[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15970-15973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8553]
[[Page 15970]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
[Preemption Determination No. PD-12(R) (Docket No. PDA-13(R))]
New York Department of Environmental Conservation Requirements on
the Transfer and Storage of Hazardous Wastes Incidental to
Transportation
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Decision on petition for reconsideration of administrative
determination of preemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYDEC).
STATE LAWS AFFECTED: New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR),
Title 6, Section 372.3(a)(7).
APPLICABLE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: Federal hazardous material
transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR parts 171-180.
MODES AFFECTED: Highway and Rail.
SUMMARY: In response to NYDEC's petition for reconsideration, RSPA is
modifying its December 6, 1995 administrative determination concerning
the requirement in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii) for secondary containment
at a transfer facility where hazardous wastes are transferred between
vehicles or temporarily stored. RSPA had determined that this
requirement was an obstacle to the accomplishment of the HMR's
provisions on packaging and segregation. On reconsideration, RSPA now
finds that there is insufficient information from which to determine
whether this requirement, as enforced and applied, is an obstacle to
the accomplishment and carrying out of Federal hazardous material
transportation law and the HMR.
RSPA affirms its prior determination that Federal hazardous
material transportation law preempts subsections (i) and (ii) of 6
NYCRR 372.3(a)(7) that (1) prohibit transporters from repackaging
hazardous wastes ``incidental to transport,'' and (2) require an
indication on the manifest of a transfer of hazardous wastes between
vehicles of the same transporter.
This decision constitutes RSPA's final action on the September 1993
application for a preemption determination filed by the Chemical Waste
Transportation Institute (CWTI). Any party who submitted comments in
Docket No. PDA-13(R) (including the applicant) may seek judicial review
within 60 days of this decision.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
telephone 202-366-4400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In September 1993, CWTI applied for a determination that Federal
hazardous material transportation law preempted nine specific NYDEC
requirements. These requirements imposed conditions on the transfer and
storage of hazardous wastes ``incidental to transport'' that, if
complied with, exempted a transporter from having to obtain the
separate permit required for hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal (TSD) facilities.
In amendments that took effect in January 1995, NYDEC eliminated or
modified six of the challenged requirements, including those allowing
storage only at a facility owned by the transporter, limiting storage
to five days, and requiring daily inspections and a log of shipments
and receipts. Following these amendments, the only requirements
originally challenged in CWTI's application that remained in effect
were:
(1) A prohibition against ``consolidation or transfer of loads * *
* by repackaging in, mixing, or pumping from one container or transport
vehicle into another.'' 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i).
(2) A requirement to indicate on the hazardous waste manifest any
``transfer of hazardous waste from one vehicle to another.'' 6 NYCRR
372.3(a)(7)(ii).
(3) A requirement that the transfer or storage area where
containers of hazardous waste are transferred from one vehicle to
another, or unloaded for temporary storage, ``must be designed to meet
secondary containment requirements'' set forth in 6 NYCRR 373-2.9(f). 6
NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii).
On December 6, 1995, RSPA published in the Federal Register its
determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law
preempts these three requirements. PD-12(R), New York Department of
Environmental Conservation Requirements on the Transfer and Storage of
Hazardous Wastes Incidental to Transportation, 60 FR 62527. RSPA found
that the repackaging prohibition is preempted because it is not
substantively the same as provisions in the HMR concerning the packing,
repacking, and handling of hazardous material, and that the manifest
requirement is preempted because it is not substantively the same as
the HMR's requirements for the preparation, contents, and use of
shipping documents related to hazardous material. RSPA also concluded
that the secondary containment requirement is preempted as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and carrying out of the HMR's provisions on
packaging and segregation. (RSPA did not address one additional
restriction added in NYDEC's amendments that took effect in January
1995--that a transfer facility not be located on the site of a
commercial TSD facility--because neither CWTI nor any other party
discussed the effect of this restriction on hazardous waste
transporters or argued that it is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125.)
