The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Monday published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register that would provide changes to the hazardous materials regulations (HMR) [at 49 CFR Parts 100-185]. The ANPRM, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17111-19, would harmonize the regulations for shipments of combustible liquids with international hazmat shipping regulations. PHMSA proposes the change in the HMR based on three petitions submitted by the International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association, the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, and U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc.
Under the ANPRM, PHMSA seeks comment from industry on the potential harmonization of HMR definitions and requirements for combustible liquids with international standards, as well as the modification of domestic marking and placarding of combustible liquids in order to eliminate confusion upon shipment overseas and the possible expansion of current HMR exceptions for combustible liquids to also accommodate unique operational requirements.
The public ANPRM comment period ends July 6, 2010. PHMSA is accepting electronic comment submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal using docket number PHMSA-2009-0241 (HM-242). Comments may also be submitted via fax, (202) 493-2251, or via mail, to:Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Showing posts with label Department of Transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Transportation. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
PHMSA Proposes Lithium Battery Transport Rule
The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Monday issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) [found at 49 CFR Parts 100-185] by increasing the safety of lithium batteries in transport. The proposed rule would implement requirements that all lithium batteries be packaged for transport in order to prevent damage leading to a catastrophic incident, or to minimize the effects of an incident. For all modes of transportation (including air), lithium cells and batteries would have to be packaged in such a way that protects the cell or battery from short-circuits. For air transport, the cells or batteries would be required to be transported in a container approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or be stowed in crew-accessible cargo locations or a location equipped with an FAA-approved fire suppression system.
In addition, the rule would require lithium batteries be accompanied by hazard communication ensuring appropriate handling by air carrier personnel while in transport. This would include communicating to transport workers and emergency response personnel what to do in an emergency. Manufacturers of lithium cells or batteries would be required to mark each battery and cell to indicate satisfactory completion of United Nations (UN) design type tests, and to keep records of such tests.
Members of the public may submit written comments by March 12, 2010, in one of several ways:
In addition, the rule would require lithium batteries be accompanied by hazard communication ensuring appropriate handling by air carrier personnel while in transport. This would include communicating to transport workers and emergency response personnel what to do in an emergency. Manufacturers of lithium cells or batteries would be required to mark each battery and cell to indicate satisfactory completion of United Nations (UN) design type tests, and to keep records of such tests.
Members of the public may submit written comments by March 12, 2010, in one of several ways:
- Online, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
- Via fax, at (202) 493-2251; or
- Via mail, to: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M–30, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Monday, January 11, 2010
US Coast Guard Requests Comments on Cargo Securing Methods
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on Friday published in the Federal Register a Notice of request for comments on methods for securing cargo in transport vehicles and freight containers, in order to determine whether a standardized approval or certification process or improvised performance criteria for flexible strapping securing systems is needed. 75 Fed. Reg. 1070-71.
Currently, no certification or qualification standard exists under Federal law for blocking, bracing, or for the use of strapping systems for securing cargo. Under current federal regulation, cargo, including hazardous materials, transported above-ground (either in vehicles, rail, or on vessels) must be secured to prevent shifting of the cargo or damage to the container during transport. 49 CFR Part 176.76. However, the specific method by which the cargo is secured is unregulated. Oftentimes, flexible strapping is used even though it may not always properly secure cargo in transit. The USCG solicits comments while considering whether to implement a standardized certification or approval process for cargo securing systems.
The USCG is requesting comments on:
Currently, no certification or qualification standard exists under Federal law for blocking, bracing, or for the use of strapping systems for securing cargo. Under current federal regulation, cargo, including hazardous materials, transported above-ground (either in vehicles, rail, or on vessels) must be secured to prevent shifting of the cargo or damage to the container during transport. 49 CFR Part 176.76. However, the specific method by which the cargo is secured is unregulated. Oftentimes, flexible strapping is used even though it may not always properly secure cargo in transit. The USCG solicits comments while considering whether to implement a standardized certification or approval process for cargo securing systems.
