[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19490]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 15, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Research and Special Programs Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Part 171, et al.



Improvement to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems; Proposed 
Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177

[Docket No. HM-206; Notice No. 94-8]
RIN 2137-AB75

 

Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing changes to hazard communication requirements 
of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The proposed changes are 
based on comments received in response to an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM), recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS), and agency initiative. This action will improve the existing 
hazard communication system; better identification of hazardous 
materials in transportation will assist emergency response personnel in 
responding to and mitigating the effects of incidents and accidents 
involving hazardous materials.

DATES: Written comments: Comments must be received on or before 
December 2, 1994.
    Public hearing: A public hearing will be held beginning at 9:00 
a.m., October 18-19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: Address comments to the Dockets Unit (DHM-
30), Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the 
Docket (HM-206) and be submitted in five copies. Persons wishing to 
receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a 
self-addressed stamped postcard showing the docket number. The Dockets 
Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Public dockets may be viewed 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.
    Public hearing. The public hearing will be held in the Auditorium 
of the Federal Aviation Administration Building located at 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Persons desiring to 
make oral statements at the hearing should notify the Research and 
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) Docket Clerk by telephone (202) 
366-5046 or in writing by October 3, 1994. Mail written requests to: 
Docket Clerk, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and 
Special Programs Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 8421, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Each request must identify the speaker; 
organization represented, if any; daytime telephone number; and the 
anticipated length of the presentation, not to exceed 10 minutes. 
Written text of the oral statement should be presented to the hearing 
officer and reporter prior to the oral presentation. Hearings may 
conclude before 5:00 p.m. and the second day of the hearing (October 
19, 1994) may be cancelled if all persons wishing to give oral comments 
have been heard. To confirm plans to attend, contact Ms. Helen Engrum 
at (202) 366-8553.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Engrum or John Potter, telephone 
(202) 366-4488, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and 
Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legislative Requirements

A. Rulemaking

    On November 16, 1990, the President signed into law the Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA; Pub. Law 
101-615) which amended the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 
(HMTA), 49 App. U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et. seq. Section 25 of HMTUSA requires 
DOT to initiate a rulemaking to determine methods of improving the 
current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials 
and to determine methods for establishing and operating a central 
reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center that 
can provide information to facilitate responses to accidents and 
incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials. It 
directs DOT to consider methods of improving the placarding system to 
include: (1) methods to make placards more visible; (2) methods to 
reduce the number of improper and missing placards; (3) alternative 
methods of marking vehicles for the purpose of identifying hazardous 
materials being transported; (4) methods of modifying the composition 
of placards to ensure their resistance to fire; (5) improving the 
coding system used with respect to such placards; (6) identification of 
appropriate emergency response procedures through symbols on placards; 
and (7) display of telephone numbers for continually-monitored 
emergency response telephone systems on vehicles transporting hazardous 
materials.
    Section 25 also requires DOT to evaluate in a rulemaking proceeding 
whether a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication 
data center should be operated by the Federal Government or a private 
entity, either on its own initiative or under contract with the United 
States. The evaluation must address: (1) the estimated annualized cost 
of establishing, operating and maintaining such a system and center and 
for carrier and shipper compliance with such a system; (2) methods for 
financing the cost of establishing, operating, and maintaining such a 
system and center; (3) the projected safety benefits of establishing, 
operating and maintaining such a system and center; (4) whether 
shippers, carriers and handlers of hazardous materials should have 
access to such a system; (5) methods for ensuring the security of the 
information and data stored in such a system; (6) types of hazardous 
materials and types of shipments for which information and data should 
be stored in such a system; (7) the degree of liability of the operator 
of such a system and center for providing incorrect, false or 
misleading information; (8) deadlines by which shippers, carriers and 
handlers of hazardous materials should be required to submit 
information to the operator of such a system and center, and minimum 
standards relating to the form and content of such information; (9) 
measures for ensuring compliance with the deadlines and standards for 
operating such a system; and (10) methods for accessing such a system 
through mobile satellite service or other technologies having the 
capability to provide two-way voice, data, or facsimile service.
    Section 26 of the HMTUSA requires DOT to initiate a rulemaking on 
the feasibility, necessity, and safety benefits of requiring hazardous 
materials carriers (in addition to an existing requirement for 
shippers) to maintain continually-monitored telephone systems to 
provide emergency response information and assistance. DOT is required 
to determine which hazardous materials, if any, and which segments of 
industry (including persons who own and operate motor vehicles, trains, 
vessels, aircraft, and in-transit storage facilities) should be covered 
by such a requirement.
    On June 9, 1992, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register [Docket HM-206; 57 FR 24532] 
posing 63 primary questions, most with secondary questions, under three 
categories. The ANPRM solicited comments on methods of improving the 
current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials, 
methods to improve the system of identifying hazardous materials in 
transportation, and the feasibility and necessity of requiring carriers 
to maintain continually-monitored telephone contacts for emergency 
response information.

B. NAS Study/DOT Report

    Section 25 of HMTUSA requires DOT to contract with the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study of the feasibility and 
necessity of establishing and operating a central reporting system and 
computerized telecommunication data center that would receive, store, 
and retrieve data on all daily shipments of hazardous materials by all 
modes. DOT is to provide Congress a summary of the NAS report with 
DOT's recommendations concerning implementation of the NAS 
recommendations, giving substantial weight to recommendations on the 
feasibility and necessity of implementing a central reporting and 
computerized telecommunication data center.
    In May 1991, DOT entered into a contract with NAS to conduct the 
study. A 16-member committee was formed, representing industry, 
academia, and the emergency response and firefighting communities. The 
scope of the study was limited to matters that may affect the 
consequences of hazardous materials incidents after they occur, and not 
methods of preventing incidents. The committee focused on various 
potential applications of communications and information technology 
that would aid emergency responders in obtaining information at 
hazardous materials incidents and accidents and nontechnological 
options for improving information through better regulation, 
enforcement, or training. NAS made recommendations regarding the 
national central reporting system, a long-term approach to using 
technology in support of emergency response, and regulatory, 
enforcement, and training needs.
    The committee also reviewed DOT's existing hazard communication 
system with respect to regulatory, enforcement and training options in 
the context of not relying on the introduction of new information 
technologies. The NAS report was submitted to Congress and DOT on April 
29, 1993.
    On February 15, 1994, the DOT submitted a report to Congress which 
included a summary of the NAS report and DOT's recommendations. A copy 
of DOT's report has been included in the Docket.

II. Hazard Identification and Communication System Under the HMR

    Over the last 25 years, DOT has developed a comprehensive hazardous 
materials identification and communication system. The system is 
designed to provide fire and emergency response personnel with 
information in the event of a transportation incident or accident 
involving the release of hazardous materials. Hazard communication and 
emergency response information requirements are set forth in Subparts C 
through G of Part 172 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 
CFR Parts 171-180). The system involves communication of the following 
types of information: (1) hazardous materials descriptions, including 
specific or generic proper shipping names, chemical or technical names, 
hazard classes, identification numbers, and other special information, 
entered on shipping papers carried on the transport vehicle by the 
transporter; (2) hazardous materials proper shipping names and 
identification numbers, marked on non-bulk and bulk packages; (3) 
primary and subsidiary hazards, identified by labels affixed to 
packages; (4) primary hazards, identified by placards affixed to 
transport vehicles, freight containers and bulk packagings; and (5) 
emergency response information, entered on shipping papers or presented 
in separate documents.
    Emergency response information must be maintained on the transport 
vehicle, train, or vessel during transportation of the hazardous 
material in the same manner as is required for shipping papers. On 
aircraft, emergency response information must be maintained in the same 
manner as is required for the notification of the pilot-in-command. The 
information describes immediate hazards to health, risks of fire or 
explosion, precautions to be taken by responders first arriving at the 
scene of an incident, initial methods for handling spills and leaks in 
the absence of fire, and preliminary first aid measures to be taken. 
This information may be entered on shipping papers, or be presented on 
appropriate guide pages in DOT's ``Emergency Response Guidebook 
(ERG),'' on material safety data sheets, or on other appropriate 
emergency response guidance documents.
    A shipper who offers hazardous materials for transportation must 
also enter an emergency response telephone number on a shipping paper. 
The number must be monitored at all times while a shipment is in 
transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. A first 
responder using that number must be able to contact, in one phone call, 
a person who is either knowledgeable about the material and has 
comprehensive response and mitigation information, or has immediate 
access to such a person.
    Firefighters and emergency response personnel have been trained to 
use hazard communication and emergency response information in 
responding to incidents. Shipping names and identification numbers are 
cross-referenced to emergency response guides in DOT's ERG. The ERG 
provides guidance for initial actions to be taken in response to 
hazardous materials incidents. Since 1980, RSPA has distributed more 
than 3.5 million copies of the ERG to emergency response entities 
without charge.
    The current hazard communication system is recognized worldwide. 
DOT has aligned U.S. hazard communication requirements with 
international standards by adoption of shipping descriptions, labels 
and placards conforming to United Nations Recommendations on the 
Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations). Hazard communication 
requirements currently in effect have been successfully used in 
identifying the hazards of materials involved in releases during 
transportation.
    Over the past five years, DOT has substantially amended the U.S. 
hazard communication requirements. On December 21, 1990, a final rule 
was published [Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402 and final rule revisions on 
12/21/91; 56 FR 66124] which comprehensively revised the HMR with 
respect to hazard communication, classification, and packaging 
requirements. This action simplified and reduced the volume of the HMR, 
enhanced safety through improved classification and packaging, promoted 
flexibility, and facilitated international commerce through 
harmonization with international transport standards. Further, changes 
to labeling requirements for Division 6.1 Packing Group (PG) III 
materials, requiring a KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD label, are addressed in an 
ANPRM recently published in the Federal Register [Docket HM-217; 58 FR 
59224; 11/8/93]. The issues addressed in Docket HM-217 are not 
otherwise addressed in this document.

III. NAS Findings and Recommendations

    The central recommendation contained in the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) report is that the Federal Government should not attempt 
to implement the national central reporting system as originally 
proposed for consideration. NAS said:

    There is no sound basis for defining performance criteria for 
information to be provided and threshold reliability needed in such 
a system. There would be no opportunity to allow on-going evaluation 
to guide implementation, as a phased implementation would allow; and 
the system would not be designed to make maximum use of existing 
shipper, carrier, and responder capabilities.

