported incident cost information and the need to update this and other data as better information becomes available after initial submission of the form. A study performed by the Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois (National Risk Assessment for Selected Hazardous Materials Transportation) for RSPA used incident data as a basic input into the study, and recommended changes in a number of areas of incident data collection. Also, risk practitioners in government and industry offered suggestions for improved reporting of incident data in a white paper produced under the auspices of the Transportation Research Board. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued several recommendations related to data collection and processing identified during the course of their investigations: (1) NTSB Recommendation H-92-6 suggests establishment of a program to collect information necessary to identify patterns of cargo tank equipment failures, including the reporting of all accidents involving a DOT specification cargo tank, with or without a release of hazardous materials. (2) NTSB recommendation R-89-52 suggests implementing regulations to ensure that there is formal feedback [[Page 67747]] from carriers to shippers when an incident has occurred. (3) NTSB recommendation H-99-58 asks RSPA to establish a specific time period for reporting incidents meeting criteria in Sec. 171.15 (telephonic notification). Undeclared hazardous materials shipments, particularly in the air mode, are a serious safety concern within the Department. This issue received significant attention in the HazMat Flagship, and was recognized by the HMPE as an important area where better understanding of the frequency and impact of such shipments is essential. Data obtained through reporting discoveries of such shipments, whether or not the material is released, can help in defining the extent of the problem and in developing programs to mitigate the risk involved. DOT Form F 5800.1 is an efficient way to collect this data. Such data, even though it represents only undeclared hazardous materials that are discovered rather than the full spectrum of undeclared hazardous material shipments, can play a significant role in monitoring trends and measuring the effects of efforts to reduce undeclared shipments. We are cognizant of the burden often imposed by regulatory requirements. As we developed changes to the incident reporting requirements, we attempted to minimize any additional burden associated with the revised requirements. For instance, we are adding exceptions to reporting requirements for small releases of materials that pose the least hazard where sufficient data already exists to manage risk. Further, we have deleted certain data fields that ask for information that is obtainable from other sources, for example, land use at the incident site. In addition, we are allowing electronic submission of the form, such as through an internet-based form or through a bulk data transfer, in order to facilitate the process. An internet-based form will ask only the questions the reporter is required to complete, based on previous answers. Accepting the data through a bulk file transfer allows larger companies to configure reporting software for their particular operations, maintain the information electronically, and eliminate paper and postage. As a result of a meeting between DOT and members of several trade associations concerning hazardous materials incident reporting, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) sponsored a workgroup with segments of the transportation community to discuss the DOT Form F 5800.1 and the reporting requirements of Sec. Sec. 171.15 and 171.16. The workgroup meetings were held during the winter of 1997-98. Participants included representatives from all four transportation modes, RSPA, shippers, container manufacturers, and labor. The workgroup submitted recommendations to RSPA. We developed questions based on input from these meetings, the DOT modal agencies, other concerned individuals, and on our own initiative. On March 23, 1999, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 64 FR 13943) that asked a series of questions regarding the need to change current reporting requirements or the incident report form. We received approximately 40 comments from industry associations, State and local governments, non-profit associations, and carriers. Based on these comments, we developed proposed regulatory language and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 66 FR 35155) on July 3, 2001. We identified ten general issues in the NPRM, which are reviewed in Section III of this document. RSPA received over 30 comments on the NPRM. RSPA's decisions on the proposals of the NPRM and review of these comments are discussed in Section III, below. II. Current Requirements Currently, Sec. 171.15 requires carriers to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) after any incident that occurs during transportation in which, as a direct result of hazardous materials: (1) A person is killed; (2) A person receives injuries requiring his or her hospitalization; (3) Estimated carrier or other property damage exceeds $50,000; (4) An evacuation of the general public occurs lasting one or more hours; (5) One or more major transportation arteries or facilities are closed or shut down for one hour or more; (6) The operational flight pattern or routine of an aircraft is altered; (7) Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected contamination occurs involving