The USCG is requesting comments on:
- The need for a new approval
process or certification standard for cargo securing systems; - Information on currently used standards for the approval and use of cargo securing systems;
- Methods for ensuring or verifying that securing systems adequately secure cargo without damaging the container or cargo;
- Existing test methods for securing systems;
- Materials used for securing cargo within the container (e.g. wood, plastic, bags, web, wire, chain, etc.);
- Allowances for movement of cargo within the container when securing systems are used; and
- Information on cargo securing systems that are currently being used to secure cargo in containers, both domestically and internationally.
- Online, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
- Via fax, at (202) 493-2251; or
- Via mail, to: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
PHMSA Issues Correction to 2009 Final Rule Amending HMR
The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Monday published in the Federal Register corrections to a Final Rule issued last January, in response to two appeals filed last year. Because Monday's amendments impose no new requirements, notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary, making effective date of the Final Rule January 4, 2010.
Last year's Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2009, revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) [at 49 CFR Parts 100-185] in several ways, most notably by amending regulations relating to the transportation of batteries and battery-powered devices. Appeals were subsequently filed by Dangerous Goods Transport Consulting, Inc., and HMT Associates, Inc., both dealing with the shipment of fuel cell cartridges, as regulated by the 2009 Final Rule. Monday's corrections included a number of editorial changes and clarifying amendments to those sections of the HMR modified by the 2009 Rule.
Limited Quantity Exception
The appeal filed by Dangerous Goods Transport Consulting dealt with changes to 49 CFR §172.230(g) that prohibited the ‘limited quantities’ classification of fuel cell fuel cartridges when transported by air, but did allow identical materials to be called a ‘consumer commodity’ and be re-classified as 'other regulated materials-domestic' (ORM-D) in air transport. Additionally, similar quantities of the actual fuel can be shipped as ‘limited quantities’ when not contained in a fuel cell cartridge.
PHMSA acknowledges the inconsistency raised in the appeal, but noted that the harmonization of the HMR with international rules “promotes safety and facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements. Thus, the benefits of a harmonized domestic and international transportation regime outweigh the costs that may be incurred.” 75 Fed. Reg. 64.
In yesterday's corrections, PHMSA also noted that the “ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel is currently considering adoption of limited quantity exceptions, based in part on a proposal from the U.S. Fuel Cell Council (FCC)”. 75 Fed. Reg. 64. If such a change is adopted as expected, PHMSA said that they would reconsider the ‘limited quantity’ exception in future rulemakings.
Multi-Modal Packing Requirements
The appeal filed by HMT Associates concerned the provision in 49 CFR 173.230(e) requiring intermediate packaging for fuel cell cartridges packed with equipment for all modes of transportation. HMT contended that this was inconsistent with international recommendations for shipping modes, other than for air. HMT further noted that the language in the 2009 rule's original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 31st, 2008, did not contain the language applying the intermediate container restrictions to non-aviation transportation modes.
In yesterday's corrections notice, PHMSA agreed that the language objected to in HMT's appeal was consistent with neither the original NPRM language nor with international guidelines. PHMSA noted that they had intended the requirement for intermediate packaging of fuel cell cartridges packed with equipment be limited to packaging prepared for air transport consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI).
As a result, PHMSA has granted HMT's appeal. They are changing §173.230(e)(2)(i) and §172.230(f)(4) to fully align the fuel cell cartridges packaging requirements with the multimodal packing requirements prescribed in ICAO TI Packing Instructions 217 and UN Recommendations Packing Instruction P004. Additional clarifying changes are being made to §173.230, such as correcting the terminology in (f)(2) from ‘fuel cells’ to read ‘fuel cell cartridges.’
