[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17534]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 19, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928 
RIN: 1218-AB42
 

Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is hereby issuing a final rule that requires employers 
who receive a package, transport vehicle, freight container, motor 
vehicle or rail freight car which contains a hazardous material and 
which is required to be marked, placarded, or labeled in accordance 
with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials 
Regulations, to retain the markings, placards, and labels on the 
package, transport vehicle, freight container, motor vehicle or rail 
freight car. Such markings, placards and labels generally must be 
retained on packages until the packaging is sufficiently cleaned of 
residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazards and 
retained on transport vehicles, freight containers, motor vehicles or 
rail freight cars until hazardous material which requires the marking 
or placarding is removed therefrom. This rule is issued pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the 
Act) and in accordance with section 29 of Public Law 101-615, the 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA).

DATES: Effective date: This final rule shall take effect on October 17, 
1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, OSHA Office of 
Public Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 101-615, the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA), 104 Stat. 3244, was 
enacted by Congress on November 17, 1990. Section 29 of HMTUSA reads as 
follows:

    Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Transportation and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall issue under 
section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 655(b)) standards requiring any employer who receives a 
package, container, motor vehicle, rail freight car, aircraft, or 
vessel which contains a hazardous material and which is required to 
be marked, placarded, or labeled in accordance with regulations 
issued under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to retain 
the markings, placards, and labels, and any other information as may 
be required by such regulations on the package, container, motor 
vehicle, rail freight car, aircraft, or vessel, until the hazardous 
materials have been removed therefrom.

The Congressional rationale for this requirement was provided in Senate 
Report No. 101-449, (p. 16), as follows:

    In November 1988, six Kansas City firemen were killed when the 
arson-caused fire they were fighting caused the violent explosion of 
an unmarked truck-trailer parked at a highway construction site. 
Because the trailer's hazardous materials placards had been removed, 
the firemen were unaware of the danger it posed. The Secretaries of 
Labor, Transportation and the Treasury should cooperate in order to 
ensure that placards and labels required on hazardous materials and 
explosives, both in transportation and at stationary facilities, be 
retained until such materials have been removed to the extent that 
they no longer pose a safety risk.

    In response to the Congressional mandate, OSHA issued a proposed 
rule on September 10, 1993 to address the requirements of HMTUSA (58 FR 
47690). A 30-day period was provided during which interested parties 
were invited to submit comments and information relative to the 
proposed rule. All comments submitted were collected in Docket No. H-
022I, Exhibit No. 5, and prefixed with ``Ex. 5'' or ``Ex. L5'' (the 
latter denotes comments received after the close of the comment 
period). All comments received were reviewed and considered in 
developing this final rule. Most commenters supported OSHA's proposal; 
however, certain issues were raised that persuaded OSHA to modify the 
final standard in some respects or otherwise provide further 
clarification.
    As with the proposed rule, OSHA believes that this final rule will 
impose no significant compliance burdens on industry. This was also 
substantiated in comments to the record.
    Congress was specific in its mandate to OSHA for this rule, and the 
rule itself is limited to implementing the Congressional mandate. In 
this final rule, OSHA has slightly elaborated on the statutory language 
to the extent necessary to ensure that its requirements are clear and 
do not impose undue burdens on affected employers vis-a-vis other 
federal regulations. This regulation is essentially a continuation of 
the DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). 
Employers may wish to consult those regulations in regard to complying 
with this section.

Discussion of Comments to NPRM and Summary and Explanation of the 
Final Rule

    OSHA received 45 comments in response to its Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on the Retention of Markings and Placards. The NPRM 
requested specific information on costs, current practices with respect 
to the retention of DOT markings, placards and labels and any 
foreseeable problems in achieving the requirements of the proposed 
rule.
    Most commenters supported the Agency's approach in responding to 
the congressional mandate for this action. However, some commenters 
pointed out potential sources of confusion for affected employers if 
appropriate modifications were not made to the final rule. Other 
commenters expressed a need for clarification of certain aspects of the 
proposal, particularly those relating to the scope of the standard and 
the relationship between DOT-required labeling and that required by 
OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) at 29 CFR 1910.1200.
    Only minimal information was submitted regarding costs. However, of 
those commenters who responded to this question, the majority agreed 
with OSHA's assessment that the rule would have only minimal economic 
impact. The commenters who stated that the costs would not be 
insignificant appeared to base their findings on what OSHA believes was 
a misunderstanding of the intent of the proposed rule.