    NAS found that the original national central reporting system 
proposal ``is not aimed at the most serious failures of the existing 
system,'' such as incidents ``in which [shipping] papers or placards 
are inaccessible because of a crash or fire.'' NAS concluded that, 
``because of these shortcomings, the originally proposed system would 
be unlikely to function as intended or to produce benefits sufficient 
to justify its costs.''
    Although NAS recommended that the Government ``should not attempt 
to implement such a system as the originally proposed national central 
reporting system,'' it did recommend DOT participation in the 
evaluation of new information technologies. NAS stated that DOT should, 
on an ongoing basis, and in conjunction with the shipper and carrier 
industries and emergency responders, systematically investigate 
opportunities for application of information technologies to aid 
emergency responders and reduce the costs of hazardous materials 
incidents. Specifically, NAS called for pilot programs comprising 
``controlled experiments with independent, rigorously designed 
evaluation protocols.''
    NAS found that, in most instances, the existing hazardous materials 
communication system is effective and that information available at 
hazardous materials transportation incident sites meets critical 
information needs of emergency responders. Based on case studies of 125 
incidents, NAS identified six kinds of potential information problems 
encountered by responders: (1) required sources of information were 
missing or inaccurate; (2) information sources were obscured, 
destroyed, or inaccessible because of fire, wreckage, or other 
barriers; (3) information sources were available and in compliance with 
the regulations, but failed to fully or efficiently convey essential 
information; (4) essential information was not provided because the 
shipment was not subject to the HMR; (5) vehicle operator did not 
assist emergency responders in obtaining essential information; and (6) 
responders did not properly use available information. Based on this 
finding, NAS made the following recommendation:

     DOT, together with the other responsible federal 
agencies, should form a plan of action to alleviate each of the six 
categories of information failures identified in this study through 
changes in regulations, more effective enforcement, and support for 
improved training of emergency responders and inspectors.

    NAS made a number of additional recommendations to improve 
identification of hazardous materials to minimize the dangers and costs 
of accidents and enhance emergency response efforts. They are as 
follows:

     The government should not attempt to implement a system 
such as the originally proposed national central reporting system, 
that is, one entailing immediate and universal application of a 
requirement for shipper or carrier real-time filing of vehicle 
contents information in a central data base.
     Improvements to the existing system for providing 
information to emergency responders at hazardous materials incidents 
are necessary. Therefore, Congress, DOT, and other responsible 
federal agencies should plan and carry out a program to improve the 
system. This program should include appropriate measures to apply 
technology; reforms in regulations, enforcement, and training; and 
evaluation of the existing system so that efforts can be directed at 
the most pressing problems.
     DOT should immediately undertake one or more limited 
start-ups of automated information systems.
     DOT should, on an ongoing basis and in conjunction with 
the shipper and carrier industries and emergency responders, 
systematically investigate opportunities for application of 
information technology to aid emergency responders and reduce the 
costs of hazardous materials incidents.
     The U.S. Fire Administration, DOT, and the other 
federal, state, and local agencies that maintain data bases of 
hazardous materials incidents should formally coordinate to ensure 
that data are defined and collected uniformly, duplicate reporting 
is avoided, and data collection is designed to serve essential 
program evaluation and research needs.
     DOT should establish a monitoring capability that 
allows it to determine whether its regulations intended to provide 
emergency responders with information at hazardous materials 
transportation incidents are working adequately.
     DOT and the U.S. Fire Administration should jointly 
conduct a study of costs and means of organizing and delivering 
training to hazardous materials emergency responders and enforcement 
officers.

IV. Regulatory Issues

A. Summary

    Over 230 comments were submitted in response to the ANPRM. 
Commenters included shippers, carriers, firefighter and police 
departments and associations, farmers, Federal and State governments, 
trade associations, emergency response telephone services 
organizations, and private individuals.
    Based on the comments to the ANPRM, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) recommendations in its report, and RSPA's initiative, 
several improvements to the existing hazard communications system have 
been identified as needed and are proposed in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM).
    RSPA is proposing to: (1) require identification number markings on 
transport vehicles and freight containers to improve identification of 
hazardous materials poisonous by inhalation offered in amounts of more 
than 400 kilograms (kg) (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight; 2) require 
identification number marking displays on truckload and carload 
shipments of non-bulk packages of hazardous materials having a single 
identification number; 3) require unique labels and placards for both 
liquids and gases that are poisonous by inhalation; 4) lower the 
placarding exception in Sec. 172.504(c) from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 
400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of hazardous materials; 5) 
revise the requirements for use of a FUMIGANT marking; 6) lower from 
2,268 kg (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) the quantity for 
specific hazard class placarding when one category of material is 
loaded on a transport vehicle at one loading facility; 7) prohibit 
display on transport units of slogans, such as ``Drive Safely,'' which 
could be confused with placards; 8) require motor carriers to instruct 
operators of transport vehicles in methods to contact the motor 
carrier; and 9) require placarding for any quantity of ``Organic 
peroxides, Type B, controlled temperature'' materials. Also, included 
in this proposal are editorial corrections that clarify certain other 
requirements under the HMR.
    A number of changes considered in the ANPRM are not being proposed. 
Based on the comments and its own analysis, RSPA is not proposing to: 
1) eliminate the DANGEROUS placard; 2) require added emergency response 
information to be displayed on placards or vehicles; 3) revise placard 
visibility, size and location, information display and format, or 
construction and attachment methods; 4) change existing color tolerance 
requirements; or 5) establish a centralized reporting system and 
computerized telecommunication data center.
    Proposals and the decision not to undertake further rulemaking 
action for certain issues are discussed in detail in the following 
paragraphs. The complexity of the issues raised and the manner in which 
commenters responded make it appropriate to synopsize comments 
addressed to groups of questions pertaining to the same issue.

B. Improvements to placarding identification system

Placard visibility, size and location
    1. Would increasing the size of placards, incorporating larger 
identification numbers and hazard class symbols, improve hazard 
recognition? What size would be most effective? Are there any 
specific incidents in which the use of larger placards would have 
improved emergency response? The HMR specify a minimum size of 273 
millimeters (mm) on edge for domestic placards and 250 mm for those 
conforming to international standards.
    2. Is the existing square-on-point configuration too restrictive 
for adding emergency response guidance and hazard identification 
information? What changes, if any, should be made? And if so, what 
would be the costs and benefits?
    3. To improve placard visibility, should RSPA require placards 
to be affixed on a vehicle in a manner so that, in the event of an 
accident, they can be observed regardless of orientation of the 
vehicle? For example, should placards be located on the tops and 
bottoms (in addition to each side and end) of transport vehicles to 
ensure placard visibility in the event of rollover incidents? This 
was suggested by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
Safety Recommendation I-90-11 addressing a November 30, 1988 
incident involving an overturned motor vehicle. NTSB pointed out 
that ``front placards on the trailer have often been obscured by the 
tractor, and rear placards attached to removable gates have been 
thrown from the vehicle during an accident sequence.'' Section 
172.504(a) prescribes the location of placards on transport 
vehicles.
    4. Should the three-inch (76 mm) separation distance between 
placards and other information displayed on transport vehicles 
specified in Sec. 172.516(c)(4) be increased to improve the 
presentation of placards? If so, please specify what distance or 
height would be effective to ensure that placards are readily 
identifiable by emergency responders.
    5. RSPA is aware of comments that claim that slogans or 
advertisements displayed on configurations similar to placards can 
confuse emergency responders. Should RSPA prohibit display of 
advertisements and such slogans as ``Drive Safely'' or other 
information configured in shapes similar to DOT placards?
    6. As an alternative to placarding, are there other methods of 
marking a transport vehicle to improve hazard communication 
including visibility and durability? For example, would a color 
banding scheme for marking transport units, as allowed under 
Canadian Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations, be a 
workable alternative to placarding?
    7. To improve hazard identification and communication during 
emergencies, should RSPA consider an additional placarding system to 
include a national motor vehicle numbering system similar to the 
Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system now 
used to identify all rail cars in North America?
    8. Domestically, use of reflective placards are permitted but 
not required under the HMR. However, placards constructed of 
reflective styrene material have been required under Part 5.27 of 
the Canadian TDG regulations for explosives and certain bulk 
shipments since January 1986. We estimate the cost per reflective 
placard as ranging between $6.85 and $15.85 depending on the 
quantity of placards ordered and information contained. Should 
reflective placards be required? If so, for what class of hazardous 
materials? What would be the cost of replacing existing placards 
with reflective placards?
    9. Should RSPA require placards to be displayed at places where 
hazardous materials are stored incidental to transportation? If so, 
under what circumstances and in what manner?

