[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36734-36737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17175]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Research and Special Programs Administration
Department-Wide Program Evaluation of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Program (HM Program Evaluation)
AGENCY: Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meetings and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) is announcing a series
of three HM Program Evaluation Focus Group Meetings to discuss issues
with interested stakeholders concerning DOT's hazardous materials
safety programs and to request comments form parties unable to attend
the series of meetings. Each meeting will concentrate on a specific
topic and likely involve six to ten members pre-selected from the
hazardous materials community for each focus group. Other interested
parties are invited to observe each meeting and will be given the
opportunity to ask questions and raise issues. Focus Group Meeting #1
will focus on the ``Effectiveness and Adequacy of DOT's Hazardous
Materials Regulatory Program.'' Focus Group Meeting #2 will focus on
the ``Effectiveness of DOT's Approach for Gaining Compliance.'' Focus
Group Meeting #3 will focus on ``Measuring DOT's Performance in
Hazardous Materials Safety.'' This action is in support of the internal
DOT-wide Program Evaluation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Programs (HM Program Evaluation) which DOT announced in the Federal
Register on March 9, 1999. The HM Program Evaluation will document and
assess the effectiveness of DOT's hazardous materials transportation
safety programs in order to improve safety and environmental
protection. Your participation in these HM Program Evaluation Focus
Group Meetings and responses to the issues raised in this notice and
during the meetings will assist DOT in identifying issues that the HM
Program Evaluation team may address and evaluate as it continues its
efforts.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received on or before August 27,
1999.
Public Meeting Dates: Public meetings will be held on July 22,
1999, August 11, 1999, and August 17, 1999. Meetings are scheduled from
9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Address written comments to HM Program
Evaluation Team, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Room 2438, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons wishing to receive
confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a self-
addressed stamped postcard. You may also submit comments by e-mail at:
``[email protected]''.
Public Meetings: The July 22, 1999 meeting will be held in Room
2230 of the DOT Headquarters Building (Nassif Building) 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. The August 11, 1999, meeting
will be held in the Illinois/Minnesota Rooms of the FAA Building, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL. The August 17, 1999, meeting will
be held in Room 2230 of the DOT Headquarters Building (Nassif Building)
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jackie A. Goff, 202-493-0326, or
George Whitney, 202-366-4831, Co-Chairs, HM Program Evaluation Team,
U.S. Department of Transportation; Room 2438, 400 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. For information on facilities or services
for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at
the meetings, contact Ms. Goff or Mr. Whitney. If you are unable to
attend one or more of these meetings or wish to provide additional
comments, we welcome your written responses no later than August 27,
1999. If you would like your comments considered during a specific
meeting for which you will be unable to attend, your comments should be
received by the team at least 5 working days prior to that specific
meeting and sent to the DOT address provided above or e-mailed to:
``[email protected]''.
I. Background
On March 9, 1999, DOT published a Notice in the Federal Register
(64 FR 11528) announcing the initiation of an internal Department-wide
Program Evaluation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Programs
(HM Program Evaluation). In that Notice it was announced that the HM
Program Evaluation team is staffed by 10 full-time persons, including
at least one full-time person from the OIG and RSPA and each of the
following Operating Administrations: The United States Coast Guard
(USCG); the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
The HM Program Evaluation team is examining the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law, the program structure defined by the
delegation of authority within DOT, and assessing program delivery. The
HM Program Evaluation is intended to allow DOT to determine the
effectiveness of the current hazardous material programs, including the
division of responsibilities across and within modes, and the
allocation of resources dedicated to specific functions. The HM Program
Evaluation is also focusing on cross-modal issues and will include an
analysis and critique of DOT's current program intervention tools
including regulation, education, training,
[[Page 36735]]
outreach, inspection, and enforcement. This will position DOT to
potentially increase safety and environmental protection when hazardous
materials are in commerce.