Major Issues Raised

A. Scope

    The NPRM did not make a distinction as to the size of packagings of 
hazardous materials for which employers would be required to retain the 
necessary DOT marking, label or placard. A significant number of 
commenters, however, (see, e.g., Exs. 5-3, 5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-
30, 5-32, 5-34, 5-35 and 5-36) pointed out that without restricting the 
regulation to bulk packaging, employers would be faced with confusing, 
redundant, and sometimes, inconsistent labeling requirements between 
DOT and OSHA's HCS. (There was no criticism about the retention 
provisions for transport vehicles, freight containers, motor vehicles 
or rail freight cars.)
    The HCS requires, in 29 CFR 1910.1200 (f), that manufacturers, 
importers, and distributors label, tag, or mark any containers of 
hazardous materials leaving the workplace with the identity of the 
hazardous material, appropriate hazard warnings and the name and 
address of the chemical manufacturer, importer or other responsible 
party. The HCS further requires that such labels, tags and markings be 
affixed in a manner that does not conflict with the HMR. Consequently, 
the HCS warning labels, tags or markings do not appear on the outer 
packagings of combination packagings (e.g., bottles in a box). The 
inner packagings are required to be labeled in accordance with the HCS, 
while the outside packaging is marked or labeled in accordance with the 
HMR. However, in some cases the DOT label and marking may appear on the 
same non-bulk packages as those required to be labeled under the HCS. 
This situation caused concern among commenters who questioned the need 
to retain DOT labels and marking where labeling was already required 
under HCS.
    The Amoco Corporation (Ex. 5-21) summarized its concerns as 
follows:

    Amoco supports OSHA's proposal requiring employers who receive 
bulk packages of materials defined as hazardous * * * to maintain 
the markings, labels, or placards in accordance with the 
requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 171 to 180. However, we feel 
that retention and maintenance of the markings and labels for non-
bulk packages would be significantly burdensome to both large and 
small businesses alike.
    * * * We approve of OSHA limiting their rulemaking to the intent 
expressed by Congress, and from the rationale excerpted from the 
report, we believe that intent focused solely on hazardous materials 
transported in bulk packages.

    Similar concerns were expressed by the Organization Resources 
Counselors (Ex. 5-23):

    * * * [T]he proposed rule raises concerns over the broad range 
of containers proposed to be covered. In achieving the congressional 
mandate, we believe the rule should be limited to requirements for 
retention and maintenance of placards on bulk containers, such as 
truck trailers and rail tank cars, only.
    * * * ORC believes the congressional mandate does not extend to 
labeling of non-bulk containers for which labeling requirements 
already exist under other regulations.

    If the final rule were to apply to non-bulk packagings, according 
to at least one commenter, potential liability issues could arise. With 
respect to replacing labels that may be lost or deteriorated, Oxychem 
(Ex. 5-35) cautioned:

    * * * Sending a replacement placard for bulk shipping containers 
does not pose a liability issue for a company because the product is 
easy to trace through the transportation equipment number. * * * 
[S]ending a replacement label to be affixed by nonvendor employees 
to a nonbulk package raises several liability issues. The nonbulk 
package could be mislabeled resulting in improper handling or misuse 
of the product.

    OSHA has crafted language which it concludes fulfills the intent of 
the statute, is protective of employees and meets the concerns of the 
commenters. All bulk packages must at all times retain their DOT 
marking until they are cleaned or purged. Such packages are often 
reshipped and the large size of the DOT marking is a safety advantage. 
DOT markings must be retained on non-bulk packages which will be 
reshipped. Clearly, the DOT marking is needed for reshipment.
    However, OSHA concludes that the OSHA HCS label is fully protective 
for all employees and emergency responders for non-bulk packages which 
will not be reshipped. That label was designed to protect against all 
types of hazards. OSHA concludes therefore that it will be sufficient 
if an HCS label is on a non-bulk package when it is out of 
transportation, will not be reshipped and is at its final location at a 
factory or other worksite. This should respond to the commenters who 
feared that retaining both HCS and DOT labels at that stage might 
confuse their employees.
    Additional concerns were expressed regarding the labeling of inner 
packagings of combination packagings. For example, Penske Truck Leasing 
Co. (Ex.5-20) stated:

