RegulusPipeline research61 FR 51236
Passage 1[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 51236-51238] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-24714] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 172 [Docket HM-222B; Amdt. No. 172-149] RIN 2137-AC76 Revision of Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Regulations; Regulatory Review; Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; Responses to petitions for reconsideration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is publishing two letters in which it denied petitions for reconsideration on provisions of a May 30, 1996, final rule dealing with reducing the requirements pertaining to training frequency and emergency response telephone numbers. DATES: The effective date for the final rule published under Docket HM- 222B on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27166) remains October 1, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Gale, (202) 366-8553; Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, or Karin V. Christian, (202) 366- 4400, Office of the Chief Counsel, RSPA, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001.#
Passage 2SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 30, 1996, RSPA published a final rule under Docket HM-222B (61 FR 27166) which amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) based on its review of the HMR and on written and oral comments received from the public concerning regulatory reform. These changes included reducing the requirements pertaining to training frequency, incident reporting, and emergency response telephone numbers. RSPA's review of the HMR was based on the March 4, 1995, memorandum from President Clinton calling for a review of all agency regulations and elimination or revision of those regulations that are outdated or in need of reform. The effective date of the rule was October 1, 1996, but immediate compliance was authorized. RSPA has received three petitions for reconsideration in regard to the amendments made under Docket HM-222B. Two of the petitioners, the Air Transport Association of America and the Air Line Pilot Association (ALPA), requested that RSPA reconsider its decision to decrease the recurrent training requirements from two to three years. The Air Transport Association and ALPA requested that, for shippers of hazardous materials by air, the training frequency be increased from three years to one year. The other petitioner, the American Trucking Association, requested that RSPA reconsider its decision to grant exceptions from the 24-hour emergency response telephone number requirement for limited quantities and specific materials, such as engines, internal combustion. On September 20, 1996, RSPA denied the petitions for reconsideration in letters which have been sent to each petitioner. This document publishes verbatim the letters of denial as follows: Response to American Trucking Associations September 20, 1996. Mr. Paul Bomgardner, Hazardous Materials Specialist, American Trucking Associations, 2200 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314-4677#
Passage 3Dear Mr. Bomgardner: This letter responds to your July, 18, 1996, Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) regarding a provision of the Final Rule issued under Docket HM-222B, published in the Federal Register on May 30, 1996, at 61 FR 27166. The Petition requests that the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) reconsider the decision to amend 49 CFR 172.604 to except additional materials from the requirement to have a 24-hour emergency response telephone number. The final rule in Docket HM-222B excepted the following materials from the requirement to have a 24-hour emergency response telephone number: limited quantities of hazardous materials; and#
Passage 4materials described under the shipping names ``Engines, internal combustion''; ``Battery powered equipment''; ``Battery powered vehicle''; ``Wheelchair, electric''; ``Carbon dioxide, solid''; ``Dry ice''; ``Fish meal, stabilized''; ``Fish scrap, stabilized''; ``Castor bean''; ``Castor meal''; ``Castor flake''; ``Castor pomace''; and ``Refrigerating machine''. This change is effective October 1, 1996; however, voluntary compliance with this change, and the other amendments made under Docket HM-222B to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180 was authorized as of May 30, 1996. The basis for the Petition was that the exception would create a ``training nightmare'' and possibly promote non-compliance. The Petition went on to say that drivers and stock workers will have to memorize the list of materials and proper shipping names listed in Sec. 172.604 and that this change will causes additional burdensome training which only tends to add confusion to the regulations and costs to compliance. RSPA acknowledges that the exceptions from the 24-hour emergency response telephone number adopted under Docket HM-222B may cause a minimal increase in the training costs of carriers of hazardous materials. However, this cost is far outweighed by the cost savings to shippers of hazardous materials who do not have to maintain a 24- hour emergency response telephone number. RSPA notes that many of the materials, such as ``Engines, internal combustion,'' which have been excepted from this requirement present a very limited hazard in transportation. Other materials excepted from this requirement, such as dry ice, are not subject to the HMR when transported by highway and are currently being transported without emergency response information accompanying the shipments. The exceptions provided in this final rule only apply to the maintenance of a 24-hour telephone number. Shipments subject to the HMR which are transported by highway would still be accompanied by shipping papers and emergency response information. Motor carriers, therefore, will still have access to appropriate initial actions to mitigate incidents. Based on the foregoing, RSPA is denying ATA's petition to rescind the amendment dealing with exceptions from the 24-hour emergency response telephone number requirement.#
Passage 5Sincerely, Alan I. Roberts, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. Response to Air Transport Association of America and Air Line Pilots Association September 20, 1996 Captain Larry Farris, Chairman, Dangerous Goods Committee, Air Line Pilots Association, Post Office Box 1189, Herndon, VA 22070 Mr. Frank J. Black, Director, Cargo Services and Secretary, Air Transport Association of America, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1707.#
