[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8769-8777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-4482]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 175

[Docket No. RSPA-02-11654 (HM-228)]
RIN 2137-AD18


Hazardous Materials: Revision of Requirements for Carriage by 
Aircraft

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: RSPA is considering changes to the requirements in the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) on the transportation of 
hazardous materials by aircraft. These changes would modify or clarify 
requirements to promote safer transportation practices; promote 
compliance and enforcement; eliminate unnecessary regulatory 
requirements; convert certain exemptions into regulations of general 
applicability; finalize outstanding petitions for rulemaking; 
facilitate international commerce; and make these requirements easier 
to understand. In addition, RSPA is denying a petition for rulemaking 
in this document.
    This ANPRM invites public comments on how to accomplish these 
goals, provides an opportunity for comment on amendments that RSPA is 
considering, and provides a forum for the public to present additional 
ideas for improving the safe transportation of hazardous materials by 
aircraft.

DATES: Written comments: Comments must be received by May 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments: You must address comments to the Dockets 
Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You should identify the 
docket number (RSPA-02-11654 (HM-228)) and submit your comments in two 
copies. If you want to confirm our receipt of your comments, you should 
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. You may submit comments to 
RSPA by e-mail to: [email protected] or you may submit comments to the 
DMS Web at: http://dms.dot.gov. The Dockets Management System is 
located on the Plaza Level of the Department of Transportation 
headquarters building (Nassif Building) at the above address. You may 
review public dockets there between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review 
comments on-line at the DOT Dockets

[[Page 8770]]

Management System web site at: 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or Michael Stevens of 
the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research 
and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The HMR (49 CFR Parts 171-180) govern the transportation of 
hazardous materials in commerce by all modes of transportation, 
including aircraft (49 CFR 171.1(a)(1)). Parts 172 and 173 of the HMR 
include requirements for classification and packaging of hazardous 
materials, hazard communication, and training of employees who perform 
functions subject to the requirements in the HMR. Part 175 contains 
additional requirements applicable to aircraft operators transporting 
hazardous materials aboard an aircraft, and authorizes passengers and 
crew members to carry hazardous materials on board an aircraft under 
certain conditions. In addition, aircraft operators must comply with 
the training requirements in 14 CFR parts 121 or 135, as appropriate.
    RSPA (``we'' or ``our'') and the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) are reviewing Part 175 and other sections of the HMR applicable 
to transportation of hazardous materials by aircraft. This review will 
increase safety in the air transportation of hazardous materials by:
    (1) Modifying or clarifying requirements to promote compliance and 
enforcement;
    (2) Eliminating unnecessary current regulatory requirements;
    (3) Adopting current exemptions and outstanding petitions for 
rulemaking;
    (4) Facilitating international commerce; and
    (5) Making the regulations easier to understand.
    RSPA requests interested persons (``you'') to submit written 
comments concerning regulatory changes and clarifications to accomplish 
the goals set forth above. You should feel free to suggest any change 
to the HMR to improve safety in the transportation of hazardous 
materials by aircraft. You do not have to limit your comments to the 
specific sections of the HMR and issues discussed in this notice. You 
are encouraged to provide proposed language for changes to the current 
regulations, rationale and factual data to support your proposed 
changes, and any other suggestions to make the HMR easier to understand 
and promote compliance and enforcement. We organized this ANPRM by 
subject matter with questions at the end of each section. When 
responding to the questions at the end of each section, please refer to 
the section and number of the question.
    While this ANPRM attempts to encompass a broad range of safety 
issues regarding hazardous materials transported by air, it is not our 
only rulemaking initiative addressing air transportation. Other 
rulemakings include:
    (1) a final rule under Docket HM-215D, published on June 21, 2001 
(66 FR 33315), which addressed miscellaneous changes in Secs. 175.10, 
175.33, and 173.150, and revised Secs. 175.78 and 175.85 to further 
align those regulations with the International Civil Aviation 
Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of 
Dangerous Goods By Air (ICAO Technical Instructions);
    (2) a NPRM under Docket HM-206C, published February 13, 2002 (67 FR 
6669), in response to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommendation A-98-80, which recommends air carriers transporting 
hazardous materials to have the means to quickly retrieve and provide 
information about the identity of each shipment of hazardous material 
on an airplane;
    (3) an NPRM under Docket HM-226, published January 22, 2001 (66 FR 
6942), which proposes to revise the classification criteria and 
packaging requirements for infectious substances consistent with the 
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN 
Recommendations) and the ICAO Technical Instructions;
    (4) a rulemaking to be initiated under Docket HM-224B, which is 
evaluating the packaging requirements for oxygen cylinders aboard 
aircraft (see the discussion in the preamble to our August 19, 1999 
final rule under Docket HM-224A (64 FR 45391-93)); and
    (5) a rulemaking to be initiated under Docket HM-224C, to revise 
the requirements of the HMR applicable to lithium batteries (see our 
advisory notice published September 7, 2000 (65 FR 54366)).
    This rulemaking will not propose any security related changes to 
the HMR. As a result of the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, 
and subsequent threats related to biological materials, we are 
reviewing the HMR to determine if additional requirements are necessary 
to assure the security of hazardous materials in transportation. We 
initiated a rulemaking project to address security issues related to 
the transportation of hazardous materials by all modes. We are 
examining hazard communication, shipping documentation, training, and 
other requirements to determine if rulemaking action is necessary.