shipments of radioactive material or infectious substances (etiologic agents); (8) There has been a release of a marine pollutant in a quantity exceeding 450 L (119 gallons) for liquids or 400 kg (882 pounds) for solids; or (9) A situation exists of such a nature (e.g., a continuing danger to life exists at the scene of the incident) that, in the judgment of the carrier, it should be reported to the National Response Center even though it does not meet any other immediate notification criteria. Carriers may report any of these incidents involving aircraft to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Security Field Office. In addition, certain incidents involving infectious substances must be reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Each carrier required to make a report under Sec. 171.15 is also required to complete DOT Form F 5800.1 in accordance with Sec. 171.16. Additionally, unless excepted, a carrier is required to submit DOT Form F 5800.1 for any incident occurring during transportation that results in an unintentional release of a hazardous material from its package or the discharge of any quantity of hazardous waste. We use the data and information reported by carriers to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing regulations; (2) Determine the need for regulatory changes to cover changing transportation safety problems; and (3) Identify major problem areas that should receive priority attention. In addition, both government and industry use this information to chart trends, identify problems and training inadequacies, evaluate packagings, and assess ways to reduce releases. In considering how to improve the incident report form, our primary objective was to ensure that useful information is collected in an efficient manner. We believe it is possible to improve the structure and format of the form to make it easier to understand and complete. To reduce the reporting burden on persons responsible for completing the incident report, we believe certain existing fields that ask for information that is obtainable from other sources can be deleted. We also believe it is appropriate to add information in certain areas where it can help determine future program direction and support measures of program effectiveness. For example, a good description of packaging performance, documenting both failures and successes, helps us define future requirements. In addition, undeclared hazardous materials is an area of significant safety concern to DOT, and the ability to identify the frequency and source of such shipments is an important factor in reducing their occurrence. A complete description of changes to the content of the form is provided in the following sections. III. Summary of Issues, Comments and Changes In the NPRM, RSPA proposed changes on the following ten issues. In this final rule, we discuss comments submitted to the docket, concerns raised by [[Page 67748]] commenters, and our decisions on each issue below: (A) Electronic filing (B) Revisions to the form (C) One-call reporting (D) Expansion of reporting requirements to persons other than carriers (E) Exceptions to incident reporting (F) Criteria for telephonic notification (G) Updates to reports (H) Reporting when no hazardous material is released during an incident (I) Undeclared shipments of hazardous materials that do not result in a release (J) Notifying shippers of incidents. A. Electronic Filing In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt a variety of electronic filing methods, including facsimile (fax), electronic mail (e-mail), and internet-based forms. Electronic filing of incident reports is consistent with the requirements of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which generally mandates that, by October 2003, agencies accept electronic documents and electronic signatures for the transactions that they conduct with the public and regulated parties. All commenters support an electronic filing option. Commenters state that fax, e-mail, and internet submissions should be available to facilitate reporting. However, some commenters also state that electronic filing should be optional rather than mandatory. We agree that electronic filing of incident reports would reduce the reporting burden on industry and increase reporting flexibility. However, because of logistical obstacles, all means of electronic filing will not be immediately available. We are in the process of developing the capability to allow electronic submission of the form and bulk transfer, and will issue an advisory notification upon completion. Although initial systems available to receive electronic submissions are limited, they will be expanded in the future as new systems are implemented within the Department or as new technologies become available. We will continue to accept filing of a paper form, but we will not require the reporter to submit duplicate copies of the form. In addition, we have revised language in the regulations concerning the retention of the report in order to facilitate electronic storage. We have removed the provision requiring approval from the Department of Transportation to retain copies at a location other than the reporter's principal place of business. Instead, we allow the reporter to store the report at a location other than the principal place of business if the report is available to the reporter's principal place of business 24 hours after a request by a representative of the Department. Often, electronic documents may be stored on a computer server