[Federal Register: February 13, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6669-6673]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13fe02-27]
[[Page 6669]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 175
[Docket No. RSPA-00-7762 (HM-206C)]
RIN 2137-AD29
Hazardous Materials: Availability of Information for Hazardous
Materials Transported by Aircraft
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) to require an aircraft operator to: Place a telephone number on
the notification of pilot-in-command that can be contacted during an
in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials
aboard the aircraft; retain a copy of the notification of pilot-in-
command at the aircraft operator's principal place of business for one
year; retain and make readily accessible a copy of the notification of
pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, at the airport of
departure until the flight leg is completed; and make readily
accessible a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the
information contained in it, at the planned airport of arrival until
the flight leg is completed. The intent of this proposal is to increase
the level of safety associated with the transportation of hazardous
materials aboard aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 26, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Dockets Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh St., SW,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number,
RSPA-00-7762 (HM-206C). You should submit two copies of your comments.
If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received,
you should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. You may also
submit your comments by e-mail to
http://dms.dot.gov or by telefax to
(202)366-3753. The Dockets Management System is located on the Plaza
Level of the Nassif Building at the above address. You may view public
dockets between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal holidays. Internet users can access all comments
received by the U.S. DOT Dockets Management System Web site at
http://dms.dot.gov. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded
using a modem and suitable communications software from the Federal
Register Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Gale, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590-0001 telephone (202) 366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-
180), an offeror of a hazardous material must provide the aircraft
operator with a signed shipping paper containing the quantity and a
basic shipping description of the material being offered for
transportation (i.e., proper shipping name, hazard class, UN or NA
identification number, and packing group); certain emergency response
information; and a 24-hour emergency response telephone number. (49 CFR
part 172, subparts C and G). Additional information may be required
depending on the specific hazardous material being shipped. (49 CFR
172.203). A copy of this shipping paper must accompany the shipment it
covers during transportation aboard the aircraft. (49 CFR 175.35).
In addition to the shipping paper accompanying each hazardous
materials shipment, an aircraft operator must provide the pilot-in-
command of the aircraft written information relative to the hazardous
materials on board the plane. (49 CFR 175.33). For each hazardous
materials shipment, this information must include:
(1) Proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification number;
(2) technical and chemical group name, if applicable;
(3) any additional shipping description requirements applicable to
specific types or shipments of hazardous materials or to materials
shipped under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
requirements;
(4) total number of packages;
(5) net quantity or gross weight, as appropriate, for each package;
(6) the location of each package on the aircraft;
(7) for Class 7 (radioactive) materials, the number of packages,
overpacks or freight containers, their transport index, and their
location on the plane; and
(8) an indication, if applicable, a hazardous material is being
transported under terms of an exemption.
This information must be readily available to the pilot-in-command
during flight. In essence, the Notification of pilot-in-command (NOPC)
provides the same information to emergency response personnel as a
shipping paper for transportation by rail or public highway. In
addition, emergency response information applicable to the specific
hazardous materials being transported by aircraft must be available for
use at all times the materials are present on the plane, and must be
maintained on board in the same manner as the notification of pilot-in-
command. (See subpart G of part 172 for requirements relating to
emergency response information.) In an emergency situation, the flight
crew may be able to transfer information on the hazardous materials
aboard the aircraft to air traffic control, or emergency responders may
be able to retrieve the information from the aircraft after it lands.
However, during an in-flight emergency, the flight crew will most
likely be attending to more pressing tasks, thus making retrieval of
the information from the flight crew impractical. Also, in many
emergencies the aircraft is damaged or destroyed, making retrieval of
this information from the aircraft impossible. Therefore, we need to
amend the HMR to assure the information on the hazardous materials
carried aboard the aircraft is available to emergency responders
through sources other than the flight crew.
This proposal has its origins in the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA). Section 25 of HMTUSA (Pub.
L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3273) required the Secretary to conduct a
rulemaking to evaluate methods for establishing and operating a central
reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center. HMTUSA
mandated we contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
study the feasibility and necessity of establishing and operating a
central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data
center. Areas of the study included: (1) Receiving, storing, and
retrieving data concerning all daily shipments of hazardous materials;
(2) identifying hazardous materials being transported by any mode of
transportation; and (3) providing information to facilitate responses
to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous
materials.