Last year's Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2009, revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) [at 49 CFR Parts 100-185] in several ways, most notably by amending regulations relating to the transportation of batteries and battery-powered devices. Appeals were subsequently filed by Dangerous Goods Transport Consulting, Inc., and HMT Associates, Inc., both dealing with the shipment of fuel cell cartridges, as regulated by the 2009 Final Rule. Monday's corrections included a number of editorial changes and clarifying amendments to those sections of the HMR modified by the 2009 Rule.
Limited Quantity Exception
The appeal filed by Dangerous Goods Transport Consulting dealt with changes to 49 CFR §172.230(g) that prohibited the ‘limited quantities’ classification of fuel cell fuel cartridges when transported by air, but did allow identical materials to be called a ‘consumer commodity’ and be re-classified as 'other regulated materials-domestic' (ORM-D) in air transport. Additionally, similar quantities of the actual fuel can be shipped as ‘limited quantities’ when not contained in a fuel cell cartridge.
PHMSA acknowledges the inconsistency raised in the appeal, but noted that the harmonization of the HMR with international rules “promotes safety and facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements. Thus, the benefits of a harmonized domestic and international transportation regime outweigh the costs that may be incurred.” 75 Fed. Reg. 64.
In yesterday's corrections, PHMSA also noted that the “ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel is currently considering adoption of limited quantity exceptions, based in part on a proposal from the U.S. Fuel Cell Council (FCC)”. 75 Fed. Reg. 64. If such a change is adopted as expected, PHMSA said that they would reconsider the ‘limited quantity’ exception in future rulemakings.
Multi-Modal Packing Requirements
The appeal filed by HMT Associates concerned the provision in 49 CFR 173.230(e) requiring intermediate packaging for fuel cell cartridges packed with equipment for all modes of transportation. HMT contended that this was inconsistent with international recommendations for shipping modes, other than for air. HMT further noted that the language in the 2009 rule's original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 31st, 2008, did not contain the language applying the intermediate container restrictions to non-aviation transportation modes.
In yesterday's corrections notice, PHMSA agreed that the language objected to in HMT's appeal was consistent with neither the original NPRM language nor with international guidelines. PHMSA noted that they had intended the requirement for intermediate packaging of fuel cell cartridges packed with equipment be limited to packaging prepared for air transport consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI).
As a result, PHMSA has granted HMT's appeal. They are changing §173.230(e)(2)(i) and §172.230(f)(4) to fully align the fuel cell cartridges packaging requirements with the multimodal packing requirements prescribed in ICAO TI Packing Instructions 217 and UN Recommendations Packing Instruction P004. Additional clarifying changes are being made to §173.230, such as correcting the terminology in (f)(2) from ‘fuel cells’ to read ‘fuel cell cartridges.’
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
PHMSA Adjusts Fines for HMR Violations
The Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Tuesday published in the Federal Register a Final Rule adjusting upwards the minimum and maximum civil fines for violations of the hazardous materials regulations (HMR) [at 49 CFR Parts 100-185]. These increases are based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for 2005 (the last time the fines were adjusted) and for 2008 (the last full year for which data is available). The new rates published in the December 29, 2009 Final Rule become effective December 31, 2009, and are applicable to any violation of the HMR made after January 1, 2010.
The new rule increases the minimum fine for an HMR violation from $250 to $275 dollars, except for a violation relating to training. HMR training violation fines increase from $450 to $495. Maximum fines are increased from $50,000 to $55,000, except where the HMR violation results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person or substantial destruction of property. In those cases, the maximum fine increases from $100,000 to $110,000. No changes were made by the Final Rule to the fines for criminal offenses under the HMR.
The rule modifies the fines listed in 49 CFR §107.329(a), §107.329(b), and §171.1. No advance notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) was required because these fine adjustments were required by law. PHMSA has certified that this final rule will “not have an significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” because “there is no economic impact on any person who complies with Federal hazardous material transportation law and the regulations, orders, special permits, and approvals issued under that law” (74 FR 68702).