II. Communication of Requirements to Airline Passengers and 
Shippers (Signage)

A. Discussion

    Reducing the incidence of undeclared hazardous materials aboard 
aircraft is one of our highest priorities. We believe a lack of 
awareness of the risks posed by hazardous materials and their 
applicable regulatory requirements is a major factor in undeclared 
hazardous material shipments by air. RSPA and FAA are working with the 
Air Transport Association and others, on non-regulatory initiatives to 
increase public awareness through outreach and education efforts. 
Methods for detection of undeclared hazardous materials and ways to 
better assess the extent of the problem, are also of interest to us.
    RSPA and FAA also are considering other measures. A requirement to 
verbally question passengers and shippers on whether their baggage or 
packages contain hazardous materials is one possibility. Another 
potential solution suggested by the NTSB in its Recommendation A-98-71, 
may be to require a shipper to provide written responses on shipping 
papers to inquiries about hazardous characteristics of the shipment. 
Blocks on shipping documents to check whether or not the package 
contains hazardous materials or requiring shipper certification when a 
new or unknown shipper is involved, may be alternative ways to 
accomplish basic objectives.
    The HMR currently require notices to be posted at air passenger and 
cargo facilities and where cargo is accepted. The notices contain 
specific language warning passengers and offerors of cargo of the 
requirements applicable to carrying or offering hazardous materials and 
the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. Section 
175.25 requires aircraft operators to display notices warning 
passengers against carrying undeclared hazardous materials aboard 
aircraft in either their checked or carry-on luggage or on their 
persons, and prescribes the information to be contained in each notice. 
Section 175.26 requires each person who engages in the acceptance of, 
or the transportation of, cargo by aircraft, to

[[Page 8771]]

display notices in prominent locations at each facility where cargo is 
accepted. These notices are intended to inform their customers of what 
a hazardous material is, the requirement to comply with the HMR, and 
the penalties for failure to comply with the HMR. Therefore, signs must 
be in prominent view of passengers and persons who accept or offer 
cargo. Sections 175.25 and 175.26 also list the minimum information 
that must be contained on the notice.
    In some cases, cargo terminals are co-located with passenger 
terminals. To make it easier for the industry to comply with signage 
requirements, FAA and RSPA stated in a final rule published September 
27, 1993 (58 FR 50496) that display of separate passenger and cargo 
notices is not required at these passenger terminals. Notices are not 
required to be displayed at unattended locations if there is a general 
notice prominently displayed advising customers that shipments of 
hazardous materials at that location are prohibited. In addition, 
notices are not required to be displayed at a shipper's facility where 
packages of hazardous materials are accepted. However, we note there 
are differences in the information provided on the two notifications, 
and we are considering eliminating these differences. In a final rule 
published July 10, 1998 (63 FR 37454), we revised Secs. 175.25 and 
175.26 to reflect changes in the statutory citations and penalties, and 
to provide carriers greater flexibility.
    Internationally, the ICAO Technical Instructions require each 
operator to warn passengers of the types of goods they are prohibited 
from transporting aboard aircraft. However, the ICAO Technical 
Instructions do not specify the wording or information to be provided 
in the warning. However, ICAO Technical Instruction Part 7;5.1 does 
require each operator to ensure the information is promulgated in such 
a manner to alert its passengers. The information must accompany the 
passenger ticket; and be sufficient in number and ``prominently 
displayed'' at each of the places in an airport where tickets are 
issued, passengers and baggage check in, aircraft boarding areas are 
maintained, and at any other location where passengers may check in. In 
addition, the ICAO Technical Instructions require operators to ensure 
that notices sufficient in number and prominence are displayed in 
baggage claim areas.
    Some packaging, shipping and freight forwarding facilities 
erroneously believe they are not subject to the requirements of 
Sec. 175.26. These entities believe they are not subject to Part 175, 
and specifically Sec. 175.26, because they are not air carriers (See 
discussion in Part IV. A.). The HMR require each person who engages in 
accepting or transporting packages for transportation by air to display 
notification signs. Packaging, shipping and freight forwarding 
facilities are not excepted from Sec. 175.26(d), because they are 
performing carrier functions when they accept packages on a carrier's 
behalf. Therefore, such entities must comply with the signage 
requirements of Sec. 175.26.
    We are considering the need to clarify the term, ``prominently 
displayed.'' In addition, we are considering clarifying the 
applicability of Sec. 175.26 to packaging, shipping and freight 
forwarding facilities.

B. Questions

    1. What do you estimate to be the frequency of undeclared hazardous 
materials shipments by air and what can be done to improve the accuracy 
of these estimates?
    2. What can carriers or the government do to better detect 
undeclared hazardous materials shipments by air?
    3. What are the best approaches (regulatory and non-regulatory) to 
reducing undeclared hazardous materials shipments by air?
    4. What other alternatives should be considered to ensure 
requirements for shipping hazardous materials by air are understood and 
followed?
    5. What benefits and burdens would result from requirements to 
verbally question passengers and shippers as to whether their baggage 
or packages contain hazardous materials?
    6. What benefits and burdens would result from requiring shippers 
to provide written responses on shipping papers to inquiries about 
hazardous characteristics of the shipment?
    7. How can signage be improved?
    8. Are existing signage requirements effective in communicating to 
passengers and shippers the types of hazardous materials they are 
prohibited from carrying aboard aircraft in carry-on or checked luggage 
or as cargo?
    9. Should we allow the use of warning signs required by ICAO 
Technical Instructions in lieu of the requirements of Secs. 175.25 and 
175.26?
    10. Do the terms ``prominent location'' or ``prominently 
displayed,'' need to be clarified?
    11. Is there a need to change the requirements in Secs. 175.25 and 
175.26 to maximize the effectiveness of signs and posters? Is there a 
better way to design signs to increase the likelihood that passengers 
and shippers will notice and understand requirements?
    12. Do packaging, shipping and freight forwarding facilities 
understand that, if they accept packages as cargo for transportation by 
aircraft, which would meet the definition of an ``air carrier'' under 
49 U.S.C. 40102, they must comply with the signage requirements of 
Section 175.26? If not, how can this be clarified?
    13. Do we need to clarify or revise the location requirements for 
display of the signs?