    Generally, most commenters saw no need to modify DOT's existing 
system of placard and identification number display. Since the square-
on-point configuration of placards is internationally recognized, they 
believed this standard configuration must be maintained. Most 
commenters opposed any increase in placard size or change in the 
square-on-point configuration to accommodate additional emergency 
response information. Some commenters indicated that an alternative 
hazard warning system, such as vehicle color banding, which would force 
some carriers to operate dedicated vehicles, should not replace the 
existing placarding system. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) 
estimated that ``for one mid-size regional carrier alone, the cost to 
retrofit its fleet of 1000 vehicles [with revised or additional 
placarding] would be $540,000 using the costs of existing products.''
    Several commenters indicated that panels on roll-up doors of 
trailers and other box-type freight containers are sized to accept the 
present placard holders and that companies using permanent flip-type 
placards would be forced to utilize a split design (half-on one panel 
and half on another) or replace all roll-up doors to accommodate an 
increase in size. They said the costs to replace doors would be 
enormous.
    Most commenters supported prohibiting display of extraneous 
information in placard holders. These commenters perceived that safety 
slogans or signs, such as ``Drive Safely,'' displayed in a diamond-
shaped format can be confusing to emergency responders when placed in 
placard holders or on placard-type displays and, therefore, should be 
prohibited. Some commenters indicated that increasing the three-inch 
separation distance between placards and other information would not 
improve the recognition of placards because placards are readily 
identifiable by their shape and color.
    Most commenters asserted that, because of the numbers of vehicles, 
a national motor vehicle numbering system would prove to be too complex 
and ineffective. Several commenters stated that the Universal Machine 
Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system is designed for fixed route 
transportation systems, such as rail transportation.
    Many commenters questioned the extent to which transport vehicles 
must be placarded in situations considered to be ``incidental to 
transportation.'' For example, they asked if placards are required to 
be maintained on transport vehicles not on public roads until hazardous 
materials are unloaded, such as when a vehicle remains loaded for an 
indefinite period in a consignee's fixed facility.
    As long as a hazardous material is in transportation, it is subject 
to the HMR, including any requirements for placarding of the vehicle 
which contains it. ``Incidental to transportation'' includes hazardous 
materials being loaded, unloaded or stored during transportation (e.g., 
at a trucking company terminal or in a railroad switching yard). RSPA 
notes that on July 19, 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) published a Final Rule [Docket No. H-022l; 59 FR 
36695] in the Federal Register requiring employers to maintain package 
marking, labeling and transport vehicle placarding prescribed under the 
HMR until hazardous materials are removed. As proposed, OSHA's 
regulation would require that placards be maintained on a transport 
vehicle containing hazardous materials even when that vehicle is no 
longer subject to regulation under the HMR.
    A number of commenters supported an increase in the size of 
placards and identification number displays to make them more visible 
to improve hazard recognition by responders. However, most commenters 
indicated that the costs of any major changes to the existing system 
would be prohibitive, the benefits would be minimal and the current 
placarding system should be maintained.
    Based on information available, including estimation of costs, RSPA 
believes that revising placard size, orientation or separation distance 
requirements, requiring color banding, or implementing a national motor 
vehicle numbering system would result in substantial cost increases 
without significant improvement in emergency responder abilities to 
readily identify hazardous materials in transportation. Therefore, RSPA 
is not proposing any changes to the HMR concerning placard size, 
visibility or location.
    Most commenters believed that retro-reflective placards would only 
minimally improve safety and stated that the use of such placards 
should remain optional because of their high cost.
    RSPA believes that requiring retro-reflective placards would not 
provide benefits that are even a small fraction of potential costs, 
which may be approximately eight times greater than for current 
placards. Therefore, RSPA is not proposing to require retro-reflective 
placards.
Placard Information and Format
    10. Should placards display information identifying appropriate 
emergency response procedures related to the hazardous materials 
being transported? Should placards display appropriate DOT Emergency 
Response Guidebook guide numbers referencing potential hazards and 
corresponding emergency actions?
    11. Should there be changes in basic placard format? What 
specific incidents, if any, demonstrate the need for such changes? 
Do existing hazard class symbols on placards, like the burning ``O'' 
on the OXYGEN placard, adequately convey hazard information to 
emergency responders? Are there other symbols that could be used to 
more effectively display hazard warnings?
    12. Should RSPA require an additional rectangular placard for 
information that cannot effectively be contained in the square-on-
point configuration? For example, the square-on-point placard could 
be used as an immediate indicator to responders that hazardous 
materials are present in the transport vehicle. Responders could 
then refer to the rectangular placard for essential response and 
hazard identification information.
    13. Should the display of hazardous materials (UN, NA) 
identification numbers be more extensively used to convey emergency 
response information? Section 13.7.5 of the UN Recommendations on 
the Transport of Dangerous Goods (7th Edition) recommends that a 
fully-loaded truckload of a packaged commodity be identified with 
the UN identification number for that commodity.
    14. Would the display of the CLASS 9 or KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD 
placards provide emergency responders with needed information in the 
event of an incident or accident? Should a CLASS 9 placard be 
required for Elevated Temperature Materials?
    15. Should DOT develop a new ``Poison Inhalation Hazard'' 
placard to more specifically identify liquids and gases that are 
poisonous by inhalation? If so, what should the placard design be? 
Under Sec. 172.505 in Docket HM-181, any quantity of a poisonous 
material subject to the ``Poison-Inhalation Hazard'' shipping 
description in Sec. 172.203(m)(3) must be placarded with either a 
``POISON'' or a ``POISON GAS'' placard.
    16. Under Sec. 172.510, if Division 2.3 Zone A gases and 
Division 6.1 Packing Group I Hazard Zone A liquids poisonous by 
inhalation are shipped by rail, the ``POISON'' and ``POISON GAS'' 
placards must be placed within a white square background. Should 
this requirement be extended to other modes? Should other hazard 
classes be included in such a requirement?
    17. Technical specifications for color tolerance charts for 
determining the acceptability of colors used on labels and placards 
are set forth in Appendix A to Part 172. Are color tolerance charts 
meeting these or other specifications (e.g., the Pantone Color Code 
System which is used in Canada) available from commercial sources? 
Are there color standards available which could be incorporated by 
reference into the HMR? What would be the cost of these standards to 
users?

    Generally, commenters believed that RSPA's regulations provide for 
an appropriate amount of information through placarding and 
identification number markings, and that further changes were not 
needed. Most commenters on this issue did not support addition of 
emergency response procedural information, such as ERG guide numbers, 
on placards. They believed that no changes should be made to basic 
placard format. Most commenters were opposed to requiring an additional 
placard for other information which they said would complicate 
compliance, cause confusion and lead to delays in response. They 
believed that these changes are not justified, would be inconsistent 
with international hazard communication standards and would add 
confusion with no added safety.
    Commenters were divided on whether identification numbers should be 
used more extensively. For example, the Chlorine Institute and other 
commenters supported use of placards with identification numbers on all 
full load shipments of packaged hazardous materials. Others said 
requiring further display of identification numbers would not enhance 
safety, that no change is necessary, and that display of identification 
numbers on less-than-truckloads (LTL) could result in information 
overload.
    Emergency responders have for over a decade been trained in the use 
of the existing hazard communication system. There is little evidence 
to show that additional information, such as the Emergency Response 
Guidebook (ERG) guide numbers on existing placards or a requirement for 
a new rectangular placard containing response information would result 
in any significant improvement to safety. Therefore, RSPA is not 
proposing to require either additional information or an additional 
rectangular placard for the display of emergency response information.
    There was no consensus on whether a new POISON-INHALATION HAZARD 
(PIH) placard is needed to more specifically identify materials which 
are poisonous by inhalation. The Chlorine Institute was not sure a more 
specific display of PIH information on a placard is warranted, and 
believed that such a change should be approved by the UN before being 
considered domestically. Others asserted that a new placard to 
specifically identify PIH materials would improve response.
    Most commenters contend that the current requirement for rail 
transportation of PIH materials, specifying a square white background 
for POISON and POISON GAS placards, should not be extended to all 
modes. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) stated that 
a square white background aids visibility of the placard and should be 
used whenever a background color causes the placard to be less visible. 
However, other commenters recommended eliminating the square white 
background requirement altogether. One commenter said that use of the 
square white background is not necessary for PIH materials since the 
words ``Inhalation Hazard'' are already stenciled as a PIH 
identification.
    RSPA is proposing new labels and placards for materials poisonous 
by inhalation, i.e., Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Zones A and B, 
liquids and gases in Division 2.3, Zones A, B, C and D. For poisonous 
gases, new graphics for the existing POISON GAS label and placard are 
proposed. For liquids, a new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and placard 
is proposed. For both liquids and gases, labels and placards would 
display a white skull and crossbones on a diamond-shaped black 
background placed at the top point/corner of the placard. This proposal 
is responsive to a petition (P-1021) submitted by the American Trucking 
Associations (ATA) and recognizes one of NAS's principal 
recommendations to add greater specificity in the communication of 
hazardous materials. RSPA believes the effort to clearly identify the 
hazards of these volatile inhalation poisons, already addressed in 
shipping paper descriptions and package markings, would be further 
enhanced by adding a unique label and placard. Michael Hagen of the 
City of Los Angeles Police Department submitted the graphic design 
which is proposed in this NPRM.
    Several commenters suggested that DOT should require a consistent 
color scheme such as the Pantone (TM) color code for labels and 
placards. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) said the 
existing color tolerance system is obsolete and that a range of color 
tolerance should be acceptable. Others did not support a change in 
color tolerances, saying that colors already used seem to be adequate. 
Color tolerance specifications are necessary to ensure color uniformity 
of placards and labels. The present label and placard color code 
system, in Appendix A of Part 172 of the HMR, refers to the Munsell 
Notation Color Specifications. Some commenters believed that the 
Munsell Notation Color Specifications are antiquated. The Pantone (TM) 
system was recommended by several commenters. Canada, Great Britain and 
European countries use colors based on Pantone. It is RSPA's 
understanding that the Pantone system uses specific colors and does not 
provide for deviations as does Munsell. At this time, RSPA believes 
there is insufficient cost and safety information to justify adopting a 
new color system. Therefore, no changes to the present label and 
placard color code system are proposed in this notice. However, RSPA 
requests comments concerning color code systems which allow for a range 
of color, and estimates of the costs and benefits of adopting a new 
color tolerance system. RSPA also requests that commenters provide 
information regarding specific Pantone (TM) colors that, in their view, 
constitute compliance with the label and placard color specifications, 
including tolerances, currently referenced in the HMR.
Placard Construction and Attachment
    18. Should the composition of placards be improved to minimize 
destruction and loss during a fire incident? General placard 
specifications are contained in Sec. 172.519. Please provide 
examples where fire-resistant placards effectively conveyed hazard 
warning information to first responders at incidents involving 
vehicular fires?
    19. Should means for attaching placards be improved to minimize 
tampering or placard loss in an incident? Specifications for a 
recommended placard holder are contained in Appendix C to Part 172.