In Part II of its decision, RSPA discussed the applicability of
Federal hazardous material transportation law to the transportation of
hazardous wastes and the standards for making determinations of
preemption. 60 FR at 62529-62532. As explained there, unless DOT grants
a waiver or there is specific authority in another Federal law, a State
(or other non-Federal) requirement is preempted if:
--It is not possible to comply with both the State requirement and a
requirement in the Federal hazardous material transportation law or
regulations;
--The State requirement, as applied or enforced, is an ``obstacle'' to
the accomplishing and carrying out of the Federal hazardous material
transportation law or regulations; or
--The State requirement concerns a ``covered subject'' and is not
``substantively the same as'' a provision in the Federal hazardous
material transportation law or regulations. Among the five covered
subjects are (1) the ``packing, repacking [and] handling * * * of
hazardous material,'' and (2) the ``preparation, execution, and use of
shipping documents relating to hazardous material'' including
requirements related to the contents of those documents.
See 49 U.S.C. 5125 (a) & (b). These preemption provisions stem from
congressional findings that State and local laws which vary from
Federal hazardous material transportation requirements can create ``the
potential for unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and
confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to comply with multiple
and conflicting * * * regulatory requirements,'' and that
[[Page 15971]]
safety is advanced by ``consistency in laws and regulations governing
the transportation of hazardous materials.'' Pub. L. 101-615 Secs. 2(3)
& 2(4), 104 Stat. 3244.
Within the 20-day time period provided in 49 CFR 107.211(a), NYDEC
filed a petition for reconsideration of PD-12(R). NYDEC certified that
it had mailed a copy of its petition to CWTI and all others who had
submitted comments. Responses to NYDEC's petition for reconsideration
were submitted by the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials
Transporters (AWHMT), the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC),
and CWTI.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA has considered CWTI's comments, even though submitted
after the 20-day deadline, under a policy similar to that applied in
rulemaking proceedings. See 49 CFR 106.23 (``Late filed comments are
considered so far as practicable.'') CWTI states that it did not
receive a copy of NYDEC's petition for reconsideration directly from
NYDEC, and that bad weather further delayed its preparation of
responding comments. Under all the circumstances, including the
absence of any apparent prejudice to NYDEC, it is appropriate to
consider the comments submitted by CWTI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petition for Reconsideration
In its petition, NYDEC contends that its repackaging prohibition
and its requirement for additional information on the manifest are not
substantively different from requirements in the HMR. It states that
its prohibition ``against commingling of wastes does in fact conform
significantly to the federal prohibitions against transferring
hazardous materials from one container to another.'' NYDEC claims to
find consistency between its absolute prohibition against transferring
wastes from one container to another and specific provisions in the HMR
forbidding combinations of hazardous materials that cause unsafe
conditions. It argues that the prohibition in 49 CFR 177.834(h) against
tampering with containers of hazardous materials makes it ``clear''
that transporters are not to do ``anything that could undermine the
integrity of the container * * * until it reaches its `billed
destination.' '' According to NYDEC, its repackaging prohibition and
manifest requirement are both necessary to ``preserve the integrity of
the generator accountability concept'' and are ``appropriate for the
protection of public health and the environment, and preventing
releases, the mixing of incompatible materials and deliberate
`cocktailing.' ''
NYDEC states that its requirement to indicate any transfer of
hazardous waste from one vehicle to another is not significant because
it is simply ``additional information that can neither be viewed as a
significant alteration nor as a burden upon the transporter.'' It
argues that the uniform hazardous waste manifest required by the HMR
``is not integral to transportation; it is simply paperwork'' and only
EPA has the authority ``to determine issues that arise from the
manifesting of hazardous waste * * *''
NYDEC also argues that its ``regulation pertaining to secondary
containment is consistent with and complementary of the HMR * * *'' and
does not create ``confusion'' or ``frustrate Congress' goal.'' It
states that ``RSPA has not satisfied its burden of establishing that
the New York Regulation poses an obstacle to the accomplishment and
carrying out of the HMR,'' and points to EPA's containment requirements
applicable to the storage of used oil and wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at transfer facilities.