    * * * Manufacturers and distributors pack hazardous materials 
for transportation in various packaging, i.e., cans, plastic cases, 
cylinders, etc. These receptacles generally require an outer 
packaging for various reasons such as ease of handling, 
palletization, and storage. The packaging may contain one or more 
receptacles (containers) of the same hazardous material. The 
packaging is properly labeled with the DOT hazard warning. Upon 
entering the workplace, the employer * * * removes the packaging to 
find that the receptacle is not marked with the corresponding DOT 
hazard label and markings. * * * Under the proposed rule, it is 
implied that the employer would have to label and mark each 
container in this situation.

    The above commenter was also concerned that the rule would require 
the labeling of packages that, when in transportation, are excepted 
from the labeling requirement of the DOT's HMR. It was not OSHA's 
intention to require labeling of containers that were not originally 
required to be labeled in accordance with the DOT's HMR. As previously 
stated, this final rule requires employers to retain labels on 
packages, this rulemaking does not require employers to label the 
packages. Inner packagings removed from an outer packaging that is 
required to be marked or labeled under DOT's HMR are not required to 
have the DOT marking or label affixed. However, those inner packages 
are required to have the OSHA HCS label. If the inner packages are to 
be reshipped, they would, of course, need the appropriate DOT label. In 
addition, packages which are excepted from the DOT's marking, labeling 
or placarding requirements, are not required under the DOT's HMR to be 
marked, labeled or placarded when stored at the workplace, but they 
would be required to be labeled under the OSHA HCS.
    One commenter pointed out that sometimes employers receive 
hazardous materials which have the DOT-required labels affixed and 
subsequently store them at remote sites in trailers that are not 
intended for transportation and therefore are not required to be 
placarded (Ex. 5-2). The situation that the commenter raises is a small 
part of a much broader problem. OSHA believes that the communication of 
hazards at all storage locations (e.g. trailers, warehouses and storage 
tanks) is an important area for consideration. However, this issue is 
not within the scope of the statute directing this rulemaking.
    In another matter related to the scope of this rule, the American 
Trucking Association requested a clarification as to whether the rule 
placed an obligation on operators of transport vehicles (5-22). 
Similarly, the Agricultural Retailers Association (Ex. L5-37) wanted 
assurance that the responsibility for retaining DOT placards, markings 
and labels transfers to the receiving employer. In response to both 
concerns, the final rule applies to the employer who receives the 
containers of hazardous materials and not the person responsible for 
transporting such material unless the material is still under the 
control of the transporter at its final destination when it is out of 
transportation.

B. Discrepancy Between DOT and OSHA Definitions of Flammable and 
Combustible

    A number of commenters (Exs. 5-9, 5-25, 5-29, 5-34 and L5-41) 
raised the issue of the discrepancy between DOT and OSHA with respect 
to the definitions of flammable and combustible liquids. Commenters 
correctly stated that OSHA defines a flammable liquid as one with a 
flashpoint less than 100 deg. F. and a combustible liquid as one with a 
flashpoint between 100 deg. F and 200 deg. F. Commenters stated that 
DOT defines a flammable liquid as a material with a flashpoint of below 
141 deg. F. and a combustible liquid as a material with a flash point 
greater than 141 deg. F but below 200 deg. F. OSHA has conferred with 
the DOT on this issue and was informed that while these statements are 
correct, DOT does allow in 49 CFR 173.150 (f), for domestic 
transportation, flammable liquids with a flash point greater than 
100 deg. F to be reclassed as a combustible liquid. A combustible 
liquid is not required to be labeled under DOT's HMR and, therefore, 
the provisions of this rule regarding the retention of required DOT 
labels would not apply. OSHA believes that this clarification should 
satisfy the concerns of commenters who raised the issue of combustible 
and flammable liquids being defined differently by OSHA and DOT. 
However, the broader issue of different definitions presents other 
technical, policy and legal issues and involves many institutions 
nationally and internationally. These issues cannot be properly 
addressed nor be solved in this rulemaking.