    Under the HMR, a placard may be made of any plastic, metal, 
tagboard or other material capable of withstanding, without 
deterioration or a substantial reduction in effectiveness, a 30-day 
exposure to open weather conditions. Placards must also withstand, 
without substantial change, a 72-hour fade-resistance test. In its 
report, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended evaluation 
of new materials for prolonging the fire resistance of placards.
    Most commenters on this issue doubted that the safety benefits of 
fire resistance would offset the additional costs of changing the 
composition of placard materials. The commenters believed that DOT had 
not gathered sufficient data to conclude that any placard, regardless 
of composition, can effectively withstand fire conditions. Several 
commenters believed that even with the use of other material, the 
intense heat, fire, and smoke would either destroy or obscure the 
placard. The majority of commenters on this issue asserted that 
materials now used for constructing placards are adequate. The 
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) doubted that a truly 
fire-resistant placard could be created and suggested that any attempt 
to do so would involve substantial cost. Most commenters indicated that 
the existing system for attaching placards is adequate. They noted that 
placards cannot be protected from every possibility for destruction, 
such as vandalism and weather. The Illinois EPA said a more secure 
method of placard attachment should be specified to reduce the number 
of lost placards, but offered no specific information. One commenter 
said there may be a need for weather- and accident-proof placards and 
holders within reasonable costs. Another commenter suggested that RSPA 
look at the feasibility of requiring spare placards on transport 
vehicles. The National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) stated that certain 
mechanical elements in ``flip-type'' placards impinge upon the 
legibility of letters and numbers. For example, in certain instances, 
designers and manufacturers have permitted mechanical elements (e.g., 
centerposts, pivot rods and retaining clips) to impinge on the letters 
or digits on a placard. Thus, NTTC suggests an amendment to specify 
that placard space used to contain digits or numbers contain no other 
element of manufacture.
    RSPA believes that, although the design of mechanical elements of 
certain types of placard holders (e.g., flip-type) used for attaching 
placards may encroach upon the legibility of letters and numbers 
displayed on placards, placard holders manufactured and designed in 
accordance with the specifications and dimensions in Appendix C of Part 
172 are adequate, pose little, if any, problem with placard attachment, 
and are designed in a manner not to impinge upon the legibility of 
placards.
    There are insufficient data concerning placard loss due to weather, 
fire, or tampering, and the impact of mechanical elements on placard 
recognition to conclude that requiring new placard construction 
standards would significantly improve overall hazard identification. 
Therefore, no changes in placard construction requirements are proposed 
at this time. However, for future consideration, RSPA invites further 
comment on this issue, particularly from manufacturers of placards and 
researchers on fire retardant materials and placard recognition. 
Similarly, there is little evidence of significant problems with 
placard loss due to inadequate securement. Some commenters indicated 
that secure attachment, tampering and placard loss have not been 
problems when flip-type placards or placard holders are used. RSPA 
believes that plastic or metal placard holders presently used by 
industry provide adequate securement of placards on transport vehicles, 
and that developing new methods of securement is unnecessary. No 
changes are proposed for methods of attaching and securing placards.
Exceptions From Placarding Requirements
    20. Should the aggregate gross weight exception for Table 2 
materials in Sec. 172.504(c) be raised or lowered? If so, to what 
level?
    21. If the 1,000-pound placarding exception is maintained, 
should it be modified to require that transport vehicles containing 
packages of certain size (volume or weight) be placarded? For 
example, should a transport vehicle containing a 55-gallon package 
be required to be placarded?
    22. Should use of the DANGEROUS placard, now specified in 
Sec. 172.504(b) to indicate the presence of two or more classes of 
Table 2 materials, be further restricted or eliminated?
    23. Should RSPA require the DANGEROUS placard for all shipments 
of Table 2 materials in amounts less than 1,000 pounds, and specific 
placards for all shipments of more than 1,000 pounds or other 
amounts? Should all hazardous materials, regardless of quantity, be 
required to be placarded when in transportation? Would the meaning 
and impact of placarding be diminished should all hazardous 
materials, regardless of quantity, be required to be placarded?
    24. Based on the risks involved, should RSPA transfer certain 
Table 2 materials to Table 1? If so, please detail your 
recommendation.

    The HMR contains two tables in 49 CFR 172.504. Table 1 specifies 
categories of hazardous materials for which any quantity must be 
placarded. A transport vehicle, freight container, or unit load device 
containing a Table 2 material in non-bulk packagings need not be 
placarded unless it contains 454 kilograms (kg) (1,000 pounds) or more 
aggregate gross weight. Also, under Sec. 172.504(b), a transport 
vehicle or freight container containing two or more classes of 
materials requiring different placards specified in Table 2 may be 
placarded DANGEROUS in place of the separate placarding. When 2,268 kg 
(5,000 pounds) or more of one class of material is loaded at one 
loading facility, the placard specified for that material in Table 2 
must be used.
    Most commenters addressing this issue urged RSPA to retain the 
``1,000-pound'' placarding exception for Table 2 materials. The 
commenters believed that the current placarding exceptions are 
acceptable and should not be changed, although they were divided on 
whether to retain the DANGEROUS placard or to limit its use. Most 
commenters indicated that there is no justification for the transfer of 
placarding assignments from Table 2 to Table 1.
    Some commenters contended that a substantial lowering or 
elimination of the 1,000-pound exception would result in a 
proliferation of placards with the cumulative effect of desensitizing 
responders and the public to the warnings placards are intended to 
convey. Several commenters said elimination of the exception would 
subject sales personnel and small package carriers to commercial 
drivers' licensing (CDL) requirements. Another commenter said DOT 
should maintain the exception because carrier personnel and shippers 
are familiar with it. ATA stated that the 1,000-pound exception for 
placarding of Table 2 materials should remain unchanged. ATA also 
believed no modifications should be made to the 1000-pound exception 
based on package size because a vehicle transporting bulk packages must 
display the proper class placard for any amount of material in the 
package; thus, the cut-off for package size is already in place at 450 
liters (119 gallons) for bulk shipments. Most commenters believed that 
to modify or eliminate this exception would promote error and loss of 
responder confidence. Most commenters also saw no need to modify the 
1000-pound exception on the basis of package size.
    Several commenters, including the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association (CMA), indicated support for a reduction or elimination of 
the exception. The CMA stated:

    In the interests of assisting emergency responders, CMA urges 
DOT to consider reducing the 1,000 pound placarding exception for 
hazardous materials and discontinue use of the DANGEROUS placard. 
For less than truckload shipments of multiple hazardous materials, 
placards for the top three materials (based on the level of hazard, 
as specified in 49 CFR, Section 173.2a, ``Classification of a 
material having more than one hazard'') could be required.

    However, CMA believed that if DOT chooses to reduce the placarding 
exception, DOT should not trigger modifications to the CDL requirements 
based on placarding; in this case the 1000-pound exception should 
remain. The IAFC believes that the exception should be lowered to no 
more than 200 pounds to cover 55-gallon drums. The National Association 
of Chemical Recyclers (NACR) said that all vehicles transporting 
hazardous materials in any quantity should be placarded. One commenter 
believed that eliminating the exception would make things simpler for 
shippers, enforcement personnel and responders. Another commenter 
stated that the current 1000-pound exception leaves the door wide open 
for hazardous materials tragedies.
    A majority of commenters on this issue said no change to the 
exception allowing use of the DANGEROUS placard is needed. Commenters 
who urged retaining the DANGEROUS placard said that it is well 
recognized and understood. They acknowledged that the DANGEROUS placard 
offers no specific instruction to responders except to alert them that 
there is more than one hazard class in a vehicle; on the other hand, 
they said that, if hazard class placards were used for each product in 
a mixed load, the response system would be overburdened and diluted. 
Other commenters said not only should the DANGEROUS placard be retained 
but that its use should be extended to Table 1 materials.
    Opponents of the continued use of the DANGEROUS placard cited its 
lack of useful information and supported its elimination. One commenter 
supported elimination of the placard because it offers little 
information to responders and the complexity of the DANGEROUS placard 
requirements promotes non-compliance. Most commenters opposed 
transferring certain Table 2 materials to Table 1 and alleged that they 
do not pose the same level of risk.
    In this notice, RSPA is proposing three changes to placarding 
requirements in Sec. 172.504.
    The DANGEROUS placard and the 1,000-pound placarding exception are 
components of a well-understood system which has been in use for many 
years; however, without these, or similar, exceptions, RSPA believes 
there might be such a proliferation of placards on transport vehicles 
as to diminish the effectiveness of placarding. However, RSPA agrees 
with NAS recommendations and commenters' suggestions that some 
modification of provisions for use of the DANGEROUS placard is 
warranted. RSPA is proposing to revise 49 CFR 172.504(b) to specify 
that when 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) (rather than 2268 kg (5,000 pounds) 
as currently specified) of one or more category of materials requiring 
the same placard is loaded on a transport vehicle at one loading 
facility, the specific placard for that class is required to be 
displayed. This proposal recognizes both the needs of enforcement 
personnel for more specific identification when large quantities of 
non-bulk packagings are present on a transport vehicle and the 
operational difficulties for shippers and carriers when transporting 
mixed loads of categories of hazardous materials requiring different 
placards. It is believed that this proposal would incrementally improve 
hazard communication without unduly impacting current practices. RSPA 
also proposes to lower the placarding exception in Sec. 172.504(c)(1) 
from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross 
weight of hazardous materials. The 400-kg level is proposed also to 
incrementally improve hazard communication without unduly impacting 
current practices. This breakpoint was selected because it is generally 
consistent with the breakpoint between non-bulk and bulk packagings. In 
general, this proposed lowering of the placarding exception would allow 
one 55-gallon drum of Table 2 hazardous material on a transport vehicle 
to go unplacarded, whereas the current exception would allow two. RSPA 
recognizes that lowering the placarding exception to 400 kg (882 
pounds) may increase costs to industry but believes that more specific 
hazard warning information is needed to aid emergency responders in 
making more effective emergency response decisions.
    A third change is proposed to placarding Tables 1 and 2 of 
Sec. 172.504(e). RSPA believes materials that must be refrigerated 
during transportation should be identified without regard to quantity. 
Certain organic peroxides can decompose with such rapidity within a 
package that the resultant heat and gas will violently burst the 
package. A control temperature is the temperature above which a package 
of this material may not be offered for transportation, or transported. 
RSPA believes that such organic peroxides may pose significant risk if 
involved in accidents that result in a loss of temperature control. 
Because of the unique hazards associated with these materials in 
transportation, RSPA proposes to include ``Organic peroxides, Type B, 
liquid or solid, temperature controlled'' in Table 1 of 
Sec. 172.504(e), which would require placarding in any quantity.
Transition Period
    25. Is there a need for a longer transition period, beyond 
October 1, 1994 as required in Sec. 171.14(b)(4) under HM-181, for 
the implementation of placarding requirements? What effect would a 
longer transition period have on the ability of emergency responders 
to respond to hazardous materials incidents?

    Many of the comments concerning the 1994 effective date are no 
longer applicable because the transition period for implementing the 
new placarding system was extended for hazardous materials transported 
domestically by motor vehicles. On October 1, 1992, in response to 
numerous petitions from motor carriers to minimize the impact of 
converting to the new placarding system, RSPA amended Sec. 171.14(c)(2) 
to extend the transition period from October 1, 1994, until October 1, 
2001, for highway operations only (see Docket HM-181; 57 FR 45446).
    Many commenters, including the Conference On the Safe 
Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) and the CMA, urged 
RSPA to establish one effective date for the implementation of new 
placarding requirements under HM-181 and HM-206. They contended that 
different effective dates for changes made under HM-181 and for changes 
made under HM-206 would result in additional implementation costs. A 
number of commenters said the original October 1, 1994 effective date 
for implementation of HM-181 placarding changes (applicable to 
domestic, intermodal and rail shipment) would be adequate, provided the 
final rule in HM-206 made no major revision to the placarding system. 
Several commenters suggested a flexible transition period, depending on 
the extent of changes to the system. Most commenters believed that 
major revisions in HM-206 would require new transition periods.
    RSPA is not proposing any change to the transitional placarding 
provisions in Sec. 171.14 in this notice. With regard to placarding 
changes proposed in this notice, it is anticipated that a minimum of a 
one year transition period would be provided for implementation of new 
requirements following issuance of a final rule. (See section-by-
section highlights for Sec. 172.502).