More generally, NYDEC states that its regulations should not be
found to be preempted because they advance safety in the transportation
of hazardous wastes as well as ``generator accountability, a central *
* * concept'' of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42
U.S.C. 6921 et seq., and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
According to NYDEC, its ``requirements at issue are expressly
contemplated by RCRA.'' It declares that, because ``Congress did not
intend to preempt states from enacting their own hazardous waste
requirements pursuant to RCRA,'' RSPA lacks authority to find that New
York's regulation are preempted. It asserts that only ``EPA, not DOT,
is the appropriate venue for resolving'' whether States may impose
additional, nonuniform requirements on transporters of hazardous waste.
NYDEC also states that, ``in the absence of federal regulation, a
federal statutory policy of national uniformity does not preclude state
regulation,'' and asserts that RSPA has improperly applied the
statutory standard to find ``preemption of the entire field'' of State
regulations on hazardous waste transporters.
III. Discussion
A. Repackaging Prohibition
RSPA's December 1995 determination noted that ``the HMR do not
contain any general prohibition against the transfer of hazardous
material from one container to another, or the combination of
commodities in the same packaging.'' 60 FR at 62534. RSPA further
explained that the HMR's specific prohibitions against tampering with a
container of hazardous materials, or combining hazardous materials that
would cause an unsafe condition, are substantively different from New
York's absolute prohibition against repackaging hazardous wastes. 60 FR
at 62536.
NYDEC has never challenged the statement in CWTI's application that
combining the contents of several smaller containers of hazardous waste
into a bulk packaging achieves ``efficiencies in transportation that
promote safety'' by reducing the overall risks that are generally
associated with a greater number of smaller packagings. Nor did NYDEC
respond to the comments discussed in the December 1995 determination
that repackaging promotes safety when shipments of hazardous wastes are
transferred between trucks and railroads. 60 FR at 62535. As RSPA
noted, in 1980, EPA disclaimed any intention of discouraging intermodal
(truck to rail) transfers of hazardous wastes. 60 FR at 62536. Yet, the
restriction in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i) completely forbids transferring
hazardous wastes from one bulk packaging to another (e.g., between
cargo tank motor vehicles and rail tank cars), and it also prevents the
combining (or bulking) of identical wastes from the same generator
(e.g., transferring the contents of numerous 55-gallon drums into a
single cargo tank). Safe transportation of hazardous wastes is not
furthered by a repackaging prohibition that is substantively different
from the HMR's requirements for packing, repacking, and handling
hazardous materials.
The comments of NYDEC and other States also failed to support the
claim that ``generator accountability'' would be frustrated without the
requirements found preempted, including NYDEC's repackaging
prohibition. Indeed, EPA's regulations specify that, when a transporter
commingles wastes of different DOT shipping descriptions, it makes
itself accountable for complying with all generator requirements. 40
CFR 263.10(c)(2).
Because this prohibition against the transfer or repackaging of
hazardous wastes is not substantively the same as the HMR's
requirements for ``the packing, repacking, [and] handling'' of
hazardous material, 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i) is preempted by 49 U.S.C.
5125(b)(1).
B. Manifest Entry for Transfer Between Vehicles
In its December 1995 determination, RSPA referred to EPA's
development of a manifest system which would ``allow `the regulated
community to adapt its present practices, notably DOT's
[[Page 15972]]
requirement for shipping papers, to accommodate the new EPA
requirements.' '' 60 FR at 62538, quoting from 49 FR at 10490. EPA's
requirements for a manifest, in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263, specifically
apply when hazardous wastes are being transported or offered for
transportation. The HMR explicitly provide that the EPA hazardous waste
manifest may be used as the DOT shipping paper (so long as the manifest
contains the information required by DOT), 49 CFR 172.205(h), and
shipping papers ``includ[e] hazardous waste manifests.'' 49 CFR
171.3(c)(3). RSPA has previously found that requirements affecting a
hazardous waste manifest are ones that concern a ``covered subject'' in
49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). PD-2(R), Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, 58 FR 11176, 11182 (Feb. 23,
1993). The hazardous waste manifest is clearly integral to
transportation, contrary to NYDEC's assertions.