C. Duration Required for Retention of Hazard Warnings

    Paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed standard required that markings, 
placards and labels remain on the package, freight container, etc. of 
hazardous material until the hazardous materials are removed therefrom 
so that they no longer pose a health or safety risk. A number of 
comments (see, e.g. Exs. 5-10, 5-13, 5-17, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-
34, 5-36, L5-40, L5-41 and L5-42) suggested that the language in this 
provision was ambiguous and employers would be uncertain as to when DOT 
labels, placards and markings could be removed without being in 
violation of the rule. Various suggestions were offered regarding how 
to clarify this issue, ranging from deleting paragraph (a)(1) (Exs. 5-
25, 5-29, L5-40) to allowing removal of the markings and placards as 
long as no more than a de minimis amount of the hazardous material 
remains in a container (Ex 5-10).
    In the final standard OSHA has amended the language in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) so that it is now clear. Employers need only retain the DOT 
label, marking or placard until such time as the packaging which 
contained the hazardous material is sufficiently cleaned of residue and 
purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard. Paragraph (b), which 
requires the retention of markings and placards on transport vehicles, 
etc., states that markings and placards may be removed from transport 
vehicles if the transport vehicle no longer contains hazardous material 
subject to the marking or placarding requirements of the DOT's HMR. In 
the alternative, employers will be in compliance if they choose to 
retain the appropriate DOT hazard warning on packaging containing only 
the residue of the hazardous chemical in the same manner as when it 
contained a greater quantity of the hazardous material.
    In the case where an outside package, (including transport 
vehicles), contains smaller packages of hazardous materials, DOT hazard 
warnings need be retained on the outside packaging only until the inner 
packages are removed. However, if a contained package leaks into the 
outer packaging, the cleaning and purging requirement applies.