C. Central Reporting System and Computerized Telecommunication Data 
Center

Establishment of Data Center
    26. Should a central reporting system and computerized 
telecommunications data center be established? If so, should it be 
operated by the Federal Government or by a private entity, either on 
its own initiative, or under contract to the Government?
    27. What would be the projected safety benefits of establishing 
and operating such a system?
    28. Should remote locations, such as Alaska, be excluded from 
mandatory participation in a central computerized data reporting 
system?
    29. To what extent do existing centralized data reporting 
systems already provide dispatcher-to-vehicle transmissions? Could 
these systems be modified to provide information to emergency 
responders in the event of incidents or accidents involving 
hazardous materials?
    30. What elements of DOT's hazard communication system, if any, 
could be eliminated by the use of centralized reporting? Marking, 
Labeling and/or Placarding? Shipping papers? Incident reporting?

    Out of 196 commenters responding to Question 26, 170 were opposed 
to such a system. They contended that costs were incalculable and that 
such a system is unworkable and of minimal use to responders. One 
commenter summarized his opposition to mandatory participation in a 
central reporting system. The commenter stated:

    It would not add one piece of information not already required 
under 49 CFR. It would require a massive effort to train industry 
employees and an estimated 40,000 paid and volunteer fire 
departments. It would encourage non-compliance due to the cost and 
complexity of complying with reporting requirements, and it would 
increase risk of misinformation. Mandatory reporting would put US 
businesses at a disadvantage or, if applied to foreign shippers, 
encourage trade retaliation.

    Five commenters stressed that emphasis should be placed on training 
rather than tracking shipments. Seventeen commenters opposed the 
proposed data system but supported the application of some kind of 
electronic notification for tracking extremely hazardous materials, 
such as those requiring registration. Three commenters said the 
proposed reporting system and data center needs further study.
    Three commenters supported establishment of the reporting system, 
one without qualification, the International Association of 
Firefighters (IAFF), and two on the condition that the U.S. Government 
operate it. The IAFF presented no information in response to questions 
26 through 55. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated:

    Because the Safety Board has not investigated any accidents in 
which a computerized tracking system would have affected the outcome 
of the response to the accident, the Board has no basis for comments 
on this issue.

    Commenters offered little detailed discussion of whether a 
mandatory central reporting system should be operated by the Federal 
Government or by a private entity. Several commenters asked why a 
government-operated reporting system should be established in 
competition with existing services being operated in the private 
sector. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) referred to 
extensive voluntary cooperation between shippers and existing 
communication services that would disappear if a central reporting 
system is set up and operated by the Federal Government. NPGA stated 
that the costs of government operation of this system would exceed the 
costs of operating existing communication network. They also said that 
a government-operated central reporting system would be subjected to 
budget cuts and appropriation constraints.
    Many commenters indicated that a centralized reporting system could 
not replace all or part of DOT's existing hazard communication 
requirements.

D. Other Comments Relating to the Central Reporting System

RSPA Evaluation
    RSPA agrees with the central recommendation contained in the NAS 
report and the majority of commenters on this issue. Therefore, RSPA is 
not proposing to establish a centralized reporting system and 
telecommunication data center. RSPA believes that the national central 
reporting system described in the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Uniform Safety Act would be extremely complicated, burdensome, 
expensive in its implementation, and of questionable benefit. In the 
long term, however, RSPA believes that the existing system will be 
augmented by real- or near-real-time technologies capable of providing 
information to responders electronically. RSPA also believes that such 
capabilities will piggy-back communications systems established by 
industry for economic rather than safety reasons.
    RSPA agrees with NAS' finding that overall information system 
improvement would best evolve from advances in the efficiencies of many 
existing systems already applied daily to hundreds of shipper and 
carrier operations. Carefully phased-in improvements will build overall 
effectiveness of hazard communications systems already universally 
relied on.
    RSPA will continue to review the emerging technology of electronic 
monitoring for both rail and highway modes. In the near term, RSPA will 
evaluate the results of such pilot programs for rail carriers as the 
Houston Cooperative Emergency Planning Project. This project 
establishes the first direct computer link between a railroad and a 
major fire department designed to exchange hazardous material and 
freight information for the benefit of first responders.
    Based on the findings and recommendation in the NAS report and lack 
of supporting information by commenters to the ANPRM and our 
assessment, RSPA is not proposing the establishment and implementation 
of the central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data 
center.
Data Entry and Removal
    31. When, and by whom, would data be entered into the system? 
For example, must a farmer who picks up a variety of pesticides from 
a chemical distributor enter data into this system? Who would enter 
data, and when would data be entered, for shipments originated by 
foreign shippers? How would required data be entered by shippers and 
carriers who do not have computer capabilities?
    32. At what points in the distribution chain would additional 
entries have to be made, e.g., highway/rail interchanges? How would 
the system accommodate data interchange between carriers? Between 
modes? Who would be responsible for entering data regarding 
intermodal shipments?
    33. If only shippers enter data, how would the system include 
less-than-truckload distribution where an average shipment will 
involve multiple vehicles (pickup, line hauls, and delivery)?
    34. Should a shipment report contain: the name and address of 
the party providing the data; point of shipment origin; point of 
shipment destination; vehicle identification; DOT proper shipping 
name, hazard class and commodity identification number; emergency 
telephone contact number; and quantity of materials involved and 
reportable quantities for hazardous materials that are also 
hazardous substances? Are disclosures related to so-called ``blind'' 
shipments of any relevance to current business practices?
    35. What additional information should be included for hazardous 
waste shipments? Who should be required to enter hazardous waste 
data? The original shipper or generator? The consolidator of various 
waste shipments from small generators? The treatment facility? The 
disposal facility?
    36. How can the accuracy of data entered into the system be 
assured?
    37. Once data is entered into the system, how long should it 
remain in the data base until it is purged? Who should purge the 
system once shipments reach consignees: The originating shipper; 
carrier; consignee or system personnel?

    Many commenters dismissed Questions 31-37 by reiterating that no 
such system should be established. Several commenters said these 
questions indicate the complexity of running such a system. 
Responsibilities need to be assigned, information needs to be entered, 
transferred and accepted in timely fashion. They said for the system to 
work effectively, data reliability must be perfect and noted that the 
system must be promptly purged of data when shipments are complete or 
it will be overwhelmed.
    Commenters questioned expected benefits gained from such a system 
since information on placards, labels, shipping papers, and emergency 
response information documents is already available to emergency 
responders, without delay, at incident sites. One commenter indicated 
that the complicated operations involved in establishing and 
maintaining a reporting center increase the risk of error. Probability 
of error increases as a result of making and deleting entries 
throughout hazardous materials distribution.
    Commenters contended that the proposed system provides no mechanism 
to ensure accuracy of massive amounts of data. Deletions from the data 
base relating to completed shipments may seriously lag behind actual 
termination. The American Trucking Associations commented that, 
``Vigilance on the part of the person entering information is the only 
`assurance' of accuracy. With only a 1% error rate that vigilance 
results in excess of 365 million errors per year. The key to accurate 
data is to minimize and control those who can change data.'' Many 
commenters indicated, given that the system would accept data from a 
variety of people, accuracy could suffer.
System Access and Safeguards
    38. Who should have access to such a system for obtaining 
information about hazardous materials shipments and technical and 
other emergency response information? Should other governmental 
organizations, such as Federal and state emergency response teams, 
or law enforcement agencies monitoring the distribution of chemicals 
commonly used in illegal drug manufacture, be permitted to access 
the system? Should industry emergency response teams have access?
    39. What methods should be employed for ensuring the security of 
the information in such a system?
    40. How can shipment information be limited to persons who have 
no competitive interest in other shippers' or carriers' information?

    No consensus emerged from Questions 38-40 regarding who should have 
access to the system or how to maintain confidentiality of data. Many 
commenters stated that there is an enormous potential for abuse of the 
system and indicated that, as proposed, the system would lack access 
control. Commenters indicated that uncontrolled access to a centralized 
system would be a threat to individual business security and 
confidentiality. Some commenters said that private enterprises should 
not have access to shipping data because of competitive reasons. Others 
said that no government entity should have access to any centralized 
data system. National Tank Truck Carriers commented that it is 
essential that access be limited only to governmental entities that 
pledge confidentiality.
    A few commenters stated that access cannot be limited in any way if 
the system is to work well. INFOTRAC said, ``There is no way to 
accurately forecast who might have emergency need of the information 
and under what circumstances.'' Another commenter agreed that tight 
security to confidential and sensitive business data would lead to 
delayed access, negating the intended effect of such a system.
    Some commenters suggested procedures for maintaining 
confidentiality of data. Their concerns are illustrated by the National 
Industrial Transportation League's comments. NITL stated:

    Only emergency response personnel that are certified and bonded 
for handling confidential information should have access to any 
central data base system. Access by any individual must be fully 
traceable, and with a documented need-to-know reason for accessing 
the system.
    No government organization at any level, other than Emergency 
Responders, should have access to a central reporting system.
    Confidential data is involved. ICC rules prohibit carriers from 
disclosing shipping data; same rules should apply here.
    No data should remain on system after it is purged.

    Another commenter said computer passwords could be issued to 
parties approved for access.
Emergency Responders: Use of System
    41. What data elements pertaining to emergency response should 
be required to be entered into the system? If emergency response 
information is to be a part of the system, who should be responsible 
for its inclusion for uniformity of presentation and content?
    42. How would emergency responders identify individual shipments 
in transit by using this system? By vehicle identification numbers? 
By vehicle registration numbers? By aircraft tail numbers? By other 
means?
    43. How would the system deliver information to emergency 
responders? Direct data center-to-response vehicles? Data center-to 
state or local level dispatching units-to-vehicle? Modem-to-modem? 
Telephonic link? Facsimile hard copy to vehicle receivers? Other 
methods? Would data from an electronic notification system reach on-
scene responders in time to make basic first-response decisions?
    44. How can such a system be accessed through mobile satellite 
service or other technologies having the capability of providing 2-
way voice, data or facsimile services?
    45. Would only satellite tracking-augmented real-time 
information (providing vehicle identification at all times) be of 
any use to responders?
    46. If the electronic shipment notification system is extended 
to the local level, would it be more cost-effective to link the 
system with local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) established 
under Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, 
local fire departments, police departments or other local 
organizations?
    47. Please provide details regarding any accident in which 
emergency response personnel have been killed or injured due to 
involvement of hazardous materials transported in compliance with 
existing regulations (e.g., placarding, labeling, package marking 
and shipping paper requirements) that would have been averted had a 
centralized data system been established and operating at that time.