The new rule increases the minimum fine for an HMR violation from $250 to $275 dollars, except for a violation relating to training. HMR training violation fines increase from $450 to $495. Maximum fines are increased from $50,000 to $55,000, except where the HMR violation results in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person or substantial destruction of property. In those cases, the maximum fine increases from $100,000 to $110,000. No changes were made by the Final Rule to the fines for criminal offenses under the HMR.
The rule modifies the fines listed in 49 CFR §107.329(a), §107.329(b), and §171.1. No advance notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) was required because these fine adjustments were required by law. PHMSA has certified that this final rule will “not have an significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” because “there is no economic impact on any person who complies with Federal hazardous material transportation law and the regulations, orders, special permits, and approvals issued under that law” (74 FR 68702).
Saturday, December 12, 2009
DOT Publishes Final Rule Amending Air Transport Security Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators
The Department of Transportation (DOT) on Friday published in the Federal Register confirmation of the effective date of a Final Rule published earlier this year amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) [49 CFR Parts 100-185] by revising the quantity limitation from 25kg "gross" to 25kg "net" for packages of chemical oxygen generators transported aboard cargo aircraft. The effective date was confirmed to have been November 16, 2009, by the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), after no adverse comments were filed in regard to the October 15, 2009 Direct Final Rule.
The October 15 Direct Final Rule revises a Final Rule issued originally in January 31, 2007, enhancing the safety standards of cylinders of compressed oxygen, other oxidizing gases, and chemical oxygen generators being transported in aircraft. The January 31 Final Rule amended the HMR to require these products to be transported in outer packaging that (1) meets the same flame penetration resistance standards as required for cargo compartment sidewalls and ceiling panels in transport category airplanes; and (2) provides certain thermal protection capabilities so as to retain its contents during an otherwise controllable cargo compartment fire.
The October 15 Direct Final Rule revises a Final Rule issued originally in January 31, 2007, enhancing the safety standards of cylinders of compressed oxygen, other oxidizing gases, and chemical oxygen generators being transported in aircraft. The January 31 Final Rule amended the HMR to require these products to be transported in outer packaging that (1) meets the same flame penetration resistance standards as required for cargo compartment sidewalls and ceiling panels in transport category airplanes; and (2) provides certain thermal protection capabilities so as to retain its contents during an otherwise controllable cargo compartment fire.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
House Committee Considers Greater Federal Oversight Over Mass Transit Systems
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday heard testimony from Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood and other administration heads asking Congress to give the federal government regulatory authority over the nation's subways, light rails, and other mass transit systems. Urged legislation, if passed, would give the DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) authority to issue regulations mandating security measures for rail transit systems. In his testimony, LaHood noted that mass rail systems are responsible for transporting more passengers daily than are domestic airlines - which are regulated by DOT's Federal Aviation Administration - or passenger and commuter railroads - regulated by DOT's Federal Railroad Administration. Alternatively, local rail systems are responsible for creating and implementing their own independent security measures, which are overseen by state-run agencies.
DOT members have sent a plan to Congress that would permit federal regulation of mass transit systems. According to LaHood, the proposal would accomplish three goals. First, it would require DOT to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for rail transit systems that receive Federal transit funding. Second, the DOT would establish a safety certification program whereby a state would be eligible for federal transit assistance to carry out a federally-approved public transportation safety program. Finally, the program would ensure that State agencies with oversight authority over transit system security be fully financially independent from those transit systems. The proposal now goes to Congress for consideration and debate.
DOT members have sent a plan to Congress that would permit federal regulation of mass transit systems. According to LaHood, the proposal would accomplish three goals. First, it would require DOT to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for rail transit systems that receive Federal transit funding. Second, the DOT would establish a safety certification program whereby a state would be eligible for federal transit assistance to carry out a federally-approved public transportation safety program. Finally, the program would ensure that State agencies with oversight authority over transit system security be fully financially independent from those transit systems. The proposal now goes to Congress for consideration and debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)