III. ICAO Technical Instructions

A. Discussion

    The ICAO Technical Instructions are based on the UN Recommendations 
and prescribe requirements applicable to the international transport of 
dangerous goods by air, including classification and packaging of 
hazardous materials, communication of their hazards, training of 
employees, and segregation and separation of materials. Section 171.11 
of the HMR permits a person to offer and transport hazardous materials 
in accordance with the provisions of the ICAO Technical Instructions as 
an alternative to the applicable provisions of the HMR (parts 172 and 
173 for classification, hazard communication, and packaging). Section 
171.11 permits the use of ICAO Technical Instructions for international 
and domestic transportation, where at least one leg of transportation 
is by air.
    However, the provisions of Sec. 171.11 do not constitute a total 
alternative to compliance with the HMR. We are concerned about the lack 
of awareness that the other regulatory requirements continue to apply, 
such as those in part 175 of the HMR or the training requirements in 14 
CFR. Shipments made in accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions 
also remain subject to the emergency response provisions of subpart G 
of part 172 (Section 171.11(d)(10)). This requirement is restated in 
State Variation US12 to the ICAO Technical Instructions. Although the 
ICAO Technical Instructions contain a requirement for emergency 
response information, it is not detailed in respect to the type of 
emergency response information required. The ICAO Technical 
Instructions now satisfy the requirements of subpart G of part 172, 
with the exception of the requirement for a 24-hour emergency telephone 
number.
    We are considering clarifying what requirements of the HMR apply to 
a shipment transported under the ICAO Technical Instructions, and 
updating

[[Page 8772]]

the conditions allowing for use of the ICAO Technical Instructions 
specified in Sec. 171.11(d).

B. Questions

    1. Do shippers understand that a shipment made under the ICAO 
Technical Instructions still must comply with other regulatory 
requirements, such as part 175 of the HMR and the training requirements 
in 14 CFR?
    2. Should shippers and carriers of hazardous materials be allowed 
to use the provisions of the ICAO Technical Instructions other than 
those for packing, marking, labeling, classification, and description, 
such as Operator Responsibilities and Unloading and Storage provisions?
    3. Do any of the conditions in Sec. 171.11(d) on the use of the 
ICAO Technical Instructions need to be revised or removed? Should any 
other conditions be added?
    4. Are there ways to improve consistency between the ICAO 
requirements and corresponding requirements in the HMR?

IV. Storage Requirements and Limitations and Docket HM-192

A. Storage Requirements and Limitations

    Sections 175.75 and 175.85 prescribe limitations on the quantity of 
hazardous materials that may be carried aboard passenger-carrying or 
cargo-only aircraft, and the location of those materials, respectively. 
The quantity limitations for hazardous materials permitted aboard 
passenger-carrying aircraft are specified in Sec. 175.75(a)(2). This 
section states that no more than 25 kg of hazardous materials and, in 
addition, 75 kg net weight of Division 2.2 (non-flammable compressed 
gas) may be carried aboard a passenger-carrying or cargo-only aircraft:
    (1) In an accessible cargo compartment;
    (2) In any freight container within an accessible cargo 
compartment; or
    (3) In any accessible cargo compartment of a cargo-only aircraft if 
the hazardous materials are loaded as to be inaccessible unless in a 
freight container.
    Class 9 materials and consumer commodities are excepted from the 
quantity limitations of Sec. 175.75(a)(2). Section 175.85(b) requires 
hazardous materials packages acceptable for cargo-aircraft only, to be 
loaded in a manner that allows access to the package by crew members.
    Section 175.85(a) prohibits the carriage of a hazardous material in 
the passenger cabin or on the flight deck of any aircraft, and 
specifies conditions under which hazardous materials may be carried on 
main-deck cargo compartments. Section 175.85(c)(1)(i) through (v) 
provides exceptions for cargo-only operations from the quantity 
limitations of Sec. 175.75(a)(2), and accessibility requirements of 
Sec. 175.85(b) for those hazardous materials listed. Section 
175.85(c)(2) provides exceptions, when other means of transportation 
are impracticable, to the accessibility requirement of Sec. 175.85(b) 
and the quantity limitation requirements of Sec. 175.75(a)(2) for 
hazardous materials acceptable by both cargo-only and passenger-
carrying aircraft. These exceptions require that packages are carried 
in accordance with procedures approved in writing by the nearest FAA 
Civil Aviation Security Field Office (CASFO). Columns 9A and 9B of the 
Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) specify limitations on 
individual package quantities, or list packages that are forbidden from 
transportation by aircraft. Section 173.27 specifies inner receptacle 
limits for combination packages.
    Sections 175.85(c)(3)(i) through (iii) provide exceptions for 
small, single-pilot cargo-only aircraft from the accessibility 
requirements of Sec. 175.85(b) and the quantity limits of Sec. 175.75. 
These exceptions may be invoked when small aircraft are the only means 
of transporting hazardous materials to a particular destination. This 
applies to airports and locations incapable of supporting larger 
aircraft operations, where the only means of access is by smaller 
aircraft. The provisions of Sec. 175.85(c)(3) do not require approval 
by the FAA.
    Sections 175.310 and 175.320 provide exceptions from the quantity 
limitations in Secs. 175.75 and 172.101, when certain conditions are 
met. Section 175.310 provides an aircraft may carry up to 20 gallons of 
flammable liquid if: (1) air transportation is the ``only practical 
means'' of providing suitable fuel; (2) the flight is necessary to meet 
the needs of a passenger; and (3) fuel is carried in metal containers, 
as specified in this section. Section 175.320 authorizes the 
transportation of certain hazardous materials by cargo-only aircraft in 
inaccessible cargo locations when means of transportation other than 
air are impracticable or not available (i.e., air transport is the only 
means of transportation) subject to the conditions specified in 
Sec. 175.320.
    We believe the language of Secs. 175.75, 175.85 and Secs. 175.310, 
175.320 contain overlapping requirements and makes these sections 
difficult to understand. We base this on the number of inquiries we 
receive requesting clarification of these regulations. Both Sec. 175.75 
and Sec. 175.85 refer to quantities, accessibility and cargo location. 
Both also refer to exceptions for certain hazardous materials. For 
example, Sec. 175.85 excepts certain Division 6.1 and 6.2; certain 
Class 3, 7, 9; and consumer commodities from the quantity limitations 
of Sec. 175.75. Further, Secs. 175.75 and 175.85 do not provide 
restrictions on the amount of Class 9 materials and hazardous materials 
reclassed as consumer commodities, loaded onto an aircraft. We believe 
these exceptions should be reevaluated relative to potential risks to 
safety.
    In a letter issued to FAA on December 27, 2000, RSPA stated, for 
the purpose of Sec. 175.85, ``impracticable'' means transportation is 
not physically possible or cannot be performed by routine and frequent 
means of other transportation, due to extenuating circumstances. 
Extenuating circumstances include: conditions precluding highway or 
water transportation, such as a frozen vessel route; road closures due 
to catastrophic weather or volcanic activity; or a declared state of 
emergency. Other means of transportation also would be 
``impracticable,'' if special characteristics of the material being 
shipped would render it useless upon arrival if transported by means 
other than aircraft. For example, time sensitive radio pharmaceuticals 
or hazardous materials required in response to an emergency. However, 
the desire for expedience of a shipper, carrier, or consignor, is not 
relevant in determining whether other means of transportation are 
impracticable.
    With regard to the issues presented in this section, we are 
considering the following changes to the HMR regarding package storage 
requirements and limitations:
    1. Combining Secs. 175.75 and 175.85 for purposes of clarity.
    2. Eliminating the exception in Sec. 175.75(b) for consumer 
commodities and Class 9 materials.
    3. Adding a definition for the term ``impracticable.''
    4. Adding a footnote to Column 9A and 9B of the HMT to clarify that 
there are additional requirements for materials transported by aircraft 
contained in Sec. 173.27 and Part 175.

