New York Department of Environmental Conservation Requirements on the Transfer and Storage of Hazardous Wastes Incidental to Transportation

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

[Preemption Determination No. PD-12(R) (Docket No. PDA-13(R))]

New York Department of Environmental Conservation Requirements on

the Transfer and Storage of Hazardous Wastes Incidental to

Transportation

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

ACTION: Decision on petition for reconsideration of administrative

determination of preemption.

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

PETITIONER: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYDEC).

STATE LAWS AFFECTED: New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR),

Title 6, Section 372.3(a)(7).

APPLICABLE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: Federal hazardous material

transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and the Hazardous Materials

Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR parts 171-180.

MODES AFFECTED: Highway and Rail.

SUMMARY: In response to NYDEC's petition for reconsideration, RSPA is

modifying its December 6, 1995 administrative determination concerning

the requirement in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii) for secondary containment

at a transfer facility where hazardous wastes are transferred between

vehicles or temporarily stored. RSPA had determined that this

requirement was an obstacle to the accomplishment of the HMR's

provisions on packaging and segregation. On reconsideration, RSPA now

finds that there is insufficient information from which to determine

whether this requirement, as enforced and applied, is an obstacle to

the accomplishment and carrying out of Federal hazardous material

transportation law and the HMR.

RSPA affirms its prior determination that Federal hazardous

material transportation law preempts subsections (i) and (ii) of 6

NYCRR 372.3(a)(7) that (1) prohibit transporters from repackaging

hazardous wastes ``incidental to transport,'' and (2) require an

indication on the manifest of a transfer of hazardous wastes between

vehicles of the same transporter.

This decision constitutes RSPA's final action on the September 1993

application for a preemption determination filed by the Chemical Waste

Transportation Institute (CWTI). Any party who submitted comments in

Docket No. PDA-13(R) (including the applicant) may seek judicial review

within 60 days of this decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001,

telephone 202-366-4400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In September 1993, CWTI applied for a determination that Federal

hazardous material transportation law preempted nine specific NYDEC

requirements. These requirements imposed conditions on the transfer and

storage of hazardous wastes ``incidental to transport'' that, if

complied with, exempted a transporter from having to obtain the

separate permit required for hazardous waste treatment, storage and

disposal (TSD) facilities.

In amendments that took effect in January 1995, NYDEC eliminated or

modified six of the challenged requirements, including those allowing

storage only at a facility owned by the transporter, limiting storage

to five days, and requiring daily inspections and a log of shipments

and receipts. Following these amendments, the only requirements

originally challenged in CWTI's application that remained in effect

were:

(1) A prohibition against ``consolidation or transfer of loads * *

* by repackaging in, mixing, or pumping from one container or transport

vehicle into another.'' 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i).

(2) A requirement to indicate on the hazardous waste manifest any

``transfer of hazardous waste from one vehicle to another.'' 6 NYCRR

372.3(a)(7)(ii).

(3) A requirement that the transfer or storage area where

containers of hazardous waste are transferred from one vehicle to

another, or unloaded for temporary storage, ``must be designed to meet

secondary containment requirements'' set forth in 6 NYCRR 373-2.9(f). 6

NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii).

On December 6, 1995, RSPA published in the Federal Register its

determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law

preempts these three requirements. PD-12(R), New York Department of

Environmental Conservation Requirements on the Transfer and Storage of

Hazardous Wastes Incidental to Transportation, 60 FR 62527. RSPA found

that the repackaging prohibition is preempted because it is not

substantively the same as provisions in the HMR concerning the packing,

repacking, and handling of hazardous material, and that the manifest

requirement is preempted because it is not substantively the same as

the HMR's requirements for the preparation, contents, and use of

shipping documents related to hazardous material. RSPA also concluded

that the secondary containment requirement is preempted as an obstacle

to the accomplishment and carrying out of the HMR's provisions on

packaging and segregation. (RSPA did not address one additional

restriction added in NYDEC's amendments that took effect in January

1995--that a transfer facility not be located on the site of a

commercial TSD facility--because neither CWTI nor any other party

discussed the effect of this restriction on hazardous waste

transporters or argued that it is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125.)