that is not physically located at the person's place of business. Additionally, the storage location is not of paramount concern, provided the document can be produced in the specified time. This change allows more flexibility for storing electronic and physical copies of the reports. B. Revisions to the Form The proposed modifications to the data form were published in the Federal Register in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). These proposed modifications introduced new and revised data elements in the form. These revisions are intended to minimize burdens on the end user, while necessitating that the form be completed accurately. As a result of these new requirements, as well as RSPA's intent to maximize the accuracy and completeness of the forms we receive, RSPA procured the services of the QED Group, LLC (QED) of Washington, DC to recruit both experienced and non-experienced users of the previous form to test the form proposed in the NPRM. QED convened a series of focus groups to provide RSPA with constructive feedback on the revised form. The first focus group meeting took place on October 25, 2002, with a morning session attended by ten experienced filers and an afternoon session attended by four less experienced filers. Neither group indicated that major revisions to the layout of the draft form were necessary. However, we derived the following observations from this meeting: [sbull] The form layout should be more compact than the version in the NPRM, but attention should still be paid to font size. [sbull] The form should avoid the use of shaded regions, as these interfere with faxing. [sbull] The form should explicitly identify the form and/or series number of the accompanying instructions, as well as URL information for instructions available online. [sbull] Any such online instructions should contain links to the sections of the CFR cited, and should also contain links to definitions. [sbull] There were no major issues or concerns with the graphics or other visual cues. [sbull] Infrequent filers were concerned that the conditions for form filing were not presented all in one place. They suggested a different grouping of instructions, something along the lines of a ``Who--Why--When?'' section. Infrequent filers preferred a format similar to a flowchart (perhaps on a separate instruction page or worksheet) to walk them through the incident characteristics and help them arrive at a filing decision. Considerations of an electronic form were not a major element of the discussions in this session. The most significant finding regarding the design of the electronic form was that large companies would prefer direct data exchange to a piecemeal filing of form information via the Web. Small companies, however, welcomed the Web interface primarily because of the potential for live HTML links to instructions, definitions and supporting regulations. The second focus group meeting took place on November 22, 2002, with a morning session attended by seven experienced filers and an afternoon session attended by six less experienced filers.\1\ The full QED report can be found in the Docket. Some of the comments received from this group included: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Other scheduled attendees of both sessions experienced work- related emergencies or had other difficulties that prevented them from participating in the focus group. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [sbull] In general, participants reacted very positively to the new electronic form. Participants appreciated having direct access to the instructions for completing the form in an electronic version. [sbull] Replace the numeric values and alpha codes with check- boxes. [sbull] Change the wording for the entry of failure codes for packaging from ``Enter up to 3 Codes'' to ``Enter up to 3 sets of Codes.'' They also suggested that a vertical line be drawn between each grouping of ``What Failed How Failed Cause(s) of Failure.'' [sbull] Air carriers indicated that for a hazardous material incident involving passenger baggage, there should be an ability to indicate the type of bag containing the item involved in the release, as well as any packaging within the bag. [sbull] Language should be changed in Part 6 from ``Describe the package failure'' to something else since the report may not be in response to the failure of a package but due to some other hazardous material incident. [sbull] Participants indicated that they would like the ability to save templates. These templates could be linked to a company- or location-specific password, and would store information such as reporting entity address, mode, and [[Page 67749]] possibly even material information (for single-material handlers). Alternatively, some participants indicated that they would like to be able to host versions of these forms (with company-specific information already filled in) on their own intranets and post the reports to DOT databases from their own systems. [sbull] Participants would like to enter the UN number of the hazardous material, and have a scripted lookup function enter everything else into the various fields from a table. [sbull] Provide additional ``skip patterns'' and validation logic-- for example, if the release is caused by a ``puncture,'' the program should make ``shell thickness'' a required data field and not allow the form to be saved or submitted if it is incomplete. Participants also mentioned that they would like relevant previous responses to gray out everything not