B. Docket HM-192

    On April 6, 1983, we published an ANPRM under Docket HM-192 (49 FR 
13717) in response to a petition filed by Japan Air Lines Company LTD 
(JAL) (P-903). The petition requested removal of the quantity 
limitations in Sec. 175.75. JAL asserted that the quantity limitation 
in

[[Page 8773]]

Sec. 175.75 was arbitrary, unjustifiable and inconsistent with other 
provisions of Part 175 and the ICAO Technical Instructions. The 
petition noted that: (1) HMR allow an unlimited quantity of hazardous 
materials to be carried in accessible cargo compartments; (2) the 
Sec. 175.75 limitation applies only to passenger-carrying aircraft, not 
to cargo-only aircraft; and (3) the ICAO Technical Instructions do not 
contain a per-aircraft limitation. JAL stated it was unaware of any 
incidents attributable to the transportation of quantities of hazardous 
materials in excess of the limitation prescribed in Sec. 175.75(a)(2). 
Further, JAL believes that the current lack of uniformity between U.S. 
regulations and ICAO Technical Instructions may increase dangers as a 
result of additional handling, (e.g., off-loading and re-loading) at an 
en route station prior to departure to the U.S.
    In response to the ANPRM, we received 28 written comments. 
Additionally, eight persons made oral presentations at a public meeting 
held on May 30, 1985 (See 50 FR 6013). At least one advocate for the 
removal of Sec. 175.75(a)(2) recommended issuance of an interim final 
rule for a trial period of one year. The proposed interim rule would 
revise the quantity limit in Sec. 175.75(a)(2) from 25 kg (55 pounds) 
to 135 kg (300 pounds), and from 75 kg (165 pounds) to 225 kg (500 
pounds) for non-flammable compressed gas. The determination to 
implement a final rule would be based on the results of the interim 
final rule. JAL stated Sec. 175.75(a)(2) should be removed because the 
25 kg (55 pounds) limit is rendered obsolete by advances in aviation 
technology and improvements in procedures for packaging dangerous 
goods.
    Persons opposed to the removal of the 25 kg (55 pounds) limitation 
asserted that the relaxation of the hazardous materials standards would 
be ill-advised and would compromise the safety of flight crews and 
passengers. Some opposing commenters believe more study is required 
before this quantity limitation is removed for passenger carrying 
aircraft. Some commenters believe there are serious deficiencies in 
cargo compartment fire containment capabilities, and it is the wrong 
time to remove any quantity limitations.
    On March 18, 1996, the Air Freight Association (AFA) filed a 
petition for rulemaking (P-1310) requesting amendments to the quantity 
limitations requirement of Sec. 175.75. AFA stated that limitations on 
the quantities of hazardous materials on aircraft should be determined 
by the nature of service for which each aircraft is intended. AFA 
suggested that limited quantities regulations are permitted to apply to 
a wider range of materials than originally intended. AFA cited the 
evolving nature of the small package delivery process. Specifically, 
AFA referred to the time constraints dictated by customers' need to 
have packages delivered next-day, second-day, etc. AFA believes the 
need to monitor loading limits causes its members to inefficiently load 
packages into unit load devices (ULD), and the time-sensitive nature of 
next-day or second-day delivery processes are adversely impacted by 
assuring the quantity limitations requirements are met. In its 
petition, AFA stated that exemption DOT E-11110, is adequate proof that 
the removal of the quantity limitations for cargo-only aircraft 
operations causes no adverse impact on safety. Exemption DOT E-11110 
authorizes the transportation of certain hazardous materials in 
combination packages in quantities that exceed those authorized by 
Sec. 175.75(a)(2). These hazardous materials include Division 1.4 
Compatibility Group S; Class 3 Packing Group III (that do not meet any 
other hazard class); Division 6.1 PG III; and Class 8 PG III (that do 
not meet any other hazard class). However, P-1310 also requests the 
inclusion of packages of hazardous materials in Division 2.2 (non-
flammable, non-poisonous compressed gas) and Class 3 PG II to the 
exception. Based upon the rationale presented, we do not believe that 
the claims made and the evidence cited by the petitioners, provide an 
adequate basis for removal of the quantity limitations of Sec. 175.75. 
We are unaware of the existence of any data suggesting that an increase 
in the amount of hazardous materials carried in inaccessible cargo 
compartments will not increase the risk of an incident involving 
hazardous materials, nor place passengers aboard aircraft at higher 
risk for injury. We also do not believe that the evolution of the 
package delivery process demonstrates the ability of the process to 
provide the same levels of safety sought by regulation, for all 
hazardous materials. Further, we do not believe an ``inefficiency'' to 
the loading process in and of itself, is a sufficient reason to relax 
safety regulation. In fact, loading processes vary from operator to 
operator. This includes the amounts, if any, of hazardous materials 
carried and the location of where the materials are loaded on the 
aircraft. Finally, we believe continued regulation for certain 
hazardous materials is warranted at this time. Therefore, we are 
denying P-903 and P-1310, and closing Docket HM-192.

