Reporting responsibility may change

By John V. Currie -- Logistics Management, 7/1/1999

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is soliciting comments on the merits of revising the current hazardous-materials-incident reporting requirements, which have seen little change over the past 20 years. That request for information is included in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), Docket HM-229.

The proposed revisions would expand reporting responsibility to parties other than carriers as well as amend DOT's incident report Form F 5800.1 and the data that must be submitted. These proposed changes are based on information compiled by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) at several meetings with government and industry representatives in 1997 and 1998.

The working group that attended those meetings probably was one of the most diverse such gatherings ever. Trade associations representing every mode of transportation, modal administration officials from throughout DOT, labor unions, chemical manufacturers, petroleum distributors, railroads, motor carriers, airlines, vessel operators, emergency responders, and special-interest groups of all kinds gathered in one room to present their views. The working group split into two committees, one to decide on reporting criteria and the other to design a new reporting form.

After reviewing the working group's report, DOT now is asking whether the need for incident reporting still exists, what information is critical, and to what--if any--extent the reporting rules overlap those of other local, state, and federal agencies. The agency also is asking whether shippers, warehouse operators, freight forwarders, and others in addition to carriers should be required to report incidents involving shipments in their possession. Should incident reports be required even if there was no release? Should a consignee who discovers a leak after receiving a shipment be required to report that incident? Should the person who discovers the problem be required to notify the shipper? Should the reports be filed electronically, and should that information then be made available over the Internet?

DOT's review of the incident reporting rules raises some concerns. The intent of the regulations for reporting hazmat incidents was to gather data about package failures, with an eye toward improving packaging specifications. The new proposal, however, goes far beyond the regulation's original intent. DOT should be careful, moreover, to avoid capturing overly intrusive data that then would be publicly accessible via an online database and possibly used for reasons other than enhancing transportation safety.

I would caution shippers and carriers affected by this rulemaking not to look at the proposal in a vacuum, but rather to consider it alongside other proposals that DOT recently has published. In particular, shippers should consider the proposal in HM-223, which would define the term "transportation" and re-examine other agencies' regulatory jurisdiction over hazardous-materials transportation. The proposed revisions to the incident reporting requirements in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations could be affected significantly by the outcome of HM-223's review of jurisdictional issues.

Keep an eye out for further action; because this is an Advance Notice, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking undoubtedly will follow when RSPA decides if and how it should proceed with incident reporting revisions.

John V. Currie has taught hundreds of college courses, industry training programs, and public seminars on hazardous-materials transportation management and regulatory compliance. His firm, Currie Associates Inc., provides safety and compliance audits, consulting services, customized training manuals, and public and in-house seminars.