applicable after item 23, and that item 23 itself should be linked to the response to 1(b). Similarly on item 27, if there are no fatalities, the numbers could be greyed out and ``tab'' could skip to the next valid item. [sbull] Add ability to upload supplementary documentation/pictures, etc. on the part 6 page using an interface not unlike that for adding attachments to Web-based mail. [sbull] Part 7 might be better as a dropdown box, since filers will probably supply a response that can be autocoded this way. This might save DOT time in having to back-code responses that fall into regular patterns such as ``enhanced training, accelerated repair schedule,'' etc. [sbull] Participants stated that default values would be a good idea for the form. Having a default value for ``unknown'' might make it easier for DOT to identify missings/unknowns/not applicables, a frequent source of problems in data analysis from survey research. [sbull] Measurement units entered throughout the form should be confined to a standard list and should exist in fields separate from the quantities field. RSPA received numerous comments and questions on the proposed form layout. Several commenters mentioned the increase in the number of pages of the form. As we explained in the NPRM, the page numbers increased due to the addition of approximately 15 data fields to the basic incident information and the addition of more white space. The number of pages in the final version of the form actually only increased from 2 to 4 pages. In considering how to organize and lay out the incident report form, our primary objective is to ensure that useful information is captured in an efficient manner. We are deleting certain existing fields that ask for information obtainable from other sources or that can be extrapolated from other fields. The questions ``Is material a hazardous substance?,'' ``Was the RQ met?,'' and the ``Land Use and Community Type'' fall into this category. Similarly, the ``Highway Type'' and ``Number of Lanes at a Vehicle Accident/Derailment site'' can be determined from other sources. In addition, the type of labeling or placarding fields offer limited benefit to safety improvements, and have not been included in the revised form. Additional information in certain areas is needed to help determine future program direction and to support measures of program effectiveness. Separate fields for information on packing group, hazardous wastes, and toxic by inhalation materials would allow us to better identify the materials involved in incidents. Further, we believe the inclusion of cross-reference fields, such as the NRC report number and the shipper's and carrier's hazardous materials registration number, will help broaden the ties the incident data has with other Federal hazardous materials data. We also believe gathering additional information on the types of persons who respond to incidents, the types of persons who are killed, injured or need to be evacuated, as well as how long evacuations or closures last, will contribute to incident risk analysis. The more detailed questions concerning air transport incidents and questions directed to specific types of packagings will allow for more focused review of where and how packages fail. Additionally, the ability to identify the frequency and source of undeclared hazardous materials shipments, an area of significant safety concern to DOT, is important to reduce their occurrence. We are revising the packaging sections of the incident report form to eliminate duplicative and confusing formatting and to enable us to gather more specific packaging information. For example, we are replacing check boxes to identify damage to packagings with failure codes specific to each packaging type. The utilization of failure codes was one of the recommendations that came from the AAR workgroup discussed in Section I. The use of failure codes allows the preparer to select from a set of choices appropriate to the particular packaging type involved. Also, we believe use of terminology appropriate for the particular packaging type will help avoid confusion and ultimately make it easier for the preparer to complete the incident report. Although we have not adopted failure codes of the exact type and form recommended by AAR, we have revised the format of the codes on the form so that the first code element for ``What Failed'' corresponds to the specific point of failure followed by location codes. This allows for easy translation of the codes. The single AAR code corresponds to a specific sequence of codes to be entered on this form. Further, we recognize that the experience we gain with the early use of these failure codes may result in periodic changes as the set matures. The instructions invite suggestions for improvements to the failure codes. The expansion will add about 15 data fields to the basic incident information. We believe the benefits to be gained by collecting more detailed information will require only minimal additional time to report these mostly short yes/no or fill-in-the-blank fields. In addition, we have provided space for recommendations or actions. The purpose of this section is not to assess blame or serve as a definitive statement relating to the root causes of an incident, but rather to gather ideas on preventing the recurrence of incidents. Such information can help identify common problems and may be used to support regulatory changes. Further, we have reformatted the incident report form to facilitate completion (e.g., more white space and a more