[ID] => 9808
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2018-07-30 09:16:01
[post_date_gmt] => 2018-07-30 08:16:01
[post_content] => Back in the day – 1988 to be precise – HCB’s directors were kind enough to give us all a few weeks off in summer and we produced a combined July/August issue. Of late that has not been the case, with July now devoted to the annual Tank Guide.
Thirty years ago, the July/August issue also majored on tank containers – then a sector still waiting to reach maturity, if not exactly still in its infancy. The number included our annual listing of tank lessor and operator fleets – then still without the backing of official trade association numbers – and it is interesting to look through and see which major names are no longer with us, at least in the same configuration. We did not attempt to list tank manufacturers in those days but reading through the editorial pieces one fact jumps straight out: there is absolutely no mention of China.
In recent years we have come to recognise the supremacy of Chinese engineering firms in terms of the manufacturing of new tanks and, as we commented on in the July 2018 issue, China Railway and other local firms are now taking on an increasing role in terms of tank ownership and operation.
In our regulatory coverage 30 years ago, shippers and carriers in the US were wondering how they would ever come to grips with the new packaging standards included in the HM-181 rulemaking. Those coming fresh to the business make hear passing comment made to this mythical docket and may wonder what the fuss was all about, but it is important to understand how revolutionary the ideas were to industry in the US at the time.
Vince Vitollo reported back from the HMAC (now DGAC) annual conference, where the subject had been widely discussed. The worry was that the procedures for adopting new provisions into the Hazardous Materials Regulations in the US would not be able to cope with the volume of amendments emanating from the UN Committee of Experts. As it happens, not only did the consultation process carried out in relation to HM-181 generate a huge amount of information about the distribution of hazardous materials in the US but it also encouraged the authorities and industry to agree how to manage the process of advanced notice of proposals for amendment.
Indeed, that process has served US industry well ever since and it is only in the past 18 months, with the current US administration being hostile to what it sees as the “additional burden” of regulations, that US regulatory activity has slowed down.
What happens when there is a weaker drive for regulatory harmonisation was also illustrated in our issue of 30 years ago, with news that the Austrian government had unilaterally imposed a number of special controls on the land transport of dangerous goods. There will be those involved in such transport operations across the European mainland who will not be at all surprised to see that it was Austria that had been the first to push the boundaries of what was then marginal 10 599 of ADR – the equivalent to today’s paragraph 1.9.3(a) and (d), which allows states to impose additional provisions under certain conditions.
Our very own rapporteur, ‘HJK’, mentioned 30 years ago that WP15 might have to define those conditions more precisely if pan-European harmonisation was to be maintained.
[post_title] => 30 Years Ago: July/August 1988
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => 30-years-ago-julyaugust-1988
[post_modified] => 2018-07-02 18:19:40
[post_modified_gmt] => 2018-07-02 17:19:40
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=9808
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
30 Years Ago: July/August 1988
// By Peter Mackay on 30 Jul 2018
This content is for FREE Membership and Premium Membership members only. Log InRegister