[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6669-6673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3458]



[[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