In Part II of its decision, RSPA discussed the applicability of

Federal hazardous material transportation law to the transportation of

hazardous wastes and the standards for making determinations of

preemption. 60 FR at 62529-62532. As explained there, unless DOT grants

a waiver or there is specific authority in another Federal law, a State

(or other non-Federal) requirement is preempted if:

--It is not possible to comply with both the State requirement and a

requirement in the Federal hazardous material transportation law or

regulations;

--The State requirement, as applied or enforced, is an ``obstacle'' to

the accomplishing and carrying out of the Federal hazardous material

transportation law or regulations; or

--The State requirement concerns a ``covered subject'' and is not

``substantively the same as'' a provision in the Federal hazardous

material transportation law or regulations. Among the five covered

subjects are (1) the ``packing, repacking [and] handling * * * of

hazardous material,'' and (2) the ``preparation, execution, and use of

shipping documents relating to hazardous material'' including

requirements related to the contents of those documents.

See 49 U.S.C. 5125 (a) & (b). These preemption provisions stem from

congressional findings that State and local laws which vary from

Federal hazardous material transportation requirements can create ``the

potential for unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and

confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to comply with multiple

and conflicting * * * regulatory requirements,'' and that

[[Page 15971]]

safety is advanced by ``consistency in laws and regulations governing

the transportation of hazardous materials.'' Pub. L. 101-615 Secs. 2(3)

& 2(4), 104 Stat. 3244.

Within the 20-day time period provided in 49 CFR 107.211(a), NYDEC

filed a petition for reconsideration of PD-12(R). NYDEC certified that

it had mailed a copy of its petition to CWTI and all others who had

submitted comments. Responses to NYDEC's petition for reconsideration

were submitted by the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials

Transporters (AWHMT), the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC),

and CWTI.1

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

\1\ RSPA has considered CWTI's comments, even though submitted

after the 20-day deadline, under a policy similar to that applied in

rulemaking proceedings. See 49 CFR 106.23 (``Late filed comments are

considered so far as practicable.'') CWTI states that it did not

receive a copy of NYDEC's petition for reconsideration directly from

NYDEC, and that bad weather further delayed its preparation of

responding comments. Under all the circumstances, including the

absence of any apparent prejudice to NYDEC, it is appropriate to

consider the comments submitted by CWTI.

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

II. Petition for Reconsideration

In its petition, NYDEC contends that its repackaging prohibition

and its requirement for additional information on the manifest are not

substantively different from requirements in the HMR. It states that

its prohibition ``against commingling of wastes does in fact conform

significantly to the federal prohibitions against transferring

hazardous materials from one container to another.'' NYDEC claims to

find consistency between its absolute prohibition against transferring

wastes from one container to another and specific provisions in the HMR

forbidding combinations of hazardous materials that cause unsafe

conditions. It argues that the prohibition in 49 CFR 177.834(h) against

tampering with containers of hazardous materials makes it ``clear''

that transporters are not to do ``anything that could undermine the

integrity of the container * * * until it reaches its `billed

destination.' '' According to NYDEC, its repackaging prohibition and

manifest requirement are both necessary to ``preserve the integrity of

the generator accountability concept'' and are ``appropriate for the

protection of public health and the environment, and preventing

releases, the mixing of incompatible materials and deliberate

`cocktailing.' ''

NYDEC states that its requirement to indicate any transfer of

hazardous waste from one vehicle to another is not significant because

it is simply ``additional information that can neither be viewed as a

significant alteration nor as a burden upon the transporter.'' It

argues that the uniform hazardous waste manifest required by the HMR

``is not integral to transportation; it is simply paperwork'' and only

EPA has the authority ``to determine issues that arise from the

manifesting of hazardous waste * * *''

NYDEC also argues that its ``regulation pertaining to secondary

containment is consistent with and complementary of the HMR * * *'' and

does not create ``confusion'' or ``frustrate Congress' goal.'' It

states that ``RSPA has not satisfied its burden of establishing that

the New York Regulation poses an obstacle to the accomplishment and

carrying out of the HMR,'' and points to EPA's containment requirements

applicable to the storage of used oil and wastes containing

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at transfer facilities.