The scope of the HM Program Evaluation is limited to those
activities covered by 49 CFR Part 106 (Rulemaking Procedures), Part 107
(Hazardous Materials Program Procedures), and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180. International shipments of
hazardous materials are also included in the scope of the HM Program
Evaluation to permit a review of the International Maritime Dangerous
Goods Code (IMDG) and the International Civil Aviation Organization's
Technical Instructions on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Air
(ICAO), both of which are authorized by HMR as alternative standards
for many of the requirements in the HMR for shipments destined for
export or that are being imported. The team will be examining whether
the current programs are achieving the stated purpose of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law.
II. HM Program Evaluation Meetings and Issues
DOT's intent is to use information gathered during three focus
group meetings to further develop issues for consideration by the HM
Program Evaluation team. We anticipate that each focus group will
consist of approximately six to ten pre-selected individuals from the
hazardous materials community. To maximize the benefits of the focus
groups, they will be comprised of individuals having expertise in
hazardous materials transportation who are likely to be affected by the
outcome of the HM Program Evaluation. Our aim is that members of the
focus groups will be representative of the community of shippers,
carriers, packaging manufacturers, hazmat employees, enforcement
personnel, emergency responders, trade associations, labor
representatives and other interested parties involved with the
transportation of hazardous materials. In addition to the focus group
members, other interested parties are invited to observe at each focus
group meeting. They will have an opportunity to raise issues and ask
questions. The issues to be discussed during the three different focus
groups are outlined below.
Focus Group Meeting #1, Washington, DC, July 22, 1999: ``Effectiveness
and Adequacy of DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulatory Program''
Focus Group Meeting #1 will focus primarily on issues involving the
effectiveness and adequacy of DOT's regulatory program. Rulemaking
procedures for the hazardous materials program are in 49 CFR Part 106.
These procedures address petitions for rulemaking, advance notices and
notices of proposed rulemaking, final rules, interim final rules, and
direct final rules. In addition to these procedural rules, the
rulemaking process is governed by a variety of statutes and Executive
Orders. Procedures concerning exemptions to regulations are in 49 CFR
Part 107. Exemptions authorize the regulated industry to perform
functions that are not otherwise authorized by the Hazardous Materials
Regulations. The regulatory scheme requires that the agency must find
that the exemption establishes a level of safety at least equal to that
required by the regulation. If the regulations do not establish a level
of safety, the agency must find that the exemption is consistent with
the public interest.
In Focus Group Meeting #1, we are interested in determining how
well DOT's hazardous materials regulatory system is minimizing risk.
The hazardous materials regulatory system is designed to reduce the
risks associated with the transportation of hazardous material
shipments. Reduction of risk is the major way in which DOT improves the
overall level of safety in the transportation system. Questions related
to this issue include:
Based on your experiences with the regulatory system for
hazardous materials (domestic and international), can you identify
areas in which deficiencies exist that increase the risk of shipping
hazardous materials?
How would you describe your experiences in attempting to
comply with the regulations contained in 49 CFR in terms of their ease
of use and your perception that you take the required actions to reduce
the risk of hazardous materials in transportation?
What, if any, measures could DOT implement that would
lower the risk that hazardous materials may pose while in the
transportation system?
Another aspect that has the potential to impact the safety of the
transportation system is the act of shipping or transporting undeclared
hazardous materials (undeclared or ``hidden'' shipments are shipments
offered for transportation, or subsequently transported, that are not
identified as hazardous materials as required by regulation). DOT is
generally only made aware of an undeclared shipment of hazardous
materials after a related accident or incident occurs or if it is
otherwise reported to DOT. Questions related to this issue include:
To what extent are you aware of any problems associated
with undeclared shipments of hazardous materials?
What detection methods, if any, have you implemented to
recognize potential shipments of undeclared hazardous materials?
What prevention methods would you offer to DOT to reduce
the practice of shipping or transporting undeclared shipments?
Are undeclared shipments a result of ignorance or
willfulness? Please describe.
What is your experience concerning undeclared shipments
occurring within the different modes of transportation (air, highway,
rail and water)?
Do you believe that either the risk level or volumes of
activities associated with undeclared shipments is equal among the
modes? Please describe.
