Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

History, Goals, and Guidelines

The HMTA was born out of public concern arising from the large number of highway accidents involving hazardous cargo in the 1960s and from raised awareness of the role of toxic substances in daily life inspired by growing environmental movements. Early environmental battles were often waged by those concerned with the location of facilities using potentially dangerous chemicals, but it soon became clear that these substances also posed a serious danger while in transit. Particularly given the more dispersed nature of commerce and industry and the expansion of the national highway system during the 1950s and 1960s, cross-state regulation became crucial to preventing accidents. The HMTA necessitated enhanced safety precautions as well as special permits for the transport of hazmat materials. The law was an attempt to tighten safety, prevent illegal disposal, and standardize varying state and local laws by applying minimum safety thresholds that could be expanded upon locally.

The HMTA designates specific materials such as oil, nuclear, and chemical substances as “hazardous” and provides guidelines for transport. There are specific requirements for the packaging, handling, and delivery of the hazardous materials, as well as training requirements for those licensed to transport such materials. The act also specifies worker safety, such as protective suits and respiratory devices that must be used by those handling hazardous materials. These rules apply to all forms of shipment and are also general guidelines that may be augmented by local policies, for instance, by regulating times of delivery, adding special precautions in populous areas, or limiting the use of specific roads and highways.

Controversy

From the first years of the HMTA, legal battles often involved local regulations that were challenged on the basis of infringing interstate commerce because they sought limitations on transport through their jurisdictions. Often, the issue at hand was the use of urban roads that were particularly vulnerable to an accident because of high density and narrow maneuvering space. Some localities received protection by the courts because of their high-risk potential, but others were denied because they prescribed unnecessary diversions based on local interests. In general, these efforts have required regions to compete against one another in order to avoid potentially dangerous uses of highways and other transportation centers.

The HMTA has been criticized as insensitive to local realities given the broadness of the Department of Transportation's administration of the law, thus excluding those with local knowledge from decision making. Some also find fault with the approach of setting only minimum requirements, because stricter laws are only enacted from lower levels of government where there can often be a lack of political will to encumber business and pass new legislation that goes beyond federal law. Accordingly, there is a disincentive for cities or states to make the law stricter because it depicts regulators as deliberately raising the cost of doing business. However, local politicians are also sensitive to the needs of their constituents, and in areas with increased environmental activism or high risk potential, considerably stricter local ordinances have been successfully passed.

...