D. Other Issues

    The Edison Electric Institute (Ex 5-26) requested an exemption from 
this standard for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees whose 
radioactive material handling practices are already regulated by the 
NRC. This request was made on the basis of a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between the NRC and OSHA which gives the NRC 
jurisdiction in regulating most situations involving hazards that may 
be associated with NRC-licensed nuclear facilities, including worksite 
conditions which affect the safety of radioactive materials and thus 
the health and safety of workers.
    The MOU, however, is not relevant in this case since OSHA is not 
regulating radioactive materials themselves but is only requiring an 
extension of DOT requirements. Since the DOT requirements already apply 
to employers handling radioactive materials, this standard does not 
represent any change. Therefore, including an exemption in the standard 
is not appropriate.
    There was some confusion regarding paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed 
rule which required that markings, placards and labels be maintained in 
a manner that ensures the legend is visible. In effect, all that was 
intended by this provision was to assure that the label, placard, or 
marking be kept sufficiently clean (unobscured by dust, dirt, mud, 
etc.) that it would be easily seen in the event of an emergency or as 
necessary to prevent a hazardous situation. The provision was never 
intended to place restrictions on how or where DOT-labeled materials 
should be stored. However, since one commenter (Ex. L5-42) objected to 
the use of the term ``legend,'' the provision has been revised as 
paragraph (c) in the final rule to read: ``Such markings, placards and 
labels shall be maintained in a manner that assures they are readily 
visible.'' This does not mean that non-bulk packages with DOT labels 
that are stored in a warehouse (e.g. cartons containing 4-gallon cans 
of a hazardous material) have to be arranged in a manner which allows 
every label to be in view at all times. Rather it requires that where 
DOT hazard warnings are required to be retained, that such warnings are 
maintained in a manner that ensures that the message which the hazard 
warning is intended to convey is not compromised. In other words, at 
least some labeling should be visible for each type of hazardous 
material.
    Additional minor changes were also suggested (Exs. 5-33 and L5-42) 
that OSHA agrees are appropriate for completeness and has incorporated 
in the final rule. Specifically, the title of the final rule has been 
amended to include the term ``label.'' The terms ``aircraft'' and 
``vessel'' have been deleted from the regulatory text as there are no 
specific DOT requirements to affix warning labels to an aircraft or 
vessel. The term ``container'' was also changed to ``freight 
container'' as Ex. 5-33 suggested. The section has been editorially 
revised in order to be more consistent with the DOT's HMR and in order 
that the section is more readily understandable. For example, the 
requirements for packages versus transport vehicles have been separated 
into two separate paragraphs.
    Suggestions also were made (Exs. 5-19 and 5-25) to delete the 
phrase ``* * * and other information as may be required by such 
regulations * * *'' from paragraph (a). The commenters were concerned 
that the phrase might be interpreted as requiring materials not 
designed for display (e.g. manifests) to be kept on the container, 
package, etc. by the receiving employer. While this language was 
consistent with Section 29 of HMTUSA, OSHA did not intend it to place 
an additional burden on employers. OSHA is therefore removing this 
language from the final rule to eliminate any misconceptions about the 
requirements of the final rule.
    Several commenters suggested that OSHA should go beyond the 
Congressional mandate in developing this rule. For example, the 
Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America recommended that the 
rule be expanded to cover hazardous materials being loaded or stored 
prior to shipment (Ex. 5-8). DOT's regulations generally do not apply 
until a material is offered for transportation. To require marking, 
labeling or placarding in accordance with the HMR prior to a material 
being offered for transportation is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    The New York Department of State pointed out that mixed loads of 
hazardous materials are identified with the all purpose ``dangerous'' 
placard. While the vehicle may be parked, the shipping papers may have 
been taken away by the driver, thus removing a vital asset to the 
identification of hazards of the contents (Ex. 5-14). OSHA interprets 
the Congressional mandate to be limited to the retention of DOT hazards 
warnings which are designed for display. Consequently, shipping papers 
are not included.
    Finally, Growmark suggested that this rulemaking presents OSHA with 
an opportunity to consider making all hazard warnings on vehicles, 
warehouses, storage tanks, etc. more uniform so that emergency 
responders could recognize and respond to one type of marking instead 
of having to learn dual systems (Ex. 5-11).
    OSHA is aware that employers and others have expressed a need for 
consistency in labeling practices. However, this issue is beyond the 
scope of the specific authorizing statute and would require a major and 
lengthy interagency approach to complete. Moreover, the Agency 
published a Request for Information in the context of the Hazard 
Communication Standard on May 17, 1990 (see 55 FR 20580). The issue is 
still being considered with respect to what action the Agency should 
take in the context of that standard.
    In a similar matter concerning the authority granted the Agency by 
the HMTUSA legislation, at least one commenter (Ex. 5-4) suggested that 
since the real issue addressed in the legislation was hazard 
communication, the requirement to retain DOT hazard warnings should 
have been integrated in the Hazard Communication Standard in lieu of 
issuing a separate regulation. OSHA, however, believes that Congress 
was quite specific in its instructions to the Secretary of Labor that 
this requirement apply to DOT regulations and that it be addressed as a 
separate rule. Paragraph (d) does, however, make this final rule better 
integrated with the Hazard Communication Standard.
    Finally, Amoco (Ex. 5-21) raised the issue of whether the rule 
would apply to an employer's current inventory of DOT-labeled materials 
and whether changes to the existing markings and labels would be 
required. In response to this comment, the Agency is allowing 90 days 
following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for 
employers to come into compliance. The rule requires no changes in the 
content of the label. However, OSHA is providing what it believes is 
sufficient time for employers to replace labels, markings or placards 
that may have been removed, or to empty containers of hazardous 
materials. Once the effective date of the rule has passed, employers 
will be subject to OSHA citations if packages, transport vehicles, 
freight containers, etc. of hazardous materials covered by DOT's HMR 
are present in the workplace, do not have the appropriate DOT hazard 
warning and violate the standard. It is not possible for OSHA 
compliance officers to readily know the date transport vehicles or 
packages were received and DOT warnings were removed. The 90-day period 
is a realistic time in which to replace removed placards, markings or 
labels or to empty containers.
    Because Congress has directed that OSHA issue this regulation for 
all employers covered by the OSH Act, this notice includes separate but 
identical standards for general industry (Sec. 1910.1201), construction 
(Sec. 1926.60), shipyards (Sec. 1915.100), marine terminals 
(Sec. 1917.29) and longshoring (Sec. 1918.100). The general industry 
standard will also be added to the list of Part 1910 standards which 
apply to agricultural operations, as a new paragraph (a)(7) of 
Sec. 1928.21.
    As with the proposed rule, OSHA has consulted with delegated 
officials of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, as required by HMTUSA, in preparing this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OSHA has not performed a Regulatory Impact Analysis for this 
standard since adoption of the proposed requirements would add no new 
regulatory burden on employers with respect to either cost or 
information collection.