C. Questions

    1. Would footnotes to Column 9A and 9B of the HMT to reference 
Sec. 173.27 and Part 175 be helpful?
    2. Should Secs. 173.27, 175.75, or 173.85 be amended to include 
cross-references to quantity limitations in other sections?
    3. Would combining Secs. 175.75 and 175.85 simplify and/or clarify 
these regulations?
    4. Does compartment accessability versus inaccessibility affect air 
safety and/or commerce?
    5. Should the exception allowing unlimited amounts of consumer 
commodities and Class 9 materials to be loaded on both passenger and 
cargo-only aircraft be modified or eliminated?
    6. Should DOT Exemption E-11110 (or any of the provisions contained 
within it) be incorporated into the HMR? Would incorporating this 
exemption adversely affect safety?
    7. Is RSPA's definition of the term ``impracticable'' feasible? 
Should it be revised and/or added to the HMR?
    8. Should we remove or revise any approval provisions in part 175? 
Should we add new approval procedures to part 175?

V. Other Requirements in Part 175

A. Scope and Applicability

1. Discussion
    Section 175.1 states that part 175 prescribes requirements for 
aircraft operators transporting hazardous materials aboard aircraft 
that are in addition to those contained in parts 171, 172, and 173. 
Section 175.5 states that part 175 applies to the acceptance for 
transportation, loading and transportation of hazardous materials in 
any aircraft in the United States, and in aircraft of United States 
registry anywhere in air commerce. Section 175.5 also provides 
exceptions from the requirements of the HMR for those aircraft under 
the direct, exclusive control of a government and not used for 
commercial purposes.
    We believe there is some confusion over the applicability of part 
175 to persons who are not air carriers, such as freight forwarders. 
Although the language of Sec. 175.1 refers to aircraft operators, part 
175 also applies to persons who are not direct air carriers but perform 
the same functions. Such persons include: persons who accept packages 
for air commerce; ground handling crews; contracted employees; air 
freight forwarders; and subsidiary companies formed by aircraft 
operators that perform pallet building and handle,

[[Page 8774]]

load, and unload hazardous materials in air commerce. (Note: Additional 
discussion on the applicability of the HMR to airline passengers is 
contained in Section V.D. of this preamble.)
    The exceptions provided in Sec. 175.5 do not apply to commercial 
aircraft operators who supply contractual services to a government, 
because the government does not have exclusive control of the aircraft 
in flight. These exceptions are for those aircraft under the direct 
exclusive control of a government, and not a private carrier working 
under a government contract. Exclusive direction and control consists 
of both administrative and physical control.
    We are considering revising Sec. 175.1 to clarify that persons who 
are not direct air carriers but perform air carrier functions, are 
subject to part 175. We are also considering revising the applicability 
of the HMR to air carriers under exclusive control of a government.
2. Questions
    1. Should Sec. 175.1 be rewritten to clarify the applicability to 
persons who are not direct air carriers but perform air carrier 
functions (e.g., indirect air carriers)?
    2. Are there conditions relating to the control of an aircraft by a 
government, that need to be clarified or addressed?