logical flow from item to item). While this reformatting has added two additional pages to the form, we believe that this design will improve accuracy and make the form easier to complete. C. One-Call Reporting In this final rule, we are adopting the proposal to eliminate the separate telephonic notification requirement to FAA for air shipments and to require all air carriers to report incidents subject to Sec. 171.15(a) to the National Response Center (NRC). NRC would then make any subsequent notifications. NRC personnel are specifically trained on which notification requirements pertain to which entities, thus, this change should result in more accurate notification to parties with a need to know. Only a few commenters addressed the one-call issue. In its comment, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) supported streamlining the calling process, but emphasized the need to alert state officials via 911. RSPA recognizes the difference between contacting emergency response officials and incident reporting to DOT. As the CHP states, ``* * * it is the local emergency response agency(s) who [[Page 67750]] handle the entire incident and nearly every instance bears the initial response burden and often the greatest opportunity to mitigate the adverse consequences.'' We reiterate that the one-call for reporting to the NRC is for incident reporting. In the case of any incident involving hazardous materials that requires immediate emergency response, the local authorities should be immediately notified. In addition, adoption of this requirement does not relieve a person from reporting discrepancies of hazardous material shipments transported by air. Discrepancies are those air shipments involving hazardous materials which are improperly described, certified, labeled, marked, or packaged, in a manner not ascertainable when accepted. Section 175.31 of the HMR requires, as soon as practical, a person to report by telephone to the nearest FAA Security Field Office a discrepancy relative to the shipment of a hazardous material following the shipment's acceptance for transportation aboard an aircraft. The United Parcel Service (UPS) indicated its support for continuing reporting to the FAA Security Field Office in place of reporting to the NRC. UPS stated that ``* * * direct notification to the FAA by the person in physical possession of the hazardous material will result in more accurate notification * * *'' than notification to the NRC. UPS notes that ``* * * nothing in the administrative record provides a reasoned discussion of why elimination of direct FAA notification would result in more accurate incident reporting.'' A Presidential review of Federal release prevention, mitigation, and response authorities, conducted under the requirements of section 112(r)(10) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, found that the current reporting system was complex and confusing. In 1993, the National Response Team (NRT), comprised of multiple federal agencies, submitted a Report to Congress entitled ``A Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous Materials Accident Safety.'' In this report the NRT recommended that streamlining the accident notification reporting requirements be further examined. The NRT found that the duplicative reporting requirements imposed by the various agencies was a burden. The one-call reporting system is an attempt to streamline the process for federally mandated reporting of accidental discharges of hazardous materials. There are a variety of incident scenarios, that, under current Federal regulations, would require the reporting party to call multiple Federal agencies to notify them of an accidental release. Under the one-call system, the NRC receives all Federal telephonic notifications of hazardous materials incidents and then notifies all appropriate parties, ensuring that incident data is collected and maintained. Centralizing the collection of release notifications will result in improved data quality by ensuring that all release notification data is collected in a consistent and comprehensive manner. D. Expansion of Reporting Requirements to Persons Other Than Carriers Currently, the requirements for telephonic and written reporting of transportation incidents apply to carriers only. Operators of transportation facilities, such as marine terminals, who may not perform carrier functions are not required to report transportation incidents involving hazardous materials. Most commenters to the NPRM agree that the person in physical control of a hazardous material when an incident occurs during transportation should be responsible for reporting that incident. The Norfolk Southern Railway Company supports the proposal and notes ``the person in control * * * would be the person most knowledgeable about the incident.'' Many commenters note that a pending RSPA rulemaking that will define when a material is ``in transportation in commerce'' (Docket HM- 223, NPRM published on January 27, 2001; 66 FR 59220) is an important factor in determining when and what entities would be required to report incidents. DuPont comments ``* * * this issue cannot be resolved until the DOT publishes a final rulemaking on Docket HM-223 Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to Loading/ Unloading and Storage.'' A commenter associated with the F 5800.1 Task Force supports ``* * * the idea that the party having physical control of the material is the one who should be required to complete the report * * *'' but notes the relationship of Docket