Executive Orders 12866, 12612, and 12778

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes 
of Executive Order 12866. It also does not have federalism implications 
warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance 
with Executive Order 12612. This rule has been certified in accordance 
with Executive Order 12778 regarding Civil Justice Reform.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking action imposes no paperwork burdens under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 
1928

    Occupational safety and health, hazardous materials transportation, 
hazardous substances, explosives, chemicals, health, safety.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 29 of the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 
3244), sections 4 and 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655), Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and 
Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-
90 (55 FR 9033) and 29 CFR Part 1911, Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 
1926 and 1928 of 29 CFR are amended as set forth below.

    Signed this 14th day of July 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    OSHA is amending Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928 of 
Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD 
EMPLOYMENT

PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS

PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

    1. The authority citation for subpart Z of Part 1910 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 6, 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 
U.S.C. 655, 657: Secretary of Labor's Order 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 9-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.

    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, except those substances which have exposure 
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The 
latter were issued under Section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 533. Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 not issued 
under 29 CFR Part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds), 
benzene and cotton dust listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under Sec. 107 of Contract Work 
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333.
    Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR Part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1025 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    Section 1910.1201 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104 
Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).
    Sections 1910.1200, 1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553.

    2. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 
1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Section 1915.99 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1915.100 also issued under Section 29, Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
615, 104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).

    3. The authority citation for part 1917 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 
1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.

    Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1917.129 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104 
Stat. 3244) and 5 U.S.C. 553.

    4. The authority citation for part 1918 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 
1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

    Section 1918.90 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR Part 
1911.
    Section 1918.100 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104 
Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819, 5 U.S.C. 553, and 29 U.S.C. Part 
1911).

    5. The authority citation for subpart D of part 1926 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, 8, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 
FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

    Section 1926.59 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR Part 
1911.
    Section 1926.60 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104 
Stat. 3244), 5 U.S.C. 553, and 29 U.S.C. Part 1911.

PARTS 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, AND 1926--[AMENDED]

    6. Parts 1910, 1915, subpart F; 1917, subpart B; 1918, subpart I 
and 1926, subpart D of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 
amended by adding identical sections as Secs. 1910.1201, 1915.100, 
1917.29, 1918.100 and 1926.61 to read as follows:


Sec. ****.***  Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels.

    (a) Any employer who receives a package of hazardous material which 
is required to be marked, labeled or placarded in accordance with the 
U. S. Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations 
(49 CFR Parts 171 through 180) shall retain those markings, labels and 
placards on the package until the packaging is sufficiently cleaned of 
residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazards.
    (b) Any employer who receives a freight container, rail freight 
car, motor vehicle, or transport vehicle that is required to be marked 
or placarded in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations 
shall retain those markings and placards on the freight container, rail 
freight car, motor vehicle or transport vehicle until the hazardous 
materials which require the marking or placarding are sufficiently 
removed to prevent any potential hazards.
    (c) Markings, placards and labels shall be maintained in a manner 
that ensures that they are readily visible.
    (d) For non-bulk packages which will not be reshipped, the 
provisions of this section are met if a label or other acceptable 
marking is affixed in accordance with the Hazard Communication Standard 
(29 CFR 1910.1200).
    (e) For the purposes of this section, the term ``hazardous 
material'' and any other terms not defined in this section have the 
same definition as in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 
171 through 180).

PART 1928--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE

    7. The authority citation for Part 1928 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-
71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 
FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.

    Section 1928.21 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104 
Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).

PART 1928--[AMENDED]

    8. Section 1928.21 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph 
(a)(6) and adding a new paragraph (a)(7) reading as follows:


Sec. 1928.21  Applicable standards in 29 CFR Part 1910.

    (a) * * *
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels --
Sec. 1910.1201.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-17534 Filed 7-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P