More generally, NYDEC states that its regulations should not be

found to be preempted because they advance safety in the transportation

of hazardous wastes as well as ``generator accountability, a central *

* * concept'' of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42

U.S.C. 6921 et seq., and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.

According to NYDEC, its ``requirements at issue are expressly

contemplated by RCRA.'' It declares that, because ``Congress did not

intend to preempt states from enacting their own hazardous waste

requirements pursuant to RCRA,'' RSPA lacks authority to find that New

York's regulation are preempted. It asserts that only ``EPA, not DOT,

is the appropriate venue for resolving'' whether States may impose

additional, nonuniform requirements on transporters of hazardous waste.

NYDEC also states that, ``in the absence of federal regulation, a

federal statutory policy of national uniformity does not preclude state

regulation,'' and asserts that RSPA has improperly applied the

statutory standard to find ``preemption of the entire field'' of State

regulations on hazardous waste transporters.

III. Discussion

A. Repackaging Prohibition

RSPA's December 1995 determination noted that ``the HMR do not

contain any general prohibition against the transfer of hazardous

material from one container to another, or the combination of

commodities in the same packaging.'' 60 FR at 62534. RSPA further

explained that the HMR's specific prohibitions against tampering with a

container of hazardous materials, or combining hazardous materials that

would cause an unsafe condition, are substantively different from New

York's absolute prohibition against repackaging hazardous wastes. 60 FR

at 62536.

NYDEC has never challenged the statement in CWTI's application that

combining the contents of several smaller containers of hazardous waste

into a bulk packaging achieves ``efficiencies in transportation that

promote safety'' by reducing the overall risks that are generally

associated with a greater number of smaller packagings. Nor did NYDEC

respond to the comments discussed in the December 1995 determination

that repackaging promotes safety when shipments of hazardous wastes are

transferred between trucks and railroads. 60 FR at 62535. As RSPA

noted, in 1980, EPA disclaimed any intention of discouraging intermodal

(truck to rail) transfers of hazardous wastes. 60 FR at 62536. Yet, the

restriction in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i) completely forbids transferring

hazardous wastes from one bulk packaging to another (e.g., between

cargo tank motor vehicles and rail tank cars), and it also prevents the

combining (or bulking) of identical wastes from the same generator

(e.g., transferring the contents of numerous 55-gallon drums into a

single cargo tank). Safe transportation of hazardous wastes is not

furthered by a repackaging prohibition that is substantively different

from the HMR's requirements for packing, repacking, and handling

hazardous materials.

The comments of NYDEC and other States also failed to support the

claim that ``generator accountability'' would be frustrated without the

requirements found preempted, including NYDEC's repackaging

prohibition. Indeed, EPA's regulations specify that, when a transporter

commingles wastes of different DOT shipping descriptions, it makes

itself accountable for complying with all generator requirements. 40

CFR 263.10(c)(2).

Because this prohibition against the transfer or repackaging of

hazardous wastes is not substantively the same as the HMR's

requirements for ``the packing, repacking, [and] handling'' of

hazardous material, 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i) is preempted by 49 U.S.C.

5125(b)(1).

B. Manifest Entry for Transfer Between Vehicles

In its December 1995 determination, RSPA referred to EPA's

development of a manifest system which would ``allow `the regulated

community to adapt its present practices, notably DOT's

[[Page 15972]]

requirement for shipping papers, to accommodate the new EPA

requirements.' '' 60 FR at 62538, quoting from 49 FR at 10490. EPA's

requirements for a manifest, in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263, specifically

apply when hazardous wastes are being transported or offered for

transportation. The HMR explicitly provide that the EPA hazardous waste

manifest may be used as the DOT shipping paper (so long as the manifest

contains the information required by DOT), 49 CFR 172.205(h), and

shipping papers ``includ[e] hazardous waste manifests.'' 49 CFR

171.3(c)(3). RSPA has previously found that requirements affecting a

hazardous waste manifest are ones that concern a ``covered subject'' in

49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). PD-2(R), Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, 58 FR 11176, 11182 (Feb. 23,

1993). The hazardous waste manifest is clearly integral to

transportation, contrary to NYDEC's assertions.