An important segment of the Hazardous Materials Regulations is
hazard communication. Hazard communication under the HMR is addressed
in five components: Shipping papers, marking, labeling, placarding, and
emergency response information. Questions related to this issue
include:
To what extent does the current regulatory system provide
adequate hazard communication information on shipments in transit?
Are there other sources of information that provide hazard
communication information and could they become the basis for an
industry standard? For example, is there other information or documents
in use related to hazardous materials in transit besides the
information provided on a shipping paper that could be standardized or
combined in one document?
The regulatory system permits the establishment of exceptions and
exemptions that are intended to safely and efficiently expedite the
movement of certain hazardous materials. Questions related to this
issue include:
Do exceptions and exemptions complicate the understanding
of the regulations?
Do exceptions and exemptions achieve an adequate level of
safety?
How would you recommend that DOT achieve its intended goal
of safely and efficiently moving hazardous materials differently given
the industry need for and benefit of these alternatives?
[[Page 36736]]
What do you see as the major enforcement or emergency
response concerns related to DOT's use of exceptions and exemptions?
Focus Group Meeting #2, Chicago, IL, August 11, 1999: ``Effectiveness
of DOT's Approach for Gaining Compliance''
Focus Group Meeting #2 will focus primarily on issues involving
reducing violations, means of intervention, and improving compliance
with the regulations. To improve the level of compliance by industry
DOT focuses its efforts at a variety of intervention points in the
transportation system, including activities at the packaging,
manufacturer, offeror and transporter stages. Intervention methods
include regulations, education, training, outreach, inspection and
enforcement. With respect to intermodal shipments, more than one modal
administration has the opportunity to intervene with the same shipment
as it passes from one mode of transportation to another.
DOT engages in numerous activities to provide information and
improve awareness of and compliance with the safety requirements. These
outreach activities include: Publishing notices in the Federal
Register; issuing press releases; using Internet web pages; conducting
training seminars and public meetings; participating in stakeholder
conferences; and distributing pamphlets, brochures, videos, and CD
ROMS.
In Focus Group Meeting #2, we are interested in determining how
effective DOT's approach is for reducing violations and increasing
compliance. Questions related to this issue include:
Historically, compliance inspection data reveal that
placarding and shipping paper deficiencies are the most cited
violations. How would you recommend that DOT increase compliance in
these areas?
Based on your experiences with DOT, please comment on
which of DOT's intervention methods are most effective (regulations,
education, training, outreach, inspection and enforcement). Why?
Where do you believe DOT's intervention could be most
effective (at the packaging, manufacturer, offeror or transporter
stages) and what intervention approach should DOT employ?
What are your observations and experiences regarding the
depth and quality of DOT's compliance inspections? Please be specific,
if possible, in your comments with respect to individual operating
administrations within DOT (USCG, FAA, FHWA, FRA, and RSPA).
Are DOT inspectors helpful in providing compliance
assistance and in explaining non-complying conditions? If possible,
please be modal specific.
What current DOT outreach efforts (e.g., informational
pamphlets, seminars, classroom training and on-site assistance) do you
have experience with and which are the most effective?
What other, if any, DOT outreach activities do you
suggest?
DOT's efforts to influence the level of compliance with the HMR
involve use of the civil penalty assessment process including notices
of probable violation, final orders, administrative law judge hearings,
ticketing, and alternative means of dispute resolution, including
alternatives to traditional enforcement. Questions related to this
issue include:
Do you believe civil penalties are effective in gaining
compliance?
Can you recommend ways to improve the civil penalty
program?
What are your major concerns about the process DOT uses
for determining the penalty amounts in relationship to a violation of
the HMR?
The HMR include training requirements which are intended to ensure
employees are competent to fulfill their roles; however, the adequacy
of the scope or frequency of the required training is unknown. DOT has
observed that many shippers and carriers employ the services of third-
party trainers (i.e., non-governmental parties who provide training on
the HMR). Questions related to this issue include:
Do you believe the existing training standards are
adequate to ensure all personnel responsible for the safe
transportation of hazardous materials understand the pertinent
requirements of the HMR?
If not, how would you modify the training or employee
competency requirements to improve this aspect of the safety scheme?