In conjunction with the NAS study, RSPA issued an ANPRM entitled
``Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems'' on June
9, 1992 (Docket HM-206; 57 FR 24532). The ANPRM included 63 primary
questions
[[Page 6670]]
on the feasibility of establishing a central reporting system, methods
of improving the placarding system, and the feasibility of requiring
each carrier to maintain a continually monitored emergency response
telephone number.
NAS published its report on April 29, 1993. (A copy of the NAS
report can be obtained from the Transportation Research Board at 2101
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418.) The central
recommendation of the report advises the Federal government not to
attempt to implement a national central reporting system, as originally
proposed for consideration. NAS found the existing hazardous materials
communication system effective, in most instances; and, further, that
the information available at hazardous materials transportation
incident sites meets the critical information needs of emergency
responders.
In the NPRM issued under Docket HM-206 on August 15, 1994 (59 FR
41848), we did not propose to establish a centralized reporting system
and telecommunication data center. Instead, we concluded the national
central reporting system described in detail in HMTUSA would be
extremely complicated, burdensome, expensive to implement, and of
questionable benefit. We believe this conclusion and the central
recommendation of the NAS report are still valid.
The changes proposed in this notice are also responsive to a
recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
are consistent with recent changes to the ICAO Technical Instructions
for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical
Instructions). The NTSB recommends that RSPA:
Require, within two years, that air carriers transporting
hazardous materials have the means, 24 hours per day, to quickly
retrieve and provide consolidated specific information about the
identity (including proper shipping name), hazard class, quantity,
number of packages, and location of all hazardous material on an
airplane in a timely manner to emergency responders. (A-98-80).
This recommendation is contained in NTSB's August 12, 1998, letter
to RSPA, which has been placed in the public docket. The recommendation
follows NTSB's investigation of a September 5, 1996, accident involving
a Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) flight from Memphis, Tennessee,
to Boston, Massachusetts (a detailed description of the incident can be
found in the ANPRM). NTSB found the on-board hazardous materials
shipping papers and notification of pilot-in-command (NOPC) were not
available to emergency responders. Further, NTSB discovered FedEx did
not have the capability to generate, in a timely manner, a single list
indicating the shipping name, hazard class, identification number,
quantity, and location of hazardous materials on the airplane. To
prepare such a list, according to the NTSB, FedEx would have had to
compile information from individual shipping papers for each individual
shipment of hazardous materials on board the aircraft. NTSB contrasted
this with the railroads' practice of generating a computerized list of
all the freight cars containing hazardous materials on a given train,
with the shipping name, hazard class, identification number, quantity
and type of packaging, and emergency response guidance for each
hazardous material. NTSB stated such a list provides information to
emergency responders in a timely fashion and in a useful format.
NTSB also stated shipping papers are less likely to be available or
accessible after an aircraft accident than after a rail, highway, or
water accident, because of the likelihood of fire or destruction of the
airplane. Due to the danger of fire, a flight crew is also less likely
to have time to retrieve shipping papers after an accident. NTSB
concluded the HMR do not adequately address the need for air carriers
to have quickly retrievable hazardous materials information in a format
useful to emergency responders.
The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel also considered additional steps
that could be taken to improve the availability of information in the
event of an aircraft incident. As a result, the Panel revised the ICAO
Technical Instructions to: (1) Require the NOPC to be readily
accessible at the airport of departure and arrival; and (2) allow an
aircraft operator to provide a phone number where a copy of the NOPC
could be obtained. In an emergency, the pilot would relay the phone
number instead of the specific hazardous materials aboard the aircraft
to an air traffic controller (see ICAO Technical Instructions 7;4.3).
For informational purposes, we placed in the Docket an excerpt from the
reports of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel reflecting discussions on
this topic and relevant changes for inclusion in the 2001-2002 and
2003-2004 ICAO Technical Instructions.
On August 15, 2000, we issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments and suggestions on ways to
implement the NTSB recommendation and the need for this or other
changes to the HMR. The purpose of this action is to make it easier for
emergency responders to obtain shipment information for hazardous
materials transported by aircraft. The ANPRM solicited comments on past
incidents; practices and procedures currently in use and their costs;
information needed by emergency responders; and the benefit,
feasibility, and funding of a centralized reporting system (CRS).