B. Inspection and Acceptance of Packages/Shipments

1. Discussion
    A number of requirements in part 175 contain provisions for 
inspecting and accepting shipments of hazardous materials transported 
by aircraft. Section 175.3 prohibits aircraft operators from accepting 
hazardous materials not prepared for shipment in accordance with the 
HMR. Section 175.30, states no person may carry a hazardous material 
aboard an aircraft unless the package is inspected by the aircraft 
operator to ensure that the integrity of the package has not been 
compromised. Section 175.88 prohibits a ULD from being placed on an 
aircraft unless the device is inspected and found to be free from 
evidence of leakage from, or damage to, any package containing 
hazardous materials. Section 175.90 requires packages and overpacks 
containing hazardous materials to be inspected after unloading from 
aircraft, to assure no damage or leakage has occurred during flight. 
When packages or overpacks containing hazardous materials are carried 
in a ULD, an immediate inspection of the location where the ULD was 
stored on the aircraft is required to detect any evidence of leakage or 
contamination. Packages or overpacks containing hazardous materials 
carried in a ULD must also be inspected for damage or leakage when 
unloaded from a ULD.
    We issued a formal interpretation on the acceptance of hazardous 
materials on June 4, 1998 (63 FR 30411). We stated a carrier's 
acceptance and transportation of hazardous materials can involve 
several different situations. For example, in some manner a shipment 
could be declared by the offeror to contain hazardous materials, and 
should comply with requirements of the HMR. Conversely, an 
``undeclared'' or ``hidden'' shipment is a shipment of hazardous 
materials that, intentionally or unintentionally, is not declared by 
the offeror to contain hazardous materials and there is no attempt to 
comply with the HMR.
    The importance of responsibly accepting hazardous materials is 
highlighted by the requirement under 49 U.S.C. 5123 to assess a civil 
penalty against any person who ``knowingly violates'' any requirement 
in the HMR, including the provisions of Sec. 175.30. Section 5123(a) 
provides that a person ``acts knowingly'' when (A) the person has 
actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation; or (B) a 
reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable 
care would have that knowledge. A carrier knowingly violates the HMR 
when the carrier accepts or transports a hazardous material with actual 
or constructive knowledge that a package contains a hazardous material 
not properly packaged, marked, labeled, or described on a shipping 
paper as required by the HMR. This means a carrier may not ignore 
readily apparent facts indicating that either (1) a shipment declared 
to contain a hazardous material is not properly packaged, marked, 
labeled, placarded, or described on a shipping paper, or (2) a shipment 
actually contains a hazardous material governed by the HMR despite the 
fact it is not marked, labeled, placarded, or described on a shipping 
paper as containing a hazardous material.
    Internationally, part 7 of the ICAO Technical Instructions contains 
hazardous materials acceptance procedures for aircraft operators. ICAO 
Part 7;1.3 requires operators to develop and use a checklist that 
includes all reasonable steps to assure packages are properly prepared 
for transportation by aircraft, and all regulatory requirements have 
been satisfied.
    Because Sec. 175.3 appears to overlap with the provisions of 
Sec. 171.2(a) and (b), we are considering eliminating Sec. 175.3. We 
are also considering whether the provisions of Sec. 175.30 provide 
adequate guidance for accepting packages of hazardous materials, and 
for air carriers to identify shipments of undeclared hazardous 
materials. In place of these provisions, we are determining whether a 
checklist similar to the one used in the ICAO Technical Instructions 
would be helpful in assuring packages of hazardous materials are in 
compliance with applicable regulations prior to being accepted. 
Finally, based on the detailed requirements of Sec. 175.90, we are 
considering merging the pre-flight ULD inspection requirements of 
Sec. 175.88 into the post-flight inspection requirements of 
Sec. 175.90.
2. Questions
    1. Are the requirements of Sec. 175.3 already addressed by 
Sec. 171.2? If so, should these requirements be removed from 
Sec. 175.3?
    2. Are there additional issues regarding accepting or inspecting 
packages that are not addressed by Sec. 175.30?
    3. As outlined in the formal interpretation we issued on June 4, 
1998 on the acceptance of hazardous materials, the acceptance 
requirements of Sec. 175.30 are not limited to declared hazardous 
materials packages. Are the requirements of Sec. 175.30 sufficiently 
clear or should we revise the section?
    4. Should we adopt a checklist similar to the one used in the ICAO 
Technical Instructions to enable operators to assure packages of 
hazardous materials are in compliance with applicable regulations? 
Would such a checklist help operators to identify undeclared hazardous 
materials? If adopted, when should the checklist be completed?
    5. Should we merge the pre-flight ULD inspection requirements of 
Sec. 175.88 with the post-flight inspection requirements of 
Sec. 175.90?

C. Discrepancy Reporting

1. Discussion
    Section 175.31 requires a person who discovers a discrepancy after 
acceptance of a package of hazardous materials (as defined by 
Sec. 175.31(b)) to notify the nearest FAA Civil Aviation Security Field 
Office (CASFO) by telephone ``as soon as practicable,'' and provide 
certain information. This requirement permits early investigation and 
intervention to determine the cause for failure to either properly 
declare or prepare a hazardous materials shipment. A May 27, 1980, 
final rule under Docket HM-168 (45 FR 35329), adopted requirements in 
49 CFR 175.31 for reporting discrepancies. In the preamble to the final 
rule, we stated:


[[Page 8775]]


    A shipment containing a hazardous material must be offered to 
the carrier in accordance with the regulations. An offering occurs 
when (1) the package is presented, (2) the shipping paper is 
presented, (3) the certification is executed, and (4) the transfer 
of the package and shipping paper is completed with no further 
exchange (written or verbal) between the shipper and aircraft 
operator, as usually evidenced by the departure of the shipper. At 
this point, it is clear that the operator has accepted the shipment 
and the shipper has removed himself from a final opportunity to take 
corrective action that would preclude a violation of the HMR 
relative to transportation of hazardous materials aboard aircraft . 
. . the requirement which has been adopted [in this final rule] 
limits required reporting to shipment discrepancies which are 
discovered [subsequent to] acceptance of the shipment for 
transportation and limits ``reportable'' discrepancies to those 
discrepancies which are not detectable as a result of proper 
examination by a person accepting shipment under the acceptance 
criteria of Sec. 175.30. This notification requirement will 
facilitate the timely investigation by FAA personnel of shipment 
discrepancies involving situations where inside containers do not 
meet prescribed packaging or quantity limitation requirements and 
where packages or baggage are found to contain hazardous materials 
after having been offered and accepted as other than hazardous 
materials.

Internationally, ICAO Technical Instructions part 7;4.5 contains 
provisions under which operators must report undeclared or misdeclared 
dangerous goods found in cargo, or dangerous goods not permitted to be 
carried by passengers, found in baggage. This report must be given to 
the appropriate authorities in the country in which the incident 
occurs.
    We adopted the reporting requirement of Sec. 175.31 with the intent 
to allow time to investigate those persons offering undeclared 
shipments. We note that the reporting requirement in Sec. 175.31(a) is 
limited in Sec. 175.31(b) to those discrepancies involving hazardous 
materials which are improperly described, certified, labeled, marked, 
or packaged, in a manner not ascertainable when accepted under the 
provisions of Sec. 175.30(a). There is no requirement for a carrier to 
report discrepancies that are ascertainable under the acceptance and 
inspection requirements of Sec. 175.30(a). However, many of the 
``discrepancies'' reported by carriers fall into this latter category. 
We are considering the need for guidelines to help discern 
discrepancies from violations.
2. Questions
    1. Should we require discrepancies to be reported immediately so 
packages are still available for inspection? Should the term in 
Sec. 175.31, ``as soon as practicable'' be further clarified? Would a 
time limit established in hours be a good alternative?
    2. Should a formalized amnesty feature be considered for those who 
report discrepancies?
    3. Should the requirement to report discrepancies be clarified as 
they apply to indirect air carriers and other shipping facilities after 
acceptance of cargo?