    Considering the complexities involved in manipulating massive 
amounts of data nationwide, most commenters to this issue indicated 
that response information from a central reporting system may not reach 
first-responders in time to be of much use. They believed that no 
centralized system would effectively replace the real-time observance 
of placards, package labels, markings, shipping papers and emergency 
response information required under 49 CFR part 172.
    Some commenters asserted that, if a centralized system is 
implemented, only the information now required by DOT for emergency 
response should be entered into it. Others expressed concern over an 
inevitable lack of data uniformity in a nationwide system involving a 
diversity of users and varying levels of response expertise. One way to 
assure uniformity of information, they said, would be to rely on the 
Chemical Transportation Emergency Center's (CHEMTREC's) files of 
response data that already cover the most commonly transported 
hazardous materials. One commenter suggested that a data base with 
information similar to DOT's Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) should 
be established. INFOTRAC commented that ``emergency response elements 
should be left to existing professional response systems with the 
experience and ability to deal with the unique attributes of hazardous 
materials emergencies. The uniformity of content would be impossible to 
control.''
    Some commenters were not sure how emergency responders would 
identify individual shipments in transit by using a central reporting 
system. They suggested that either vehicle identification numbers could 
be entered into the system and used to access cargo manifest data or 
shipment information could be linked with the vehicle registration 
system or with vehicle license plate numbers. Commenters contended that 
a centralized computer system would be of little use without real-time 
capabilities. No information was presented about how a nationwide 
satellite tracking system might be configured or how satellite tracking 
capabilities might be meshed with a near-real-time notification system 
presumably consisting of telephonic data entries to a mainframe 
computer at system headquarters for voice, data, or facsimile access by 
responders.
    Some commenters concluded that any lag time resulting from the 
intricacies of transferring data from thousands of terminals to a 
mainframe for responder access would defeat the intended purpose of 
centralized reporting, i.e., to provide cargo identification 
information in time for a first responder to make decisions. With so 
much information being entered into such a system, lag time between 
entry and transmission could be significant. They said some shipments 
may be completed before original entry is recorded in the system and 
made accessible. Given the presumed technical sophistication of a 
centralized reporting system, most commenters on this issue doubted 
that most local emergency response organizations like fire or police 
departments, have the technical capability to effectively link with it 
at this time. Many commenters, such as the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR) and National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), stated that 
they were not aware of any situation where a fatality or an injury 
occurred due to hazardous materials transportation that would have been 
mitigated had a central reporting system existed.
Training In Use of System
    48. How would training for operating a central computerized 
tracking system be presented? How often? To whom should training be 
presented or required?
    49. How would the system be organized to allow for different 
operational training levels or operator sophistication?

    Some commenters asserted that training for the operation of a 
centralized reporting system must be substantial and widespread. Many 
commenters said all system users would have to obtain equal levels of 
basic training in order to properly enter, change, retrieve and delete 
information. Some said training must reflect different uses of the 
system and that training should be customized based on use and need. 
Several commenters said training for those needing access to the system 
would present the biggest problem.
    As a first step, ATA said RSPA should develop a manual on use of 
the system and suggested that initial and recurrent training 
requirements could mirror the training schedules in 49 CFR part 172, 
subpart H. Several commenters, including NPGA, said that, although it 
would be very difficult to estimate the scope of training needed 
without knowing the dimensions of the system, it could be accomplished 
in cooperation with appropriate trade associations and professional 
societies.
System Costs
    50. What would be the total annualized estimated costs of 
employing a nationwide central reporting system?
    51. What would be the capital costs, operating costs (including 
telecommunication costs), and personnel or contractor costs for 
establishing and maintaining a centralized reporting system?
    52. Should user fees be imposed to cover the costs of operating 
such a system? If so, should fees be based on total annual 
shipments? On a per shipment basis? On a per entry basis? Should 
governmental agencies using the system be charged a fee based on the 
amount of system usage?
    53. What would be the impact of the added costs of complying 
with mandatory electronic shipment notification requirements on the 
ability of U.S. industry to compete in the international 
marketplace?
    54. What would be the impact of imposing a user fee on foreign 
shippers or carriers?
    55. What would be the cost impact of requiring Federal agencies 
to comply with mandatory electronic shipment notification 
requirements? (Federal agencies make over 500,000 hazardous 
materials shipments a year.)

    A number of commenters said the cost of implementing the system 
would be prohibitive to industry, would drive up pass-through costs to 
the public and could have the effect of making U.S. industry non-
competitive in European and Asian markets. Several commenters said they 
had no idea of a total cost of implementing the proposed reporting 
system. NTTC said that since proponents of the system have given the 
public ``not a clue'' regarding the elements or dimensions of the 
system, it was refraining from comment on system costs. Another 
commenter said it is impossible to evaluate this proposal without a 
specific study of the hardware, software and administration that would 
be put in place to establish this system. Several commenters said 
required software alone would cost tens of millions of dollars.
    Many commenters addressing total system cost ventured a range of 
total cost estimates from ``billions'' for all industry to tens of 
millions annually for association-represented groups of businesses. 
Individual companies claimed they would pay millions annually. The 
National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA) claimed that the cost 
would be prohibitive and especially burdensome and discriminatory for 
small business and that no justification has been given to prove it 
would provide more accurate or even more timely information to 
responders. One commenter said that creation and maintenance of this 
system would impose enormous costs on shippers and carriers of 
hazardous materials not only in terms of computer manifest fees but in 
terms of the labor needed to generate and transmit them. The NITL 
stated that, at $12 per shipment, total system costs could run in the 
billions of dollars. NITL added that internal costs for training and 
administering the system would add an additional loss to productivity--
and that this does not include capital expense needed to implement and 
utilize the system.
    ATA estimated a total cost to the trucking industry, based on an 
estimate of $12 per entry, would be in excess of $2.19 billion a year. 
ATA said that this cost does not take into account shipments in LTL 
(less-than-truckload) operations that will be transferred in transit up 
to six times. The National Welding Supply Association (NWSA) in its 
summary of expectations said, at a minimum, each distributor would have 
to transmit 156 sets of shipping papers daily by facsimile to the 
system. The association said that even at the low end cost range the 
average NWSA member would pay $1,872 each day in manifest fees, and 
that assuming a distributor operates 250 days/year that distributor 
would pay $468,000 in manifest fees. NWSA notes that this cost would 
have a devastating effect on profits for the average NWSA distributor, 
and that system fees would amount to an annual operating cost of from 
9.4% to 28% of gross sales.
    Commenters representing regional interests emphasized the high cost 
of a national program to their areas. For example, the Petroleum 
Marketers of Iowa estimated an annual cost of between $5.8 and $19.4 
million annually for Iowa petroleum businesses.
    Because so little is known about the specifics of the central 
reporting system as proposed, many commenters said it would be very 
difficult to arrive at precise estimates of the costs of participating 
in such a system. Many commenters were unable to give good estimates of 
specific capital or operating costs to establish and maintain a 
centralized reporting system introduced as a concept with few 
parameters. The Fertilizer Institute's comment is representative: 
``Costs would be extremely high and anybody's guess at this time. Since 
there is no system and no staff currently, everything would be new and 
would include development costs.''
    Commenters were divided about the efficacy of imposing user fees to 
support a government-operated system. Many commenters believed that if 
a system is established, it is certain user fees would be imposed, and 
that equitable fees would be based on annual shipment data. Some 
commenters said imposition of user fees would push many companies 
beyond profit margins.
    A majority of commenters on this issue, including NITL, said 
mandatory requirements to participate in a centralized reporting system 
would definitely reduce the trade surplus that chemicals generate every 
year for the United States. ATA said a required centralized reporting 
system would raise costs of goods transported within, imported into, 
and exported from the U.S., cutting deeper into imbalance of trade. 
Considering massive cost to U.S. chemical companies if the system is 
implemented, CMA said our global competitiveness would be greatly 
affected. Many commenters warned that the impact of imposing user-fee 
requirements on foreign shippers for the operation of the U.S.-based 
system would create a substantial barrier for companies seeking to 
export to our country, undercutting U.S. trade policies. Many 
commenters envisioned retaliatory actions.
    If the proposed central reporting system is imposed, most 
commenters on this issue said agencies of the Federal Government must 
not be exempted from participating in the system regardless of what it 
would cost. Other commenters noted, that based on an estimate of 
500,000 government shipments annually, the cost to taxpayers would be 
in excess of $6 million a year.

E. Continually-monitored Telephone Systems

    56. Should carriers, in addition to shippers, be required to 
maintain continually-monitored emergency response telephone systems 
for all or certain hazardous materials in transportation as 
specified in 49 CFR 172.604? Why? What would be the costs or 
benefits? What specific incidents, if any, demonstrate the need for 
the carrier requirement?
    57. What has been the experience of the continually-monitored 
telephone system requirement in 49 CFR Sec. 172.604 imposed on 
shippers?
    58. Should a requirement for a carrier continually-monitored 
telephone system be triggered by a specific amount of hazardous 
materials being carried? Should a requirement for carrier 
continually-monitored telephone systems be applied only to shipments 
of hazardous materials in bulk packaging?
    59. Should such a requirement be applied only to certain types 
and quantities of hazardous materials, such as Packing Group I or II 
poisons, flammable or corrosive materials; certain classes of 
explosives, or highway-route-controlled radioactive materials?
    60. Should a carrier's continually-monitored number be added to 
shipping papers or other shipper documentation? Or should it be 
marked on the transport vehicle or on the transport vehicle 
placarding? Any or all of these options?
    61. How would carriers obtain detailed emergency response 
information regarding the hazardous materials on their vehicles? 
Would placement of continually-monitored phone numbers on placards, 
or transport vehicles, be useful to emergency responders? Would the 
addition of this kind of information diminish the effectiveness of 
placards?
    62. What qualifications should be established for carriers to 
carry out response assistance through a continually-monitored 
telephone system?
    63. As shippers are permitted to do, should carriers be 
authorized to use such chemical information services such as 
CHEMTREC to perform the carrier's monitored phone responsibility?