A uniform hazardous waste manifest was implemented in 1984 because
of the burden caused by the ``proliferation of manifests [when] various
States decided to develop and print their own forms.'' 49 FR 10490.
Given the number of States and other jurisdictions that regulate
hazardous waste, additional and conflicting requirements in this area
are, by their very nature, more than an ``[e]ditorial or other similar
de minimis'' change, 49 CFR 107.202(d), and sufficient to create
confusion and reduce safety in the transportation of hazardous
materials. For this reason, RSPA disagrees with NYDEC's conclusory
statements that its requirement to indicate a transfer of hazardous
waste between vehicles is not a ``significant alteration nor a burden
upon the transporter.''
Because the requirement to indicate on the manifest any transfer of
hazardous waste from one vehicle to another is not substantively the
same as the HMR's requirements for ``the preparation, execution and use
of documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to
the * * * contents * * * of those documents,'' 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(ii)
is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1).
C. Secondary Containment
In its December 1995 determination, RSPA analyzed NYDEC's
requirement for secondary containment under the obstacle test in 49
U.S.C. 5125(a)(2). It noted that the HMR focus on the suitability of
the container to contain hazardous material during transportation and
proper handling practices; the HMR do not contain any requirements
concerning the physical design or construction of fixed facilities
where transporters may exchange hazardous materials between vehicles,
including intermodal operations. 60 FR at 62539. RSPA also rejected
NYDEC's arguments that its requirement for secondary containment at a
fixed transfer facility is not a ``transportation issue.'' RSPA
explained that ``transportation-related loading, unloading, and storage
of hazardous materials (are) within the scope of Federal hazardous
material transportation law, including the preemption provisions in 49
U.S.C. 5125.'' Id. at 62541. Based largely on its earlier decision in
IR-28, San Jose, California; Restrictions on Storage of Hazardous
Materials, 55 FR 8884, 8893 (Mar. 8, 1990), appeal dismissed as moot,
57 FR 41165 (Sept. 9, 1992), RSPA found that NYDEC's ``secondary
containment requirement creates confusion as to requirements in the HMR
and increases the likelihood of noncompliance with the HMR.'' Id. at
62542.
In response to NYDEC's petition, RSPA has reexamined the grounds
for its decision in IR-28, and it has reviewed CWTI's application and
all the comments submitted. The specific San Jose storage requirements
found preempted in IR-28 were broader than NYDEC's secondary
containment requirement, because San Jose applied both a subjective
secondary containment standard and provisions for separation (or
segregation) of different classes of hazardous materials. State or
local segregation requirements that differ from those in the HMR, at 49
CFR 177.848, affect the handling of every container of hazardous
material at a transfer facility; they invariably create confusion and
complicate compliance with the Federal requirements. Moreover, no one
disputed the effect of the San Jose storage requirements which,
according to the applicant in IR-28,
Would force it to transfer its hazardous materials operations to
its Oakland facility, thereby causing transportation of larger
quantities of hazardous materials for greater distances, as well as
greater stockpiling of hazardous materials by businesses in San Jose
which could not be as quickly served as they presently are.
55 FR at 8889. Thus, it may be too broad to read IR-28 as finding that
any non-Federal requirement for secondary containment at a transfer
facility is unnecessary and an obstacle to the accomplishment and
carrying out of the HMR.
RSPA agrees with CWTI that packaging standards are fundamental to
the HMR; a rule of general applicability is that any packaging used for
transporting hazardous waste (or other hazardous material) must be
``designed, constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited,
and closed, so that under conditions normally incident to
transportation * * * there will be no identifiable * * * release of
hazardous materials.'' 49 CFR 173.24(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).