II. Comments to the ANPRM
We received nine comments in response to the ANPRM. Commenters
included a shipper, a freight forwarder, software developers, and trade
associations. Commenters who support development of a CRS believe
improved response capabilities to aircraft hazardous materials
incidents are important to the entire aviation industry. One commenter
suggests it would be best if a CRS were developed by an industry
advisory committee. Another commenter supports the exploration of the
concept of a CRS by an industry task force convened under the auspices
of RSPA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). One commenter
believes a CRS would help protect crew-members, passengers, emergency
response personnel, and persons on the ground. Another commenter states
a CRS is the key to rapid and effective information distribution and
would provide emergency response personnel and flight crews with
valuable information in timely fashion on the types, quantities, and
locations of hazardous materials aboard an aircraft. This commenter
suggests we charge shippers for the costs associated with the
development and operation of the CRS.
A commenter opposed to the development of a CRS believes the new
system will not provide an improvement over the existing, proven
emergency response communication system and the complicated operation
of a centralized system could make errors likely and result in a
substantial decrease in safety. This commenter believes the current
requirements in the HMR work well and have achieved an excellent safety
record. The commenter suggests improvements are possible, but wholesale
changes are not necessary. Another commenter notes RSPA and NAS
rejected the proposal for a CRS several years ago because it was
impractical and unnecessary. The commenter believes the earlier finding
of RSPA and NAS continues to be valid, even though the technology
advanced. This commenter states that a government-mandated CRS will
force-fit a ``one size fits all'' solution and stifle further
technological advances. Another
[[Page 6671]]
commenter states that a centralized system is not beneficial or
feasible because of the differences in various airlines' information
systems and the need to adapt to constantly improving technology. The
commenter believes that the additional risk posed during an emergency
by properly prepared hazardous materials shipments may not be
significant considering the standard fuel capacity of a Boeing 747-400
is approximately 204,340 liters (54,000 gallons), and approximately
54,920 liters (14,500 gallons) for an Airbus A300-200. The commenter
also states that in the past, the transport of properly prepared
hazardous materials has not proved problematic in air transportation.
Several commenters note that a system meeting the NTSB
recommendation is not only feasible, but is currently available. One
current software system has the ability to contact a carrier's data
files, and return the identity of the vehicle's contents, if hazardous,
within 90 seconds by the process of entering a unique vehicle
identifier. However, the developer of this software says it does not
know how much it would cost to modify air carrier computer programs to
provide accessible, on-scene information. Another computer system
described by commenters facilitates the preparation of hazardous
material shipments in accordance with applicable domestic and
international regulations. The developer of this software claims that
all of the information per flight is stored perpetually in a database
and an entire NOPC for a given flight can be retrieved and sent via e-
mail in seconds. Neither software developer provided specific cost
information.
In response to the question of how quickly should emergency
responders have access to information, several of the commenters
suggested a time frame within 5 to 10 minutes. One commenter believes
it is absolutely critical for emergency response personnel to be able
to access the information immediately. This commenter adds that
transmission of this information immediately, as opposed to even within
15 minutes, can mean the difference between life and death.
One commenter suggests that the method of how the information is
made available to emergency response personnel should be left optional,
as long as it satisfies the NTSB recommendation to quickly provide the
information. Another commenter states that RSPA should not dictate the
method of delivery, but allow the airlines and the emergency response
personnel to use the methods which best fit their needs at the time of
the incident. Other commenters believe that the information should be
available by phone, fax, and computer, because not all media are
available at every airport in the world.
Regarding the question of how emergency response personnel
currently obtain information about cargo aboard an aircraft, several
commenters mention in response that, information is transmitted by the
aircraft captain in advance of the aircraft landing or from the
availability of the NOPC from the flight crew after landing. One
commenter explains that many operators maintain copies of the NOPC at
departure stations, which are also accessible for information.
Several commenters who address the issue of a visual stowage plan,
believe such a plan would be beneficial for both crew and emergency
response personnel, and a map showing the location and a description of
the different hazardous materials on-board the aircraft would be
particularly helpful. Another commenter counters by pointing out that
there are many variables involved with a visual stowage plan--for
example, the same type of aircraft may be configured differently and
have different compartment and position numbers. The commenter suggests
the feasibility of combining both a visual diagram with a CRS seems
very remote.