A uniform hazardous waste manifest was implemented in 1984 because

of the burden caused by the ``proliferation of manifests [when] various

States decided to develop and print their own forms.'' 49 FR 10490.

Given the number of States and other jurisdictions that regulate

hazardous waste, additional and conflicting requirements in this area

are, by their very nature, more than an ``[e]ditorial or other similar

de minimis'' change, 49 CFR 107.202(d), and sufficient to create

confusion and reduce safety in the transportation of hazardous

materials. For this reason, RSPA disagrees with NYDEC's conclusory

statements that its requirement to indicate a transfer of hazardous

waste between vehicles is not a ``significant alteration nor a burden

upon the transporter.''

Because the requirement to indicate on the manifest any transfer of

hazardous waste from one vehicle to another is not substantively the

same as the HMR's requirements for ``the preparation, execution and use

of documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to

the * * * contents * * * of those documents,'' 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(ii)

is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1).

C. Secondary Containment

In its December 1995 determination, RSPA analyzed NYDEC's

requirement for secondary containment under the obstacle test in 49

U.S.C. 5125(a)(2). It noted that the HMR focus on the suitability of

the container to contain hazardous material during transportation and

proper handling practices; the HMR do not contain any requirements

concerning the physical design or construction of fixed facilities

where transporters may exchange hazardous materials between vehicles,

including intermodal operations. 60 FR at 62539. RSPA also rejected

NYDEC's arguments that its requirement for secondary containment at a

fixed transfer facility is not a ``transportation issue.'' RSPA

explained that ``transportation-related loading, unloading, and storage

of hazardous materials (are) within the scope of Federal hazardous

material transportation law, including the preemption provisions in 49

U.S.C. 5125.'' Id. at 62541. Based largely on its earlier decision in

IR-28, San Jose, California; Restrictions on Storage of Hazardous

Materials, 55 FR 8884, 8893 (Mar. 8, 1990), appeal dismissed as moot,

57 FR 41165 (Sept. 9, 1992), RSPA found that NYDEC's ``secondary

containment requirement creates confusion as to requirements in the HMR

and increases the likelihood of noncompliance with the HMR.'' Id. at

62542.

In response to NYDEC's petition, RSPA has reexamined the grounds

for its decision in IR-28, and it has reviewed CWTI's application and

all the comments submitted. The specific San Jose storage requirements

found preempted in IR-28 were broader than NYDEC's secondary

containment requirement, because San Jose applied both a subjective

secondary containment standard and provisions for separation (or

segregation) of different classes of hazardous materials. State or

local segregation requirements that differ from those in the HMR, at 49

CFR 177.848, affect the handling of every container of hazardous

material at a transfer facility; they invariably create confusion and

complicate compliance with the Federal requirements. Moreover, no one

disputed the effect of the San Jose storage requirements which,

according to the applicant in IR-28,

Would force it to transfer its hazardous materials operations to

its Oakland facility, thereby causing transportation of larger

quantities of hazardous materials for greater distances, as well as

greater stockpiling of hazardous materials by businesses in San Jose

which could not be as quickly served as they presently are.

55 FR at 8889. Thus, it may be too broad to read IR-28 as finding that

any non-Federal requirement for secondary containment at a transfer

facility is unnecessary and an obstacle to the accomplishment and

carrying out of the HMR.

RSPA agrees with CWTI that packaging standards are fundamental to

the HMR; a rule of general applicability is that any packaging used for

transporting hazardous waste (or other hazardous material) must be

``designed, constructed, maintained, filled, its contents so limited,

and closed, so that under conditions normally incident to

transportation * * * there will be no identifiable * * * release of

hazardous materials.'' 49 CFR 173.24(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).

