Omni Air International - Comments

Docket Management System U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590-0001 USA REF: Docket No. PHMSA-2007-0065 and PHMSA-2008-0005 08 September 2008 To Whom It May Concern: Omni Air International is a United States Federal Aviation Administration certificated air carrier operating large passenger-carrying aircraft in worldwide operations. Omni provides charter aircraft services to the tour operator industry, Government agencies, and other air carriers between locations within the United States as well as between States within North America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia and Australasia. Omni applauds the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration’s efforts to harmonize U.S. regulation with the agreed international standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We believe it is critical to the efficient facilitation of international air commerce that U.S. regulations are fully aligned to international standards. In removing or amending U.S.-specific requirements, the PHMSA has helped reduce the barriers U.S. certificated operators face in competing on a global scale with holders of Air Operator Certificates issued by other States while still maintaining the highest levels of safety in the public interest. We generally support the PHMSA’s efforts to clarify the regulations applicable to the safe transportation of batteries and battery-powered devices, but are concerned that other Department of Transportation regulations, such as those at 14 CFR Part 382 – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel may no longer align with the content of 49 CFR Parts 171 through 175. As an example, there are multiple references at 14 CFR 382.41 to sections of the now current 49 CFR 173.159 and 175.10. An inadvertent non-conformity to the requirements of Title 49 by a carrier attempting to satisfy the un-amended requirements of Title 14 could result in a diminution of safety; where satisfying Title 49 at the expense of Title 14 could result in significant confusion and inconvenience for some individuals. We encourage the Department of Transportation to undertake in coordination of its agencies to ensure that the rulemaking proposed by the PHMSA and the FAA are aligned without undue delay in the effective and implementation dates for those amendments necessary to align with international standards. We support the PHMSA’s proposed changes to §§ 173.159 and 175.10 to address the protection of battery-powered equipment from inadvertent operation and the elimination of the requirement to disconnect batteries from mobility aids in air transportation. We also support the addition of § 173.159a as regards “non- spillable” batteries and wish to, again, encourage the Department of Transportation to ensure that the language of 14 CFR Part 382 accurately aligns with the revised language; particularly as required by any contemplated language to have an air passenger endorse a statement acknowledging the applicable exception or special provision have been met. We are concerned that the PHMSA has elected not to amend any language relative to the transportation of lithium batteries at this time. We agree with the approach taken by the PHMSA to evaluate and reduce lithium battery risks, but we would ask that, at a minimum, the PHMSA incorporate in to § 172.101 the three new lithium ion battery proper shipping names and the three replacement lithium metal battery proper shipping names that come into effect internationally as from 01 January 2009. Differences between internationally agreed standards and U.S.-specific requirements make it extremely challenging for U.S. certificated operators to effectively compete in a global market and can impede the efficient transfer of otherwise conforming cargo between operators from different States. We support the proposed amendment to § 172.202(a)(2) to specify that the subsidiary hazard class or division number is not required to be entered when the corresponding subsidiary hazard label is not required, as well as the proposed change at § 172.400a eliminating the requirement for a Division 4.1 label on a Division 4.2 material. We agree that GHS pictograms should be permitted on packages intended for transportation in the United States and the amendment to § 172.401. Additionally, we support the proposed changes to the labels for Class 9 materials and for “CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY” materials. At 73 FR 44818, the PHMSA states, “Specifically we are proposing to require the consignor to include on the “air waybill” an indication that a hazardous material or article has met the applicable conditions for transport”. We are concerned that the intent to require the statement on the” air waybill” may be overly restrictive and inconsistent with international standards. Where the consignor tenders a material or article to an aircraft operator or a freight forwarder and the operator’s or freight forwarder’s agent prepares the air waybill, the stated intent of the PHMSA may not be satisfied. It would appear to be more appropriate to align with the internationally agreed standard and require the confirmation of compliance on the accompanying air waybill “or other transport document”. This would permit the consignor to include the “not restricted” endorsement in a form other than the air waybill prepared by the operator or freight forwarder. We support the proposed changes to § 175.10. However, we are concerned with the intent of the specific wording chosen for the addition of § 175.33(a)(11). For all materials or articles other than UN 1845, Carbon dioxide, solid (dry ice), the operator is required to inform the pilot-in-command of “the location of the packages aboard the aircraft”. In the proposed language to be added relative to UN 1845, however, the aircraft operator is required to provide the “exact location aboard the aircraft”. We’re curious as to what constitutes an “exact location”. Is an exact location, for example, a specific longitudinal and lateral fuselage station, or is it sufficient for the purposes of emergency response to know that the dry ice is loaded in the forward hold? We also question why the PHMSA deems it essential to know the “exact location” of dry ice, but not a flammable liquid or explosive material. We urge the PHMSA to delete the word “exact” from its final rule. We are deeply concerned by the proposed change to § 175.75 as written. While we understand the concept of permitting loading of certain types of cargo into compartments that are provisioned with fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems, as an industry, we’ve also just amended the cargo aircraft only label to remove the word “DANGER” and incorporate the phrase “CARGO AIRCRAFT ONLY” above the legend “FORBIDDEN IN PASSENGER AIRCRAFT”. It seems counter intuitive to say that a material or article bearing a label that says the commodity is forbidden in passenger aircraft can actually be carried in passenger aircraft. That having been said, we believe that provision should be made at regulation to permit the use of Unit Load Devices (ULDs) conforming to an equivalent specification as does the internationally agreed standard. We also strongly believe that the amendment of § 175.75 should be reviewed thoroughly and consideration given to eliminating the U.S.-specific restriction to 25 kilograms net weight of hazardous materials, plus an additional 75 kilograms of Division 2.2 non-flammable compressed gas in an inaccessible manner in order to harmonize with internationally agreed standards. Finally, we support the codification of industry standard practice at § 175.88 in requiring packages containing hazardous materials be secured to prevent shifting. Omni Air International is committed to providing the highest level of safety in the public interests across all operations it conducts and we strongly believe that the level of safety is enhanced when the United States works with its international partners to develop science-based measures to affect the safe transportation of dangerous goods by air. We, again, applaud the PHMSA’s ongoing efforts to harmonize U.S. regulation with those internationally agreed standards; recognizing that one set of standards leads to more effective training and application of control measures in global operations. Respectfully submitted, Charles Ferling Director of Safety and Security Director of Safety and Security Omni Air International Telephone: +1 918 833 38 26 Facsimile: +1 918 833 38 23 Mobile: +1 918 361 35 46 e-mail: cferling@omniairintl.com