We received several comments on what, if any, exceptions from a
requirement for a CRS should be provided. Most of the commenters state
no exceptions should be granted. One commenter suggests if we were to
grant exceptions, RSPA would need to establish strict criteria for
making exception decisions. Another commenter states RSPA must
recognize that an aircraft contains a wide range of hazardous materials
as part of its necessary equipment, and exceptions should be considered
for these classes of materials.
III. Proposed Changes to the HMR
NTSB recommends we ``require, within two years, that air carriers
transporting hazardous materials have the means, 24 hours per day, to
quickly retrieve and provide consolidated specific information about
the identity (including proper shipping name), hazard class, quantity,
number of packages, and location of all hazardous material on an
airplane in a timely manner to emergency responders.'' Though not
explicitly stated, NTSB believes there is a need to develop some type
of computer tracking system, similar to that used by the railroad
industry. Such a system could be accessed directly by both the airline
industry and emergency responders. We agree the requirements in the HMR
related to the accessibility of a NOPC by emergency response personnel
in the event of an emergency can be improved. However, we do not agree
it is necessary to require airlines to develop computer tracking
systems suitable for this purpose. Nothing submitted by NTSB or the
commenters contradicts the previous NAS finding that a computer
tracking system would be extremely complicated, burdensome, expensive
to implement, and of questionable benefit. Therefore, we are not
proposing airlines develop computer tracking systems. However, we are
proposing changes to the HMR to improve the accessibility of the NOPC
to emergency responders.
Emergencies involving hazardous materials transported by aircraft
provide difficulties to emergency responders not usually encountered in
other modes of transportation. First, the flight crew may not have time
or otherwise be able to provide information during or immediately after
the emergency. Second, an aircraft involved in an accident may be
damaged to such an extent the information cannot be retrieved from it.
In such instances, emergency responders may not know what, if any,
hazardous materials are aboard the aircraft. These difficulties cause
us to shift our focus away from retrieving hazardous materials
information aboard the aircraft or from air crew members.
We believe these problems support a requirement for information to
be accessible from a source other than the aircraft flight crew. The
information we currently require on the NOPC is also available on the
ground, although there is no requirement for the information to be
accessible. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the HMR to require an
aircraft operator to: (1) Place a telephone number on the NOPC that can
be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about
any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft; (2) retain a copy of the
NOPC at the aircraft operator's principal place of business for one
year; (3) retain and make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the
information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the
flight leg is completed; and (4) make readily accessible a copy of the
NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the planned airport of
arrival until the flight leg is completed. The phone number would be
used in those incidents where a pilot does not have time to provide an
air traffic controller the information on the NOPC, but can provide a
phone
[[Page 6672]]
number of where the information can be obtained. We are also revising
the HMR to clarify the NOPC must identify all hazardous materials
carried on the plane, even those loaded at earlier departure points.
These changes to the HMR will provide emergency responders with timely
and consolidated information about the identity (including proper
shipping name, hazard class, quantity, and number of packages), and
location of all hazardous material on an airplane.
The revisions proposed in this NPRM are consistent with the changes
recently adopted into the ICAO Technical Instructions, with two
exceptions. Our proposal would require an aircraft operator to provide
a phone number for where a copy of the NOPC can be obtained, and to
retain a copy of the NOPC at the airport of departure. The ICAO
Technical Instructions do not contain these requirements.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
If adopted, this proposed rule would not be considered a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 and, therefore, was not subject to formal review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule is not considered
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Due to minimal economic
impact of this proposed rule, preparation of a regulatory impact
analysis or regulatory evaluation is not warranted. Although we are
requiring aircraft operators to retain a copy of the NOPC for one year
and retain a copy of the NOPC at the airport of departure, we believe
most air carriers, especially the major air carriers, already maintain
readily accessible information. Therefore, the costs associated with
this proposed rule are minimal. We may revise this determination based
on comments we receive.
B. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
proposed rule would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe
requirements, but does not propose any regulation with substantial
direct effects on: the States; the relationship between the national
government and the States; or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.