Nonetheless, some releases do occur, from mishandling of packages or
other circumstances. Moreover, New York's secondary containment
requirement must be considered applicable to situations when containers
are being opened as part of consolidation or bulking operations,
because the prohibition against repackaging in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i)
has been found to be preempted. The opening of containers and transfer
of their contents was not considered in IR-28.
CWTI appears to acknowledge that some containment measures are
desirable; it states that, ``in practice, industry conducts activities
associated with loading, unloading and storage of waste hazardous
materials in transportation on impervious surfaces.'' This limits the
issue to whether the specific conditions mandated by NYDEC are an
obstacle to the HMR. Although CWTI argues that ``sloping and spill/
runoff containment are unnecessary,'' and increase the ``likelihood of
shipment delay,'' there is insufficient evidence that New York's
particular secondary containment requirement, considered separately
from the preempted prohibition against repackaging, actually causes
delays or diversions in shipments of hazardous waste.
Some motor carriers stated only generally that they did not
transfer hazardous wastes from one vehicle to another, or store them
temporarily at a transfer facility, because of the existence of the
NYDEC requirements (including those repealed or modified in January
1995). See the affidavits of officers of Autumn Industries, Inc. and
J.B. Hunt Special Commodities, Inc., filed with CWTI's March 11, 1994
comments. Others, such as Dart Trucking Company and Nortru, Inc.,
stated that they did not conduct transfer operations because they did
not own a transfer facility within the State of New York (although Dart
did mention that NYDEC's secondary containment requirement kept it from
transferring containers of hazardous waste between vehicles). The
Association of American Railroads concluded that NYDEC was not applying
its ``storage requirements'' to rail yards, because ``[a] rail car
moving
[[Page 15973]]
from origin to destination cannot be in a `containment system' having
`sufficient capacity to contain 10 percent of the volume of containers
or the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater.' ''
On reconsideration, these limited comments do not support a finding
that NYDEC's secondary containment requirement, as applied and
enforced, causes the unnecessary delays in transportation of hazardous
materials and creates the very ``potential for unreasonable hazards in
other jurisdictions,'' about which Congress expressed its concerns. See
60 FR 62530 (quoting Pub. L. sec. 2(3), 104 Stat. 3244). In the absence
of more specific evidence of the effects of this requirement on the
transportation of hazardous waste, including the repackaging and
consolidation of wastes, there is not sufficient information to make a
finding that this requirement is an obstacle to accomplishing and
carrying out the Federal hazardous material transportation law and the
HMR. For this reason, RSPA withdraws that part of the December 1995
determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law
preempts 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii).
D. RSPA's ``Authority'' To Issue Preemption Determinations
RSPA has already considered, and specifically rejected, arguments
that it has no authority to find that NYDEC's regulations are
preempted. 60 FR at 62532, 62533-34. As AWHMT points out in its
comments, EPA has stated that the rules and regulations of EPA and DOT
with respect to the standards for transporters of hazardous waste are
``interrelated.'' EPA Final Rule, Standards Applicable to Transporters
of Hazardous Waste, 45 FR 12737, 12738 (Feb. 26, 1980). RCRA itself
mandates that EPA's regulations on hazardous waste transporters must be
consistent with the HMR, 42 U.S.C. 6923(b), and the two agencies
``worked together to develop standards for transporters of hazardous
waste in order to avoid conflicting requirements.'' 40 CFR 263.10,
note. Accordingly, except for bulk shipments by water, a hazardous
waste transporter who obtains an EPA identification number and fulfills
any clean-up responsibilities will be in compliance with EPA's
transporter rules if it ``meets all applicable requirements of'' the
HMR. Id. To further ensure compatibility, EPA also requires that a
generator who transports hazardous waste off-site (or offers hazardous
waste for transportation) must comply with DOT's requirements on
packaging, labeling, marking, and placarding. 40 CFR 262.30, 262.31,
262.32, 262.33.