DOT currently uses a variety of approaches to work with state
personnel to gain compliance with the HMR. These approaches include:
(1) Providing funding to states to increase compliance with the HMR
through the deployment of wide-scale inspections and enforcement
activities; (2) using a mix of Federal and state inspectors in some of
DOT's operating administrations; and (3) conducting inspections and
other activities using only Federal DOT inspectors. Questions related
to this issue include:
How effective are DOT's different approaches of using
Federal and/or state personnel as an intervention practice?
Please explain if, and why, one approach is better than
another.
Domestic and foreign shipper practices have the potential to
significantly affect hazardous materials safety and influence the level
of compliance with the HMR. Deficiencies discovered by modal inspectors
are typically tracked back to the original shipper to rectify the
deficiency. Such corrective follow up is more difficult for import
shipments. Effective outreach overseas is a challenge. Questions
related to this issue include:
If you are an importer of hazardous materials, how
frequently do you receive hazardous materials that do not comply with
the regulations?
To the extent that there are non-complying shipments, what
do you believe is the major reason (ignorance or willfulness)? Please
describe.
Focus Group Meeting #3, Washington DC, August 17, 1999: ``Measuring
DOT's Performance in Hazardous Materials Safety''
Focus Group Meeting #3 will focus primarily on issues involving
DOT's performance measures as it relates to minimizing the risk of
hazardous materials transportation. In this meeting, we are concerned
about DOT's performance with regard to reducing HM safety risks and in
determining the best measures of success.
In DOT's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000, the primary
hazardous materials safety performance goal is to reduce the number of
serious HM incidents in transportation (to 411 or fewer in the year
2000 from a peak of 464 in 1996.) DOT defines a serious hazardous
materials incident as one that involves a fatality or major injury due
to a hazardous material, closure of a major transportation artery or
facility or evacuation of six or more persons due to the presence of a
hazardous material, or a vehicle accident or derailment resulting in
the release of a hazardous material.
Trends in serious incidents in the past decade have been fairly
stable--averaging about 407 per year since 1990. In a typical year,
serious hazardous materials incidents account for 10-15 deaths (with
the notable exception of 1996, when the ValueJet crash resulted in 110
deaths,) and fewer than 300 major injuries. Because of the inherent
risk in handling and transporting hazardous materials, there are limits
to how far the number of incidents could be reduced. Furthermore,
serious incidents often require mitigation measures that are mode
specific and might not benefit all hazardous materials operations.
[[Page 36737]]
There are safety advocates who maintain that any unintentional
release, large enough to be reportable, is a flag indicating safety
risks or flaws in operating and handling procedures. Minimizing these
releases, many experts argue, should be the goal of the regulatory
agencies. Looking at all reported hazardous materials incidents--
serious and non-serious--there has been an overall decline since the
high of 16,000 in 1983, with the numbers fluctuating between fewer than
10,000 in 1990 to under 14,000 last year. Assessing changes in the
total number of incidents to be used as a measure of effectiveness in
conjunction with close integration of the incident reporting system in
the entire process of hazardous materials intervention--from training,
inspection, and enforcement--could be used by DOT to identify the
underlying causes of many incidents.
In Focus Group Meeting #3, we are interested in gauging DOT's
success and in developing appropriate measures or candidate measures.
Questions related to this issue include:
Are serious incidents the best measure of our success in
reducing risk in hazardous materials transportation?
Is the goal of reducing the number of serious incidents by
a targeted amount the best alternative?
Would trends in all unintentional releases of hazardous
materials be a better indicator of how well we have succeeded in
controlling the risk of hazardous materials in transportation?
How can we best measure the success of the hazardous
materials program? How would you evaluate the overall effectiveness of
the hazardous materials intervention program in addressing the level of
risk hazardous materials pose in transportation?
Issued in Washington, DC on June 30, 1999.
Jackie A. Goff,
Co-Chair, Hazardous Materials Program Evaluation Team.
George Whitney,
Co-Chair, Hazardous Materials Program Evaluation Team.
[FR Doc. 99-17175 Filed 7-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P