The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-
5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b))
preempting State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain
covered subjects. Covered subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
( 4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
This proposed rule addresses covered subject item (3) above and
would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting
the ``substantively the same'' standard. Federal hazardous materials
transportation law provides at section 5125(b)(2) that, if RSPA issues
a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, RSPA must
determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of
Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th
day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than
two years after the date of issuance. RSPA proposes the effective date
of Federal preemption be 90 days from publication of a final rule in
this matter in the Federal Register.
C. Executive Order 13175
We analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this proposed
rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct
compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the business,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
To achieve this principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a
proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it
will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA)
as described in the Act. However, if an agency determines a proposed or
final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act
provides the head of the agency may so certify, and an RFA is not
required.
The Small Business Administration criterion specifies an air
carrier is ``small'' if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
proposed rule, small entities are part 121 and part 135 air carriers
with 1,500 or fewer employees approved to carry hazardous materials. We
identified 729 air carriers meeting this standard.
As mentioned in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble, it is estimated the cost to the airline industry of this
proposal will be $450,000 per year. This estimate comes from an
examination of the data in the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air
Carrier Traffic Statistic Monthly. From that data we also were able to
estimate that small business airlines undertake no more than 25% of all
aircraft departures, and thus 25% of the total cost. The average small
business is expected to incur a cost of no more than $150 per year.
Therefore, I certify this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not, if adopted, result
in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the
following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the
private sector.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule may result in a modest increase in annual burden
and
[[Page 6673]]
costs based on a current information collection requirement. The
proposal regarding the maintaining of copies of the notification of
pilot-in-command results in a modification of an existing information
collection requirement. We submitted the modification to OMB for review
and approval.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires us
to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. This notice identifies a new information collection request
we submitted to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this
proposed rule. We developed burden estimates to reflect changes in this
proposed rule. We estimate the total information collection and
recordkeeping burden proposed in this rule would be as follows:
OMB No. 2137-0034.
Total Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.
Total Annual Responses: 4,250,000.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 23,611.
Total Annual Burden Cost: $425,000.
We specifically request comments on the information collection and
recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and
maintaining these requirements for approval under this proposed rule.
Requests for a copy of the information collection should be
directed to Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
(DHM-10), Research and Special Programs Administration, Room 8102, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-
8553.
Written comments should be addressed to the Dockets Unit as
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. We should
receive comments prior to the close of the comment period identified in
the DATES section of this rulemaking. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection
unless it displays a valid OMB control number. If these proposed
requirements are adopted in a final rule, RSPA will submit the
information collection and recordkeeping requirements to the OMB for
approval.
G. Environmental Assessment
This proposed rule will improve emergency response to hazardous
materials incidents involving aircraft by ensuring information on the
hazardous materials involved in an emergency is readily available. By
improving emergency response to aircraft incidents, this proposed rule
should help lessen environmental damage associated with such incidents.
We find there are no significant environmental impacts associated with
this proposed rule.
H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 175
Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Chapter I would be
amended as follows:
PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 175 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 175.33, paragraph (a)(1) introductory text would be
revised, paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8) would be redesignated as
paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, and new paragraphs (a)(7)
and (c) would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 175.33 Notification of pilot-in-command.
(a) * * *
(1) The proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification
number of the material, including any remaining aboard from prior
stops, as specified in Sec. 172.101 of this subchapter or the ICAO
Technical Instructions. In the case of Class 1 materials, the
compatibility group letter also must be shown. If a hazardous material
is described by the proper shipping name, hazard class, and
identification number appearing in:
* * * * *
(7) The telephone number of a person not aboard the aircraft from
whom the information contained in the notification of pilot-in-command
can be obtained. The aircraft operator must ensure the telephone number
is monitored at all times the aircraft is in flight.
* * * * *
(c) The aircraft operator must retain, for one year from the date
of the flight, a copy, or an electronic image thereof, of each
notification of pilot-in-command and make it accessible at or through
the operator's principal place of business. A copy of the notification
of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, must be
retained and be readily accessible at the airport of departure until
the flight is completed and must be readily accessible at the planned
airport of arrival until the flight is completed. The aircraft operator
must make the notification of pilot-in-command immediately available,
upon request, to any representative (including any emergency responder)
of a Federal, State, or local government agency. Each notification of
pilot-in-command must include the date of the flight.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 7, 2002, under the
authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
Robert A. McGuire,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 02-3458 Filed 2-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
|