Nonetheless, some releases do occur, from mishandling of packages or

other circumstances. Moreover, New York's secondary containment

requirement must be considered applicable to situations when containers

are being opened as part of consolidation or bulking operations,

because the prohibition against repackaging in 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(i)

has been found to be preempted. The opening of containers and transfer

of their contents was not considered in IR-28.

CWTI appears to acknowledge that some containment measures are

desirable; it states that, ``in practice, industry conducts activities

associated with loading, unloading and storage of waste hazardous

materials in transportation on impervious surfaces.'' This limits the

issue to whether the specific conditions mandated by NYDEC are an

obstacle to the HMR. Although CWTI argues that ``sloping and spill/

runoff containment are unnecessary,'' and increase the ``likelihood of

shipment delay,'' there is insufficient evidence that New York's

particular secondary containment requirement, considered separately

from the preempted prohibition against repackaging, actually causes

delays or diversions in shipments of hazardous waste.

Some motor carriers stated only generally that they did not

transfer hazardous wastes from one vehicle to another, or store them

temporarily at a transfer facility, because of the existence of the

NYDEC requirements (including those repealed or modified in January

1995). See the affidavits of officers of Autumn Industries, Inc. and

J.B. Hunt Special Commodities, Inc., filed with CWTI's March 11, 1994

comments. Others, such as Dart Trucking Company and Nortru, Inc.,

stated that they did not conduct transfer operations because they did

not own a transfer facility within the State of New York (although Dart

did mention that NYDEC's secondary containment requirement kept it from

transferring containers of hazardous waste between vehicles). The

Association of American Railroads concluded that NYDEC was not applying

its ``storage requirements'' to rail yards, because ``[a] rail car

moving

[[Page 15973]]

from origin to destination cannot be in a `containment system' having

`sufficient capacity to contain 10 percent of the volume of containers

or the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater.' ''

On reconsideration, these limited comments do not support a finding

that NYDEC's secondary containment requirement, as applied and

enforced, causes the unnecessary delays in transportation of hazardous

materials and creates the very ``potential for unreasonable hazards in

other jurisdictions,'' about which Congress expressed its concerns. See

60 FR 62530 (quoting Pub. L. sec. 2(3), 104 Stat. 3244). In the absence

of more specific evidence of the effects of this requirement on the

transportation of hazardous waste, including the repackaging and

consolidation of wastes, there is not sufficient information to make a

finding that this requirement is an obstacle to accomplishing and

carrying out the Federal hazardous material transportation law and the

HMR. For this reason, RSPA withdraws that part of the December 1995

determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law

preempts 6 NYCRR 372.3(a)(7)(iii).

D. RSPA's ``Authority'' To Issue Preemption Determinations

RSPA has already considered, and specifically rejected, arguments

that it has no authority to find that NYDEC's regulations are

preempted. 60 FR at 62532, 62533-34. As AWHMT points out in its

comments, EPA has stated that the rules and regulations of EPA and DOT

with respect to the standards for transporters of hazardous waste are

``interrelated.'' EPA Final Rule, Standards Applicable to Transporters

of Hazardous Waste, 45 FR 12737, 12738 (Feb. 26, 1980). RCRA itself

mandates that EPA's regulations on hazardous waste transporters must be

consistent with the HMR, 42 U.S.C. 6923(b), and the two agencies

``worked together to develop standards for transporters of hazardous

waste in order to avoid conflicting requirements.'' 40 CFR 263.10,

note. Accordingly, except for bulk shipments by water, a hazardous

waste transporter who obtains an EPA identification number and fulfills

any clean-up responsibilities will be in compliance with EPA's

transporter rules if it ``meets all applicable requirements of'' the

HMR. Id. To further ensure compatibility, EPA also requires that a

generator who transports hazardous waste off-site (or offers hazardous

waste for transportation) must comply with DOT's requirements on

packaging, labeling, marking, and placarding. 40 CFR 262.30, 262.31,

262.32, 262.33.