    Most of the 93 commenters on this issue opposed requiring carriers 
to maintain a continually-monitored 24-hour telephone number for 
providing emergency response information. Opponents of this requirement 
believed the existing emergency response communication system is 
sufficient. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), among 
others, said that since shippers already provide a 24-hour emergency 
response telephone number on shipping papers, they see no need for a 
continually-monitored telephone system for motor carriers. Some 
carriers have voluntarily provided 24-hour telephone numbers, although 
it is not clear whether these numbers are intended to be used for 
emergency response purposes. Many commenters said they believed this 
would be a duplication of effort and the cost of such a system and of 
training personnel to operate it would be enormous, without any 
increase in the level of safety.
    Sixteen commenters supported requiring carriers to maintain 
continually-monitored emergency response telephone systems. Some of the 
commenters said it may only be feasible to apply this requirement to 
carriers transporting extremely hazardous materials, such as 
radioactive materials, chlorine and explosives. The International 
Association of Fire Chiefs stated:

    The easiest way to do this when shipping papers or further 
identification is not available, is to be able to immediately 
contact the carrier. The carrier can then identify the load on that 
vehicle and refer us to the proper manufacturer for information.

    Commenters opposed to the requirement believed that it would result 
in confusion to have two 24-hour emergency response telephone numbers 
on the shipping paper, which could result in delays from mistakes. The 
Conference on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) 
stated:

    Without additional study of the potential costs and benefits of 
a continually monitored telephone system for carriers, DOT should 
not saddle transporters with this responsibility. Additional 
telephone numbers could seriously complicate emergency response 
efforts and coordination.

    Several commenters believed placement of an additional emergency 
response telephone number on a shipping paper may actually hinder 
emergency response, since the carrier would most likely only be 
knowledgeable about the transport equipment and not necessarily the 
characteristics and constituents of the material being transported. 
NITL stated that they support CMA's position that a carrier number, in 
addition to other numbers on a shipping paper, could actually confuse 
responders, seriously complicate the situation, and could delay proper 
mitigation.
    In their response to the issue of whether a carrier's continually-
monitored telephone number should be marked on a transport vehicle or 
on transport vehicle placarding, most commenters opposed display of any 
additional information on placards, including a carrier's continually-
monitored emergency response telephone number. Although several 
commenters, such as, the Illinois EPA and PPG Industries, Inc., 
supported marking of the transport vehicle with a carrier's 
continually-monitored emergency response telephone number, the majority 
of the commenters made no specific comment or recommendation on whether 
a carrier's continually-monitored emergency response telephone number 
should be marked directly on a transport vehicle.
    Opposition to marking a carrier's continually-monitored emergency 
response telephone number on a transport vehicle is illustrated by 
ATA's comment. ATA stated:

    As the name and address of the motor carrier already is required 
to be displayed on the sides of the power unit (and in most cases 
company logos are prominently displayed across all four sides of a 
trailer) emergency responders generally have no trouble identifying 
the carrier. Paperwork accompanying shipments generally are 
imprinted with home office telephone numbers and other company 
information. Motor carrier identification and telephone notification 
generally is needed to inform the motor carrier that their vehicle 
has been involved in an incident, not to request information 
regarding incident management.

    Most commenters believed that such a requirement would be costly 
and confusing, and there is no evidence that the current emergency 
response information requirements are not adequate.
    RSPA generally agrees with commenters that potential problems and 
confusion may occur by requiring a carrier contact telephone number, in 
addition to the shipper's and possibly other organizations (e.g., 
CHEMTREC) telephone numbers, on shipping papers for accessing emergency 
response information. RSPA also agrees with the commenters that the 
display of a carrier contact telephone number on the carrier's 
transport vehicle would not be necessary in most situations, since 
there is other identifying information already displayed on the 
transport vehicle to assist responders. However, RSPA shares NAS' 
concerns that in some instances vehicle operators may be unprepared or 
unable to provide pertinent carrier-related information to emergency 
responders and others at the scene of hazardous materials accidents/
incidents. Consequently, RSPA proposes to require each carrier who 
transports or accepts a hazardous material for transportation by air, 
highway, rail, or water, for which shipping papers are required, to 
instruct the operator of the transport vehicle to contact the carrier 
in the event of an emergency involving hazardous materials.
    In addition, RSPA has been made aware that emergency responders 
have had difficulty in identifying what hazardous materials are present 
on a transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is disconnected or 
separated from its motive power and dropped or parked at such places as 
truck stops, motels, or other locations. RSPA believes there is a need 
to assist emergency responders in obtaining information about hazardous 
materials in these situations. Therefore, RSPA proposes to require each 
carrier to mark its telephone number on the separated transport 
vehicle, have shipping papers and emergency response information 
readily available on the separated transport vehicle, or comply with 
the emergency response information facility requirements specified in 
Sec. 172.602(c)(1). This proposal would not apply to transport vehicles 
that are dropped or parked at a carrier facility, e.g., terminal or 
consignee/consignor facility, since these facilities are subject to the 
requirements in Sec. 172.602(c)(1). Nothing in this proposal would 
waive or modify the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations' (49 CFR 
385-399) vehicle parking requirements (Sec. 397.7) for motor carriers. 
RSPA believes that this proposal is responsive to NAS' concerns on the 
ability of carriers to provide some assistance to emergency responders 
at the scene of hazardous materials accidents/incidents and would be a 
beneficial augmentation to the current hazard communication 
requirements.

F. Other RSPA Initiatives

    In evaluating potential improvements of the existing hazard 
communication system, RSPA identified a number of potential changes 
which were not specifically addressed in the ANPRM. These are discussed 
in the following paragraphs.
Identification Numbers
    Under the HMR, identification numbers are currently required to be 
displayed on cargo tanks, portable tanks, multi-unit tank car tanks, 
and other bulk packagings. RSPA believes that application of 
identification number markings to packaged hazardous materials 
shipments in truckload or carload quantities would enhance the ability 
of emergency responders to respond effectively to incidents involving 
these types of shipments. Although NAS made no specific recommendation 
to require identification numbers for packaged hazardous materials in 
fully loaded transport vehicles, RSPA believes such a requirement would 
be responsive in part to NAS' concerns regarding sufficiency of 
emergency response information available to responders. For example, 
fully loaded transport vehicles containing packaged hazardous materials 
marked with a single identification number would display the 
identification number on the outside of the vehicle. This would be used 
in conjunction with the DOT ERG by emergency responders to more quickly 
obtain mitigation information. In most instances, responders now must 
rely on shipping paper information and package markings inside the 
vehicle to determine identification numbers. RSPA believes this 
extension of the use of identification numbers would add to the overall 
effectiveness of DOT's hazard communications system by improving on-
scene recognition of hazardous materials by emergency responders. 
Therefore, RSPA proposes to require the display of the identification 
number on a fully-loaded transport vehicle or freight container 
(proposed Sec. 172.323) containing one category of packaged hazardous 
materials, and on transport vehicles or freight containers containing 
more than 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of a material 
poisonous by inhalation (Sec. 172.313). RSPA believes these two changes 
would improve mitigation efforts and be responsive to NAS' concerns for 
improving the identification of hazardous materials in emergency 
situations.
    In certain instances, a cargo tank or other bulk packaging may be 
transported inside a closed transport vehicle or freight container, and 
identification numbers may not be displayed on the transport vehicle or 
freight container. In this notice, RSPA is proposing to revise 
Sec. 172.328 to clarify that an identification number marking must be 
displayed on a transport vehicle or freight container containing a 
hazardous material in a cargo tank, if the identification number 
marking on the cargo tank is not visible during transportation. 
Similarly, Sec. 172.331 would be clarified to provide that a transport 
vehicle or freight container containing a hazardous material in a bulk 
packaging other than a cargo tank, portable tank, tank car and multi-
unit tank car tank must be marked with the identification number, if 
the identification number is not visible during transportation. This 
proposed clarification of the two sections is consistent with the 
requirement in Sec. 172.326(c)(1) for portable tanks.
Fumigant Marking
    Many consignments of goods are treated with fumigants that pose a 
risk during transportation, in particular to workers who may be exposed 
unknowingly when they open transport units. Currently, Sec. 173.9 sets 
forth requirements, for rail transportation only, for identifying each 
transport unit containing a lading that has been treated with a 
fumigant.
    In this notice, RSPA proposes to: 1) extend the requirements in 
Sec. 173.9 to all modes of transportation; 2) extend the requirement to 
display the FUMIGANT marking from only Division 2.3 and Division 6.1 
materials to every material used to fumigate the contents of a 
transport vehicle or freight container; 3) specify that a fumigated 
transport vehicle or freight container is a package containing a 
hazardous material for application of the fumigation requirements; 4) 
for international shipments, require that the bill of lading or other 
shipping document accompanying the shipment contain hazard warning 
information concerning the fumigant; and 5) revise the FUMIGANT 
marking, consistent with the display specified in the United Nations 
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
    RSPA believes the FUMIGANT marking currently specified in 
Sec. 173.9 is obsolete and ineffective for communicating hazard warning 
information. Furthermore, RSPA believes that the design of the FUMIGANT 
marking appearing in the United Nations Recommendations on the 
Transport of Dangerous Goods would better communicate the hazards 
through use of the POISON symbol, pared down text, and larger size. 
Adoption of the U.N. marking would align domestic regulations with 
international regulations. Therefore, RSPA also is proposing to revise 
the design of the FUMIGANT marking to more appropriately identify the 
hazard and to conform to international standards. As an alternative to 
the FUMIGANT marking, RSPA proposes to recognize use of the label 
authorized by the EPA in 40 CFR part 156. RSPA requests comments as to 
whether there is a need to reference requirements of other agencies 
pertaining to fumigants. RSPA also requests estimates of the numbers of 
fumigated shipments that would be marked under this proposal and the 
costs of marking.
Availability of Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information
    For transportation by highway, Sec. 177.817(e) requires that a 
shipping paper ``is readily available to, and recognizable by, 
authorities in the event of an accident or inspection.'' RSPA proposes 
to amend Sec. 177.817(e) to clarify that the term ``authorities'' 
includes emergency response personnel such as volunteer and paid fire 
personnel and that the requirement also applies to an incident 
involving hazardous materials, not necessarily resulting from an 
accident such as a vehicular collision. RSPA proposes to add similar 
provisions to Secs. 174.26, 175.33 and Sec. 176.30 to ensure that 
hazardous materials information is readily available to authorities 
(including emergency responders) in the rail, air and water modes, 
respectively. Although this is an obvious intent of existing 
requirements for maintaining shipping paper information, it is 
currently unstated. Similarly, RSPA proposes to revise requirements for 
emergency response information in Sec. 172.602 to clarify that this 
information also must be made available to authorities, including 
emergency responders, in the event of an incident involving hazardous 
materials, or an inspection.