D. Exceptions

1. Company Materials
    Section 175.10(a)(2) excepts from the HMR certain hazardous 
materials required to be aboard an aircraft in accordance with 
applicable airworthiness requirements and operating instructions. 
However, items of replacement for such materials and other company 
materials (COMAT) of an airline that are hazardous materials must be 
properly classed, described, marked, labeled, packaged, handled, 
stored, and secured in accordance with the HMR (Note: We published an 
advisory notice on COMAT on December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65479)).
    The HMR provide the following limited exceptions for COMAT: (1) 
Items of replacement for installed equipment containing hazardous 
materials are excepted from the packaging requirements of the HMR if 
they are contained in specialized packaging providing at least an 
equivalent level of protection of required packaging; (2) aircraft 
batteries are excepted from the quantity limitations in Secs. 172.101 
and 175.75(a); and (3) an aircraft tire assembly is not subject to the 
HMR if it is not inflated to a gauge pressure exceeding the maximum 
rated pressure for the tire. Other materials such as paint, chemicals 
for corrosion removal, automotive batteries, wastes, and engine-powered 
ground equipment containing fuels do not qualify for this limited 
relief.
    In some cases, items of replacement for installed equipment 
containing hazardous materials or for hazardous materials carried to 
meet airworthiness requirements, are owned by one air carrier but are 
transported by another air carrier as part of a ``parts pooling 
agreement.'' The COMAT exceptions in Sec. 175.10 do not apply to 
transportation of another air carrier's materials. The purpose of the 
exceptions in Sec. 175.10(a)(2) is based on the knowledge of an air 
carrier to handle and package materials specific to the owner's 
operational use. Therefore, transportation of another air carrier's 
materials must be conducted in full compliance with the HMR. We are 
considering the need to clarify that this exception only applies to the 
transportation of an airline's own material.
2. Passengers and Crew
    Section 175.10 also provides limited exceptions for the 
transportation of certain personal items of passengers or crew members 
that are hazardous materials, such as toiletries, alcoholic beverages, 
and medicinal items. We are examining these exceptions to determine if 
any of them should be removed and if additional exceptions should be 
provided. We understand some persons are not aware that the HMR apply 
to aircraft passengers who are carrying hazardous materials on their 
person or in checked or carry-on baggage. For example, we are aware of 
situations where passengers with certain medical conditions must 
transport as carry-on baggage personal monitors and devices such as 
apnea and heart monitors, nebulizers, and nerve stimulators. These 
items would qualify as hazardous materials for purposes of the HMR. 
Therefore, we are considering clarifying the applicability of the HMR 
to aircraft passengers carrying hazardous materials and are considering 
moving the passenger exceptions to part 173. We request comments on the 
need for any additional exceptions and whether any of the existing 
exceptions should be removed or revised. We are also considering 
removing exceptions applicable to disabled persons with medical 
conditions from Sec. 175.10 and placing them in a new section.
3. Special Operations
    Section 175.10 also provides limited exceptions for the 
transportation of certain hazardous materials for special aircraft 
operations, such as avalanche control flights, aerial applications, and 
sport parachute jumping. We received a petition (P-846) to add an 
exception to Sec. 175.10 for hazardous materials that are loaded onto 
and carried in an aircraft for the purpose of emergency response 
situations where a loss of life or property is imminent. These 
materials would include items such as self-contained breathing 
apparatus or other related emergency equipment necessary for each 
situation. The exception would provide an exception for hazardous 
materials transported for the purpose of emergency response from the 
subchapter. The exception would apply to materials in authorized 
packaging. Each operator transporting the materials would keep current 
a manual of operational guidelines and handling procedures, and the 
aircraft could only transport crew members, emergency

[[Page 8776]]

response personnel, FAA inspectors, or persons essential to handling 
the hazardous materials. We are considering adopting this proposal into 
the HMR. A copy of the petition is available for review in the public 
docket.
4. Questions
    1. Should we reorganize Sec. 175.10 into three section applicable 
to: (1) Passengers and crewmembers; (2) COMAT; and (3) special 
operations?
    2. Should we remove the exceptions applicable to persons with 
medical conditions from Sec. 175.10 and place them in a new section? 
Should we move these exceptions, in particular the exceptions for 
passengers and crew, to another part of the HMR? If so, what part?
    3. Is it understood that the COMAT exception contained in 
Sec. 175.10 does not apply to transportation of another air carrier's 
material? Should the COMAT exception apply only to the transportation 
of those materials intended for an aircraft-on-ground (AOG)?
    4. Is clarification of the applicability of the HMR to passengers 
necessary? Is there a more effective way of communicating the 
applicable passenger provisions of this section, such as moving the 
exceptions to Part 173? Should we define the term ``passenger'' in 
Sec. 171.8?
    5. Should we provide additional exceptions in Sec. 175.10, such as 
those for personal monitors and devices such as apnea and heart 
monitors, nebulizers and nerve stimulators? Should we remove or modify 
any of these exceptions?
    6. Should we except hazardous materials necessary for emergency 
response situations where there is the possibility of imminent loss of 
life or property from the requirements of the HMR? What effect would 
this have on air safety?
    7. Should we make changes as to which provisions require FAA 
approval?

