[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51241-51242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24712]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 173

[Docket HM-207C, Amdt. No. 173-249]
RIN 2137-AC63


Exemption, Approval, Registration and Reporting Procedures; 
Miscellaneous Provisions

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; Revision made in response to petition for 
reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for reconsideration, this final rule 
deletes a requirement that, when the provisions of an exemption require 
that a copy be in a carrier's possession during transportation, the 
carrier must maintain a copy of the exemption in the same manner as 
required for shipping papers. This amendment will allow the carrier to 
use any appropriate method for making the exemption available, unless 
otherwise specified by the provisions of the exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this final rule and the final 
rule published under Docket HM-207C on May 9, 1996 (61 FR 21084) is 
October 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Stokes Molinar, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4400, or Diane LaValle, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, RSPA, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 9, 1996, RSPA published a final rule 
under docket HM-207C (61 FR 21084) that revised and clarified RSPA's 
procedures and requirements for its exemption, approvals, registration, 
reporting, preemption, and enforcement procedures and programs. These 
revisions and clarifications included addition of a new paragraph (c) 
to 49 CFR 173.22a. The last sentence of this paragraph states: ``When 
the provisions of the exemption require it to be in the possession of a 
carrier during transportation in commerce, the carrier shall maintain 
the copy of the exemption in the same manner as required for a shipping 
paper.''
    On June 3, 1996, United Parcel Service (UPS) filed a petition for 
reconsideration, requesting that RSPA delete the last sentence of 
paragraph (c) to 49 CFR 173.22a. UPS claimed that the new requirement 
is not practicable, is both unreasonable and unnecessary, and was 
issued without notice and opportunity for comment.
    UPS contended that the requirement would cause major operational 
difficulties within its system, especially in ensuring that a copy of 
the exemption when detached from the package ``tracks'' with the 
package. UPS stated that its daily business operations include 
transporting thousands of DOT exemption packages. Typically, UPS 
stated, an exemption package may be transported aboard up to five UPS 
vehicles, and subjected to as many sorting and transferral operations. 
UPS stated that, prior to the publication of HM-207C, when an exemption 
contained language mandating that the exemption must be carried by the 
carrier, UPS physically attached a copy of the exemption to each 
exemption package, thus facilitating the transportation of the 
exemption with the package through the myriad of sorting, transfer, and 
transportation operations necessary to deliver the package to its 
destination. UPS stated that requiring a driver to detach the exemption 
from the package, place it with the shipping papers, and transfer it 
each time the package was rerouted would render it extremely difficult 
to ensure that each exemption document was able to ``track'' its 
attendant package to the package's final destination.
    UPS further stated that this new requirement would achieve little, 
if anything, in terms of improved safety and cannot be justified in 
light of the increased administrative and paperwork burdens associated 
with the new requirement. Further, UPS claimed that the new requirement 
was adopted without proper notice and without affording the public an 
opportunity for comment.
    RSPA adopted the new requirement in the May 9, 1996 final rule as a 
clarification, with the understanding that the provision would impose 
no additional costs and that the vast majority of carriers already 
conform to the new requirement, as the most practicable way to ensure 
that the exemption is available during transportation. RSPA did not 
consider that some companies, such as UPS, may use other methods of 
ensuring that an exemption is on the transport vehicle and that costs 
would be incurred by them in conforming to the new requirement. Based 
on the comments presented by UPS, RSPA agrees that there may be 
operational burdens imposed on UPS and others which were not considered 
in the May 9, 1996 final rule and that the requirement may entail costs 
which would exceed its benefits. RSPA notes that if there is a need to 
ensure that an exemption is immediately accessible during 
transportation, such as where an exemption contains information related 
to the safe handling of a shipment, RSPA can specify the manner of 
maintaining the exemption in specific provisions in the exemption.
    Based on the foregoing, RSPA is deleting the requirement as 
requested by UPS. Because this revision is within the scope of the 
rulemaking under docket HM-207C, lessens the requirements placed upon a 
carrier in the May 9, 1996 final rule, imposes no new regulatory burden 
on any person, and does not adversely impact emergency response, 
additional public notice and comment are unnecessary. Because the 
requirement was to go into effect on October 1, 1996, and to ensure 
publication of this amendment in the 1996 Code of Federal Regulations, 
there is ``good cause,'' under the Administrative Procedure Act, to 
make the amendment effective on the same effective date as the May 9, 
1996 final rule, i.e., October 1, 1996, without the usual 30-day delay 
following publication.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The rule is not significant 
according to the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department 
of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
    This final rule will not result in any additional costs to persons 
subject to the HMR. Therefore, preparation of a regulatory impact 
analysis or regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

B. Executive Order 12612

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''). The 
Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127) 
contains an express preemption provision that preempts State, local, 
and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered 
subjects are:

[[Page 51242]]

    (i) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous 
material;
    (ii) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and 
placarding of hazardous material;
    (iii) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents 
pertaining to hazardous material and requirements respecting the 
number, content, and placement of such documents;
    (iv) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the 
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
    (v) the design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance, 
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which 
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the 
transportation of hazardous material.
    Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) provides that DOT must determine and 
publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal 
preemption. That 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. The effective date of Federal 
preemption for this final rule is January 1, 1997. Because RSPA lacks 
discretion in this area, preparation of a Federalism assessment is not 
warranted.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule 
merely deletes a requirement scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 
1996, and it does not impose any new requirements. Thus, there are no 
direct or indirect adverse economic impacts for small units of 
government, businesses, or other organizations.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements applicable to exemptions are 
unchanged by this final rule in substance and amount of burden from 
those currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under OMB control number 2137-0051. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, no person is required to respond to a requirement for 
collection of information unless the requirement displays a valid OMB 
control number.

E. Regulation Identification Number (RIN)

    A regulation identification 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 can be used to cross-reference this action 
with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, 
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Uranium.

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND 
PACKAGINGS

    1. The authority citation for Part 173 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.


Sec. 173.22a  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 173.22a, paragraph (c), as added at 61 FR 21102 
effective October 1, 1996, is amended by removing the last sentence.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 20, 1996, under 
authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-24712 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P