HM-223. ``If the final rule in HM-223 is promulgated as proposed, it would relieve parties, other than carriers from having to execute incident reports'' notes the commenter. He continues ``This would mean that consignors and consignees would not have to report incidents occurring during loading or unloading.'' The International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association, Inc. (VOHMA) expands the concept further by questioning ``* * * who will actually be required to report an incident that occurs during the course of activities that might not be considered to be `in transportation' and in fact, [we] wonder if the responsibility might then fall back on the last carrier.'' On October 30, 2003, we published a final rule under Docket HM-223 (68 FR 61906). Among other issues, the final rule clarifies the applicability of the HMR to specific functions and activities, including loading, unloading, and storage operations. Consistent with the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), the final rule defines ``transportation'' to mean the movement of property and loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement. Transportation in commerce begins when a carrier takes physical possession of a hazardous material for the purpose of transporting it and continues until delivery of the package to its consignee or destination as evidenced by the shipping documentation under which the hazardous material is moving. The final rule defines ``loading incidental to movement'' to mean the loading by carrier personnel or in the presence of carrier personnel of packaged or containerized hazardous material onto a transport vehicle, aircraft, or vessel; for a bulk packaging, ``loading incidental to movement'' means the filling of the packaging with a hazardous material by carrier personnel or in the presence of carrier personnel. The final rule defines ``unloading incidental to movement'' to mean the removal of a packaged or containerized hazardous material from a transport vehicle, aircraft, or vessel or the emptying of a hazardous material from a bulk packaging after the hazardous material has been delivered to the consignee and prior to the delivering carrier's departure from the consignee facility or premises. Under the final rule, ``storage incidental to movement'' means storage by any person of a transport vehicle, freight container, or package containing a hazardous material between the time that a carrier takes physical possession of the hazardous material until the package containing the hazardous material is physically delivered to the destination indicated on a shipping document. This final rule requires reporting of incidents under Sec. Sec. 171.15 of 171.16 that occur during the time that the material is in transportation. Consistent with the definitions adopted in HM-223, incidents that occur during loading operations conducted by carrier personnel or in the presence of carrier personnel must be reported, as must incidents that occur during unloading operations conducted prior to a carrier's departure from the consignee's premises. Hazardous materials incidents [[Page 67751]] that occur during loading operations conducted by a shipper prior to a carrier's arrival at its facility to pick up the hazardous material or during unloading operations conducted by consignee personnel after the hazardous material has been delivered and the carrier has departed the premises are not required to be reported under Sec. Sec. 171.15 and 171.16. Note in this regard that the HM-223 final rule changes the applicability of the HMR to rail tank car unloading operations conducted by consignee personnel, which are currently subject to the provisions of Sec. 174.67. Under HM-223, such rail tank car unloading operations are not transportation functions and, thus, are not subject to incident reporting requirements. Other commenters opposed the requirement in total. In addition to Docket HM-223 concerns, the Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) ``* * * contend that this change will increase the burden on industry.'' Additionally, they claim the ``* * * change will decrease the efficiency of RSPA's data collection'' because it is possible that more than one person will report the same incident. The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMMA) sees an increase in burden for industry and RSPA by ``* * * requiring procedural changes, additional training, and time'' for industry and the confusion caused by duplicative reporting will ``* * * decrease the efficiency of RSPA's data collection efforts and will not benefit its risk assessment.'' RSPA already receives duplicate reports and currently has a system for identifying duplicative reporting, thus the impact to RSPA should be minimal. In our Regulatory Evaluation, available in the HM-229 Docket (RSPA-99-5013-87), we discuss the additional cost to industry by adopting this proposal. We anticipate a minimal increase in the number of reports concerning incidents that occur during loading and unloading because these activities are already reported by carriers. Given the volume of handlings, however, we conservatively estimate a 2% increase in the number of reports concerning incidents that occur during loading and unloading. RSPA also expects an increase in the number of reported incidents occurring in facilities where hazardous materials are stored incidental to transportation. An RSPA study conducted in 1998 estimates that many of the 800,000 daily 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 154426