virsight hearing - Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project

168
8
frre is not present. Or said more specifrcally, conditione
similar to those which existed at Bophal, India.
In response to the Safety Board's December 19, 1984
letter, the DOT issued, on February 4, 1985, a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. On March 27, 1985 the Safety
Board commented on this rulemaking proposal, and enclosed
is a copy of that correspondence (enclosure 8). On
October 3, 1985, the DOI issued a frnal rule for regulating
toxic liquids. Safety Board staff reviewed this final rule in
light of the Safety Board's original letter and our response
to the rulemaking proposal. The review found that:
1. The hazards of many hazardoug materials have not
lSeen addressed because the rulemaking excludes consideration
of solids and gases.
2. Materials for which specific container requirements
presently are listed in the regulations will have no change
made in the container specifications. What if any changes
will be made to these container specifications will have to
await the result of final action on Docket HM-181: a rule
making activity which @an in 1982. Under this rulemaking
action, the DOT propo€€s to address container requirements
in performance lansuase. At the time of this
review. we itere advised thatHM-l8l would be made final
by the spring of 1986. While we yet are awaiting frnal
action of the rulemaking, it is reported that final action is
expected in the near future.
3. The toxic hazard identification requirement wae not
integrated into tJre existing hazard idenlification and clas
sifrcation system, rather it has been applied more as a
bandaid to an already identified deficient syetem.
4. No action was- taken to interrelate - the hazards of
Poison A and Poison B materiale. However, the final rule
reported that the entire hazard classification scheme will
be reconsidered in the DOT rulemaking actions within
Docket HM-181: This again deferred corrective action
until this 1982 rulemaking activity was completed.
5. No action was taken -bv the DOT for reconsidering the
scientifrc basis for the staniards established for identifying
materials which posed substantial toxic hazarde. It is unclear
whether or not this also waa being deferred until
final action on Docket HM-f8f.
The Committee is pleased that the DOT has begun to act on
these matt€r€. but we are concerned that recommendations of the
Board are apparently ignored or shelved for long periods by the
DOT before action takeg place. When asked about this, the then
DOT Secretary, in a May i3, 198? letter to Chairman Dingell, said
that the Board "makes important contributions by identifying
problem areas, and keeping iafety issum before the public eye."
Their ideas are ofttn a part of the solutions crafted by the modal
agencies, and are always considered in the crafting of those solutions."
Nevertheless. Nevertheless, the DOT has concerns about Board recom-
mendations in that the Board does not assess coets or prioritize
their recommendations. The DOI Secretary said;
i;
!i
s
$'i
a,
t
I
1
t:
I
.E
* -
i
,s