Recent Issue Summaries
What You've Missed... July/August 2011 Issue
A sampling of what you've missed in the July/August 2011 issue of HAZMAT Packager & Shipper...
As a Subscriber, you would have learned ....about details from the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods 39th Session subcommittee meeting held in Geneva from June 20 to 24, 2011. This is the first of four subcommittee meetings scheduled to be held in the next two-year period. Decisions made in these four meetings are expected to culminate with publication of the 18th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. Such long range advice permits readers to identify changes they need to be tracking so as to prepare for changes they may need to face. Furthermore, knowledge of changes that clarify existing requirements serves to aid compliance with existing regulations. Report on the June 2011 UN TDG Subcommittee meetings in Geneva.
about the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel working group meeting held April 4 to 8, 2011, in Atlantic City, NJ. The work for this biennium will culminate with the issuance of the 2013-2014 ICAO Technical Instructions on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, based on final decisions to be taken at the panel’s meeting (DGP23) in Montreal in October of this year. Review of this article will give our readers forewarning about many of the changes. ICAO DGP April 2011 meeting in Atlantic City, NJ.
the latest developments regarding the intention of Congress to pass legislation establishing a more comprehensive chemical security program that would supersede the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). Congress has yet to pass comprehensive legislation and has resorted to passing one-year extensions of the current program as part of each year’s DHS spending bill. This year’s appropriation bill passed by the House includes another extension to October 4, 2012. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Reauthorization Legislation.
that the DOT regulations require tank car owners themselves to determine the periodic inspection interval, the test technique, and the acceptance criteria for an internal rubber lining applied to a tank car. Owners are required to determine the required inspection and test interval from empirical data, generally derived from inspection and test records. The author describes all the elements involved in the complex process of laying out an evaluation program that will be acceptable to the FRA regulators. Inspection and Test of Tank Car Internal Rubber Linings.
about the major comments PHMSA received on its Docket HM-223 NPRM on Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle Loading and Unloading (issued on March 11, 2011). Comments were due on June 9 and are now available for public viewing. This is a very substantive proposal affecting a wide swath of the hazmat industry. The author covers the major comments received and points out some of the problems facing industry and government. PHMSA Rulemakings, HM-247 – Comments on the NPRM.
about greater and more direct participation in regulatory activities by the FAA in hazmat air transportation. A more controlling role in ICAO affairs is obviously evolving. Without question, the FAA will play a more direct role in setting hazmat regulations by air, particularly as the ICAO Technical Instructions affect what ends up in the DOT 49 CFR Hazardous Materials Regulations. Dangerous Goods By Air.
about a recent PHMSA “SHOW CAUSE” order issued against DOT-SP 9275. This Special Permit pertains to the transport of consumer products such as medicines and cosmetics containing ethyl alcohol. In June 2011, PHMSA issued every holder and applicant for renewal of SP-9275 an order to “show cause” why the permit should not be revised to include hazard information on the outer cartons. The author explains why such markings would mean delays, rejections, and other interruption of the smooth transportation of these products that have moved without meaningful incident for 25 years. The industry should seriously consider becoming involved with this proposal. DOT Issues Show Cause Order For DOT-SP 9275.
about recent FAA enforcement actions suggesting that the agency will attempt to hold air carriers liable for hidden shipments based on a legal principle analogous to strict liability. This policy does not take into account whether the air carrier exercised reasonable care or diligence, or possessed constructive knowledge. Air carriers and others within the chain of custody of hazardous materials must be cognizant of FAA’s strict enforcement posture. This article presents much that should be of concern. It calls for attentive reading by the legal department. Ambiguity? FAA Enforcement, Hidden Shipments and Air Carrier Liability.