EPA has explicitly stated that it does not consider issues of
preemption under 49 U.S.C. 5125 when it approves a State hazardous
waste program. See the discussion in PD-12(R), 60 FR at 62534.
Accordingly, RSPA cannot accept NYDEC's assertion that its challenged
requirements ``are expressly contemplated by RCRA.'' Moreover, NYDEC's
requirement for a transporter to indicate on the manifest any transfer
of hazardous waste (between the same transporter's own vehicles)
appears inconsistent with EPA's regulation that: ``No State, however,
may impose enforcement sanctions on a transporter during transportation
of the shipment for failure of the [manifest] form to include
preprinted information or optional State information items.'' 40 CFR
271.10(h)(3). EPA has also explained that ``States through which
hazardous waste shipments pass are not allowed to place additional
information requirements on the transporter as a condition of
transportation.'' EPA Final Rule, Hazardous Waste Management System, 49
FR 10490, 10495 (Mar. 20, 1984).
RSPA also disagrees with NYDEC's overall conclusion that the
decision in PD-12(R) sacrifices safety ``in the name of uniformity.''
As HMAC points out, uniformity of hazardous materials regulations and
safety are not conflicting goals. Rather, Congress has specifically
found that, ``consistency in laws and regulations governing the
transportation of hazardous materials is necessary and desirable.'' Id.
(quoting Pub. L. 101-615 sec. 2(4)). AWHMT represents that 19 different
States, including New York, enforce hazardous waste transfer facility
requirements that differ from, or add to, the Federal standards. Local
governments and Indian tribes often impose their own requirements, all
in the name of safety. E.g., IR-32, Montevallo, Alabama, Ordinance on
Hazardous Waste Transportation, 55 FR 36738 (Sept. 6, 1990); Public
Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 30 F.3d 1203 (9th
Cir. 1994) (tribal ordinance regulating shipment of spent nuclear
fuel). However, these separate non-Federal requirements do not advance
overall safety when they require shippers and carriers to ascertain,
understand, and comply with additional conditions applicable in the
many jurisdictions through which a hazardous materials shipment may be
transported. Less safety, rather than more, is the result when shippers
and carriers then fail to comply with the HMR, choose longer routes to
avoid a jurisdiction with additional requirements, or do both.
IV. Ruling
For the reasons set forth above, NYDEC's petition for
reconsideration is denied with respect to 6 NYCRR 372(a)(7) (i) and
(ii). This decision incorporates and reaffirms the determination that
Federal hazardous material transportation law preempts subsection
372.3(a)(7)(i), prohibiting the repackaging of hazardous wastes,
because it concerns the packing, repacking and handling of hazardous
materials and is not substantively the same as the HMR, and subsection
372.3(a)(7)(ii), requiring an indication on the manifest of a transfer
of hazardous wastes between vehicles, because it concerns the
preparation, use and contents of shipping documents related to
hazardous material and is not substantively the same as the HMR. 49
U.S.C. 5125(b)(1) (B) and (C).
NYDEC's petition for reconsideration is granted with respect to 6
NYCRR 372(a)(7)(iii). Because there is insufficient information that
this requirement, as enforced and applied, is an obstacle to
accomplishing and carrying out the Federal hazardous material
transportation law and the HMR, RSPA makes no determination whether 49
U.S.C. 5125(a)(2) preempts NYDEC's requirement for secondary
containment at a transfer facility where hazardous wastes are stored or
transferred.
V. Final Agency Action
In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(d), this decision constitutes
RSPA's final agency action on CWTI's application for a determination of
preemption as to the NYDEC transfer and storage requirements in 6 NYCRR
372.3(a)(7). Any party to this proceeding ``may bring a civil action in
an appropriate district court of the United States for judicial review
of [this] decision * * * not later than 60 days after the decision
becomes final.'' 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 1997.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-8553 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P