E. Training Requirements

1. Discussion
    Section 175.20 requires aircraft operators to comply with all 
applicable requirements in parts 106, 171, 172, and 175. In addition, 
hazmat employers must ensure all hazmat employees receive training in 
accordance with part 172. Initial training under the HMR must be 
conducted within 90 days after employment begins or a change in the 
employee's job function. Recurrent training must be conducted every 
three years. Section 175.20 also refers to the training requirements of 
the FAA under 14 CFR Secs. 121.135, 121.401, 121.433a, 135.323, 
135.327, and 135.333, which additionally address training for air 
carriers.
    A ``hazmat employee'' is defined in Sec. 171.8 to include ``all 
persons who in the course of employment perform functions that directly 
affect hazardous materials transportation safety.'' This does not 
include every person who works around an area where, for example, 
hazardous materials are loaded, unloaded, handled, and stored. The 
employee's functional relationship to hazardous materials 
transportation safety, rather than incidental contact with hazardous 
materials in the workplace, is the primary factor in determining 
whether an individual is a ``hazmat employee.''
    We believe there is confusion over who is a hazmat employee and, 
must therefore receive hazmat training. An employee of (or an employee 
of a contractor for) an airline who performs security functions related 
to hazardous materials is a hazmat employee and must receive the 
training required by 49 CFR part 172 and by 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. 
Such security functions could include: loading cargo onto pallets and 
x-ray machines; opening cargo for inspection; and transporting cargo 
that may include hazardous materials. An employee of an airline, 
including an employee of a contractor, who is not responsible for 
performing any function addressed by the HMR is not considered to be a 
``hazmat employee'' and is not subject to the training requirements of 
the HMR. We are considering the need to revise Sec. 175.20 to clarify 
training requirements for certain air carrier personnel.
2. Questions
    1. Are the requirements for training applicable to aircraft 
operators and hazmat employees clear and easy to understand?
    2. Should we clarify that persons responsible for screening for 
unacceptable hazardous materials must be trained?
    3. Should we require baggage handling, sorting, security, and other 
carrier personnel to receive training to help them to identify 
undeclared hazardous materials in cargo?
    4. Do aircraft operators understand what training requirements 
apply to their personnel (e.g., 49 CFR versus 14 CFR)?

F. Carriage of Radioactive Material Aboard Aircraft

1. Discussion
    Section 5114 of the federal hazardous materials transportation law 
addresses ionizing radiation material transportation. It states that 
the material may be transported on a passenger-carrying aircraft in air 
commerce, only if the material is intended for use in, or incident to, 
research or medical diagnosis or treatment; and does not present an 
unreasonable hazard to health and safety when being prepared for, and 
during, transportation. Section 175.700 of the HMR prohibits, in 
addition to other requirements, any person from carrying in a 
passenger-carrying aircraft any package required to be labeled in 
accordance with Sec. 172.403 of the HMR with a Radioactive Yellow II or 
III label, unless certain provisions are met. In addition, 
Sec. 175.700(c) states that (except for limited quantities) no person 
shall carry any class 7 material aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft 
unless that material is intended for use in research, medical 
diagnosis, or treatment.
    It appears some persons have misused the definition of research to 
avoid these restrictions. We do not consider research to include the 
application of existing technology to industrial endeavors. For 
example, the use of radioactive material (e.g., iridium-192) to detect 
cracks in oil field pipelines is not research, but the application of 
existing scientific knowledge. We are considering revising Sec. 175.700 
to clarify that research does not include the application of existing 
technology to industrial endeavors.
2. Question
    Does the term ``research'' as used in Sec. 175.700 require further 
clarification?

VI. Small Quantities, Limited Quantities and Consumer Commodities

A. Discussion

    The HMR contain hazardous materials exceptions for small 
quantities, limited quantities, and consumer commodities. These 
exceptions allow materials to be transported at reduced levels of 
regulation. Small quantities of hazardous materials are excepted from 
all other requirements of the HMR, provided certain criteria in 
Sec. 173.4 are met. Limited quantity exceptions in the HMR are based on 
the class of the hazardous material, and contain some additional 
requirements for air transportation. Materials that meet the limited 
quantity exception and also meet the definition of a consumer

[[Page 8777]]

commodity as provided by Sec. 171.8, may be renamed ``Consumer 
Commodity'' and reclassed as ORM-D. Consumer commodities are excepted 
from specification packaging, labeling, placarding and quantity 
limitations applicable to air transportation. As currently written, 
these exceptions allow small quantities and consumer commodities to be 
transported by aircraft even though they may contain hazardous 
materials otherwise forbidden aboard aircraft. These exceptions are 
inconsistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions, which require that 
before a hazardous material may be transported as an excepted quantity 
(i.e. small quantity), it must be suitable for transportation aboard 
passenger aircraft. In addition, the HMR allows many more hazardous 
materials to be transported as a consumer commodity than do the ICAO 
Technical Instructions. The ICAO Technical Instructions restrict 
consumer commodities to include only non-toxic aerosols, Class 3 
Packing Group II or III, Division 6.1 packing group III, and UN3175. 
Therefore, we are considering revising the small quantity, limited 
quantity and consumer commodity provisions to be consistent with the 
ICAO Technical Instructions.

B. Questions

    1. Should the provisions for small quantity, limited quantity and 
consumer commodity be revised to be consistent with the ICAO Technical 
Instructions?
    2. Should the Sec. 173.4 package marking be amended to align it 
with the ICAO Technical Instructions excepted quantity package marking?

VII. Request for Additional Comments

    Comments are invited on any items or issues pertinent to this topic 
not addressed by the above questions. There are a number of additional 
issues we must address in determining whether to proceed with 
rulemaking on this matter. These include the analyses required under 
the following statutes and Executive Orders:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O. 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-
effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the 
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop 
regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' We therefore 
request comments, including specific data if possible, concerning the 
costs and benefits associated with the issues addressed in this notice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of ``small 
entities.'' ``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations under 50,000. We invite comments as to the economic impact 
that the issues addressed in this notice may have on small businesses.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et 
seq.) preempts many state and local laws and regulations concerning 
hazardous materials transportation that are not the same as the federal 
requirements. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by state and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. We invite comments on the effect that the 
issues addressed in this notice may have on state or local safety or 
emergency response programs.

D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input 
from Indian tribal government representatives in the development of 
rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian communities and 
that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs'' on such 
communities. We do not believe there will be any effect on Indian 
tribes, but invite Indian tribal governments to provide comments as to 
the effect the issues addressed in this notice may have on Indian 
communities.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking is not considered a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rulemaking is not 
considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).

B. 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 can be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2002, under the 
authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.
Robert A. McGuire,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 02-4482 Filed 2-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P