November 19, 2002

Dockets Management System
U. S. Department of Transportation
Room PL 401
400 Seventh St., SW
Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: DOT Docket No. FMCSA-02-11650 (HM-232A): Security Requirements for Motor Carriers Transporting Hazardous Materials" ANPRM; July 16, 2002

The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) is an international, non-profit, educational organization devoted to promoting safety in the domestic and international transportation and handling of dangerous goods/hazardous materials (HAZMAT). DGAC represents shippers, carriers of all modes, container manufacturers and reconditioners, emergency response and waste clean-up companies, and a variety of other companies and trade associations involved in the field of HAZMAT transportation.

We are aware of the comments of a number of potentially affected organizations in regard to the options under consideration and embrace most of their views; therefore, this comment is focused on one matter of serious concern -- pre-notification.

There are more than 30,000 jurisdictions in the United States holding some form of police authority. The communications burden that would be encountered if a pre-notification requirement were adopted for only a fraction of the 800,000 daily shipments would be staggering. By burden, we are not limiting ourselves to the burden that would be placed on shippers and carriers, but also the receiving jurisdictions in the states that would be compelled to forward the information to their political subdivisions to make pre-notification even of slightest value.

We believe the adoption of a pre-notification requirement would create, rather than reduce, safety and security risks due to thousands of potential delays awaiting confirmation of notifications. DOT expressed a similar concern in IR-2 (44FR75566; 12/20/79) about traffic parked in Massachusetts at the Rhode Island border awaiting the passing of a time-of-day restriction. Imagine thousands of vehicles parked along roadways at state and local borders waiting for proof that notifications have been delivered before they are permitted to enter.

I believe our views on prenotification are consistent with those expressed by Administrators Clapp and Engleman in the final rule modifying the tire checking rule (49 CRF 397.17) under Docket HM- 232B on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62191) in which they stated, "To require a vehicle transporting a hazardous material to stop at frequent regular intervals increases the security risk associated with such transportation."

Sincerely,

Alan I. Roberts
President