Passage 6Dear Messrs. Farris and Black: The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) denies your petitions for reconsideration on the provisions in RSPA's final rule in Docket HM-222B that decreased the training frequency for hazmat employees from two to three years. The final rule in Docket HM-222B decreases the training frequency for hazmat employees from two to three years (49 CFR 172.704). See 61 FR 27166 (May 30, 1996). This change is effective October 1, 1996; however, voluntary compliance with this change, and the other amendments made under Docket HM-222B to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180, was authorized as of May 30, 1996. On June 21, 1996, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and on June 28, 1996, the Air Line Pilot's Association (ALPA) petitioned RSPA to rescind its decision to decrease the recurrent training requirements from two to three years. The ATA and ALPA requested that, for shippers of hazardous materials by air, the training frequency be increased from three years to one year. The ATA stated that: ``[w]e feel strongly that reducing the training frequency will adversely affect safety. It is common knowledge that many unsophisticated shippers do a very poor job of training today. The extension of time will only make it worse.'' The ATA went on to say that it is important that training and awareness of the HMR be properly reinforced at every opportunity. ALPA stated that it believes that RSPA has compromised public safety by extending the training cycle to three years and that it has elected wrongly to divert from the international regulations. ALPA went on to say that the transportation environment by air is different than other modes and that it is very important that those persons shipping and/or offering hazmat have knowledge and current recent awareness of potential dangers which hazardous materials may pose while being transported in this environment. RSPA stated in the preamble to the final rule that one of the most important regulatory requirements in the HMR is its training requirements. Proper training increases a hazmat employee's awareness of safety considerations involved in the loading, unloading, handling, storing, and transportation of hazardous materials. An effective training program reduces hazardous materials incidents resulting from human error and mitigates the effects of in#
Passage 7cidents when they occur. In the final rule, RSPA went on to say that the ``importance of RSPA's training requirements is not diminished by a decrease in the frequency of training from two to three years.'' We do not believe that safety has been compromised by decreasing the training frequency from two to three years. Under the training requirements in the HMR, any person who performs a function subject to the HMR may not perform that function unless trained in accordance with the requirements that apply to that function. In addition, a hazmat employer must ensure that each hazmat employee is thoroughly instructed in the requirements that apply to functions performed by that employee. If RSPA adopts a new regulation, or changes an existing regulation, that relates to a function performed by a hazmat employee, that hazmat employee must be instructed in those new or revised function-specific requirements without regard to the three year training cycle. It is not necessary to completely retrain the employee sooner than the required three year cycle. The only instruction required is that necessary to assure knowledge of the new or revised regulatory requirement. For example, if a new requirement is added to the shipping paper requirements, a hazmat employee must be instructed regarding the new requirement prior to preparation of a shipping paper or performance of a similar function affected by the new or revised rule. It is not necessary to test the hazmat employee or retain records of the instruction provided in the new or revised requirements until the next scheduled retraining at or within the three year cycle. Under HM-222B, RSPA revised the training rules to make it clear that RSPA does not intend that millions of detailed records be created and retained and associated testing be conducted each time a hazmat employee is instructed in regard to a change in the regulations within the three year cycle. RSPA also does not believe that it was wrong to divert from the international regulations by decreasing the training frequency from two to three years. The decrease in training frequency for persons who offer for transportation and transport hazardous materials in domestic transportation does not in any way impede international transportation. A person who complies with the international requirement to retrain every two years will also satisfy the domestic requir#
Passage 8ement to retrain every three years. The ATA and ALPA petitions exceed the scope of the Docket HM- 222B rulemaking, which involved changing a two-year training cycle to a three-year training cycle. The petitions also fail to explain whether or how the proposed air transportation requirement would apply to shippers that offer for transportation by both air transportation and one or more other modes of transportation. The multi-modal impact, as well as cost/benefit ramifications, of this proposal deserves public notice and comment. RSPA believes that there are alternatives to a regulatory requirement that will enhance the safety of hazardous material transported by air. We are distributing informational brochures to educate the flying public. We are also preparing a video to better inform shippers of the requirements for hazardous materials transported by air. Finally, we will be expanding our training efforts for shippers, carriers, and Federal enforcement personnel. In conclusion, neither ATA nor ALPA provided any information that would warrant changing the frequency of training from three years to one year. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that the benefits of your proposal would outweigh the costs. If you have additional information, we request that you provide it in a petition for rulemaking. Our rules on petitions for rulemaking are found in Sec. 106.31. These rules were amended in a Final Rule published on June 14, 1996 (61 FR 30175). Sincerely, Alan I. Roberts, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. Issued in Washington, DC on September 20, 1996, under the authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1. Alan I. Roberts, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. 96-24714 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.