EPA has explicitly stated that it does not consider issues of

preemption under 49 U.S.C. 5125 when it approves a State hazardous

waste program. See the discussion in PD-12(R), 60 FR at 62534.

Accordingly, RSPA cannot accept NYDEC's assertion that its challenged

requirements ``are expressly contemplated by RCRA.'' Moreover, NYDEC's

requirement for a transporter to indicate on the manifest any transfer

of hazardous waste (between the same transporter's own vehicles)

appears inconsistent with EPA's regulation that: ``No State, however,

may impose enforcement sanctions on a transporter during transportation

of the shipment for failure of the [manifest] form to include

preprinted information or optional State information items.'' 40 CFR

271.10(h)(3). EPA has also explained that ``States through which

hazardous waste shipments pass are not allowed to place additional

information requirements on the transporter as a condition of

transportation.'' EPA Final Rule, Hazardous Waste Management System, 49

FR 10490, 10495 (Mar. 20, 1984).

RSPA also disagrees with NYDEC's overall conclusion that the

decision in PD-12(R) sacrifices safety ``in the name of uniformity.''

As HMAC points out, uniformity of hazardous materials regulations and

safety are not conflicting goals. Rather, Congress has specifically

found that, ``consistency in laws and regulations governing the

transportation of hazardous materials is necessary and desirable.'' Id.

(quoting Pub. L. 101-615 sec. 2(4)). AWHMT represents that 19 different

States, including New York, enforce hazardous waste transfer facility

requirements that differ from, or add to, the Federal standards. Local

governments and Indian tribes often impose their own requirements, all

in the name of safety. E.g., IR-32, Montevallo, Alabama, Ordinance on

Hazardous Waste Transportation, 55 FR 36738 (Sept. 6, 1990); Public

Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 30 F.3d 1203 (9th

Cir. 1994) (tribal ordinance regulating shipment of spent nuclear

fuel). However, these separate non-Federal requirements do not advance

overall safety when they require shippers and carriers to ascertain,

understand, and comply with additional conditions applicable in the

many jurisdictions through which a hazardous materials shipment may be

transported. Less safety, rather than more, is the result when shippers

and carriers then fail to comply with the HMR, choose longer routes to

avoid a jurisdiction with additional requirements, or do both.

IV. Ruling

For the reasons set forth above, NYDEC's petition for

reconsideration is denied with respect to 6 NYCRR 372(a)(7) (i) and

(ii). This decision incorporates and reaffirms the determination that

Federal hazardous material transportation law preempts subsection

372.3(a)(7)(i), prohibiting the repackaging of hazardous wastes,

because it concerns the packing, repacking and handling of hazardous

materials and is not substantively the same as the HMR, and subsection

372.3(a)(7)(ii), requiring an indication on the manifest of a transfer

of hazardous wastes between vehicles, because it concerns the

preparation, use and contents of shipping documents related to

hazardous material and is not substantively the same as the HMR. 49

U.S.C. 5125(b)(1) (B) and (C).

NYDEC's petition for reconsideration is granted with respect to 6

NYCRR 372(a)(7)(iii). Because there is insufficient information that

this requirement, as enforced and applied, is an obstacle to

accomplishing and carrying out the Federal hazardous material

transportation law and the HMR, RSPA makes no determination whether 49

U.S.C. 5125(a)(2) preempts NYDEC's requirement for secondary

containment at a transfer facility where hazardous wastes are stored or

transferred.

V. Final Agency Action

In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(d), this decision constitutes

RSPA's final agency action on CWTI's application for a determination of

preemption as to the NYDEC transfer and storage requirements in 6 NYCRR

372.3(a)(7). Any party to this proceeding ``may bring a civil action in

an appropriate district court of the United States for judicial review

of [this] decision * * * not later than 60 days after the decision

becomes final.'' 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 1997.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97-8553 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P