V. Section-by-Section Highlights

    This section-by-section summary addresses highlights of the 
proposed changes to hazard communications requirements.
    Section 171.11, 171.12 and 171.12a. In Secs. 171.11(d)(9)(iii), 
171.12(b)(8)(iii) and 171.12a(b)(5)(iii) the words ``POISON INHALATION 
HAZARD'' would replace the word ``POISON'' in reference to labeling 
poison inhalation hazard materials other than gases.
    Section 171.14. The Placard Substitution Table in paragraph (c)(2) 
would be revised by addition of a POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard for 
Division 6.1, Packing Group I, materials poisonous by inhalation.
    Section 172.302. A new paragraph (g) would be added to reference 
the fumigation marking requirements in Sec. 173.9.
    Section 172.313. Paragraph (c) would be added to require transport 
vehicles or freight containers containing more than 400 kilograms (kg) 
(882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of non-bulk packages containing a 
material poisonous by inhalation to be marked with the identification 
number of that material.
    Section 172.323. Section 172.323 would be added to require an 
identification number display on a fully-loaded transport vehicle or 
freight container containing non-bulk packages of hazardous materials 
having a single identification number. This requirement would not apply 
to materials classed as ORM-D or to limited quantities of hazardous 
materials that are excepted from identification number marking 
requirements.
    Section 172.328. Paragraph (a)(3) would be added to clarify that an 
identification number marking must be displayed on a transport vehicle 
or freight container containing a hazardous material in a cargo tank, 
if the identification number marking on the cargo tank is not visible 
during transportation.
    Section 172.331. Paragraph (c) would be added to clarify that a 
transport vehicle or freight container containing a hazardous material 
in a bulk packaging other than a cargo tank, portable tank, tank car 
and multi-unit tank car tank must be marked with the identification 
number, if the identification number marking on the bulk packaging is 
not visible during transportation.
    Section 172.332. Paragraph (a) would be revised to reference new 
Secs. 172.313(c) and 172.323.
    Section 172.400. The table of label designations in paragraph (b) 
would be revised by adding reference to the new POISON INHALATION 
HAZARD label (proposed Sec. 172.429) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and 
B materials. The entry for the POISON label applying to 6.1, PG I and 
II materials would be revised to read ``other than inhalation hazard.''
    Section 172.416. This section would be revised to prescribe the new 
POISON GAS label.
    Section 172.429. Section 172.429 would be added to prescribe the 
new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label.
    Section 172.502. Paragraph (a)(2) would be revised to specifically 
prohibit display of safety signs or safety slogans, such as ``Drive 
Safely,'' that by their color, shape, design or content could be 
mistaken for a hazard warning placard. Paragraph (b)(3) would be added 
to provide a transition period for removing existing safety signs or 
safety slogans which could be confused with hazard warning placards.
    Section 172.504. 1) Paragraph (b) would be revised by lowering from 
2,268 kg (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) aggregate gross 
weight, the amount of one category of material contained on a transport 
vehicle, freight container or rail car for which specific placarding is 
required. 2) In paragraph (c) the placarding exception would be lowered 
from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross 
weight of hazardous materials. 3) In paragraph (e), Table 1 placard 
assignments would be revised to add the new POISON INHALATION HAZARD 
placard (proposed Sec. 172.555) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and B 
materials and to include the entry ``5.2 (Organic peroxide, Type B, 
liquid or solid, temperature controlled)'' in the first column, the 
placard name ``ORGANIC PEROXIDE'' in the second column, and 
``Sec. 172.552'' in the third column. 4) In Table 2, the entry ``5.2'' 
would be replaced by the entry ``5.2 (Other than Organic peroxides, 
Type B, liquid or solid, temperature controlled)'' in the first column. 
5) In paragraph (f), an exception would be provided from displaying a 
POISON placard in those instances when a POISON INHALATION HAZARD 
placard or POISON GAS placard is required.
    Section 172.505. Paragraph (a) would be revised to replace 
``POISON'' with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD'' to correctly reference the 
new placard (proposed Sec. 172.555) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and 
B materials.
    Section 172.510. In paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) ``POISON'' would be 
replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD''. In paragraph (a)(3), 
``POISON--RESIDUE'' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD--
RESIDUE'' to correctly reference the placard proposed in Sec. 172.555. 
Paragraph (d) would be removed and reserved, as requirements for 
fumigated transport vehicles would be relocated to Secs. 172.302(g) and 
173.9.
    Section 172.540. This section would be revised to include the new 
POISON GAS placard.
    Section 172.555. Section 172.555 would be added to prescribe the 
POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard.
    Section 172.602. Paragraph (c) would be revised to clarify that 
emergency response information must be readily available to 
authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of an 
accident, incident involving hazardous materials, or inspection.
    Section 172.606. This section would be added to require each 
carrier who transports a hazardous material, for which shipping papers 
are required, to instruct the operator of a motor vehicle, train, 
aircraft, or vessel to contact the carrier in the event of an accident 
or incident involving hazardous materials. The section would prescribe 
information requirements for transport vehicles separated from motive 
power and parked at other than consignee, consignor or carrier 
facilities.
    Section 173.9. The FUMIGANT marking would be revised for 
consistency with changes provided in the United Nations Recommendations 
on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (8th Edition). These requirements 
would apply to transportation by rail, highway, vessel, and aircraft. 
In addition, the size of the FUMIGANT marking would be revised from 
``25 cm (9.8 inches) wide and 20 cm (7.9 inches) high'' to at least 
``30 cm (11.8 inches) wide and at least 25 cm (9.8 inches) high.'' See 
discussion under Section IV.F. of this preamble.
    Section 173.29. An empty packaging is not subject to any other 
requirements in the HMR if the shipping name and identification number 
markings and hazard warning labels or placards are removed, 
obliterated, or covered. For clarity, the introductory text of 
paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to add the phrase ``any other 
markings indicating the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION 
HAZARD).''
    Section 174.25. In the placard notation and endorsement table, the 
placard notation ``POISON'' for the entry ``Division 6.1 PG I Zone A'' 
would be revised to read ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD;'' and ``Division 
6.1 PG I Zone B, placarded POISON INHALATION HAZARD,'' would be added 
in its appropriate sequence to conform to the proposed placarding 
requirements for materials poisonous by inhalation.
    Section 174.26. (1) Paragraph (a) would be revised to reference the 
new POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard for Division 6.1, PG I, Hazard 
Zone A materials, and to clarify that the referenced placards are 
displayed on a square background. (2) Although train consists are 
presumed to be accurate, the NTSB recommended that the matter be 
clarified in the HMR (see NTSB Safety Recommendation R-90-38). 
Therefore, paragraph (b) would be revised to clarify that a train 
consist must reflect the current position in the train of each rail car 
containing a hazardous material. (3) Also, paragraph (c) would be 
revised to require that shipping paper information be readily available 
to authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of 
an accident, incident involving hazardous materials, or inspection.
    Section 175.33. Paragraph (b) would be revised to require that a 
copy of the written notification of pilot-in-command shall be made 
readily available to authorities, including emergency response 
personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving hazardous 
materials, or inspection.
    Section 175.630. This section would be revised to add references to 
the new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and delete obsolete references 
to ``etiologic'' substances.
    Section 176.30. Paragraph (a) would be revised to require that the 
dangerous cargo manifest be made readily available to authorities, 
including emergency response personnel, in the event of an accident, 
incident involving materials listed on the manifest, or inspection.
    Section 177.817. Paragraph (e) would be revised to clarify that the 
term ``authorities'' includes emergency response personnel and that an 
incident involving hazardous materials is an event requiring that 
shipping papers be made available to authorities.
    Sections 174.680, 176.600, and 177.841. Editorial corrections would 
be made in these sections to reference the proposed POISON INHALATION 
HAZARD label.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was subject 
to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is 
considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). A regulatory evaluation 
is available for review in the docket.

B. Executive Order 12612

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 
(``Federalism''). The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act contains 
an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. App. 1804(a)(4)) that 
preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered 
subjects. Covered subjects are:
    (i) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous 
materials;
    (ii) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and 
placarding of hazardous materials;
    (iii) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents 
pertaining to hazardous materials and requirements respecting the 
number, content, and placement of such documents;
    (iv) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the 
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or
    (v) the design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance, 
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which 
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the 
transportation of hazardous materials.
    This proposed rule concerns improvements to the standards mandated 
under 49 CFR Part 172 for placarding, labeling, marking, emergency 
response information and shipping papers. If a final rule is issued, it 
would preempt State, local, or Indian tribe requirements in accordance 
with the standards set forth above. The HMTA (49 App. U.S.C. 
1804(a)(5)) provides that if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of 
the covered subjects after November 16, 1990, DOT must determine and 
publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal 
preemption. That effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day 
following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two 
years after the date of issuance. RSPA proposes that the effective date 
of Federal preemption for these requirements be six months after 
publication of the final rule. Comments are solicited on this proposed 
date. Thus, RSPA has limited discretion in this area, and preparation 
of a federalism assessment is not warranted.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although 
this proposed rule would apply to all shippers and carriers of 
hazardous materials, some of whom are small entities, the proposals 
contained herein would not result in significant economic impacts.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this rule have 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) 
and assigned control number 2137-0034 and 2137-0580.

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

    Hazardous materials transportation, General information, 
Regulations, and Definitions.

49 CFR Part 172

    Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labels, 
Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, 
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Uranium.

49 CFR Part 174

    Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad 
safety.

49 CFR Part 175

    Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive 
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 176

    Hazardous materials transportation, Maritime carriers, Radioactive 
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 177

    Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Radioactive 
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, title 49, chapter I of the Code 
of Federal Regulations would be amended as set forth below:

PART 171-- GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 171 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1808, 1815, 
1818; 49 CFR Part 1.


Sec. 171.11  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 171.11, in paragraph (d)(9)(iii), the word ```POISON' or 
`POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or 
POISON GAS''.


Sec. 171.12  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 171.12, in paragraph (b)(8)(iii), the word ```POISON' or 
`POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or 
POISON GAS''.


Sec. 171.12a  [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 171.12a, in paragraph (b)(5)(iii), the word ```POISON' 
or `POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or 
POISON GAS''.
    5. In Sec. 171.14, the Placard Substitution Table in paragraph 
(c)(2) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 171.14  Transitional provisions for implementing requirements 
based on the UN Recommendations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *

                       Placard Substitution Table                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hazard class or                                Old (Sept. 30, 1991) 
      division No.         Current placard name        placard name     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 1.1...........  Explosives 1.1.........  Explosives A.         
Division 1.2...........  Explosives 1.2.........  Explosives A.         
Division 1.3...........  Explosives 1.3.........  Explosives B.         
Division 1.4...........  Explosives 1.4.........  Dangerous.            
Division 1.5...........  Explosives 1.5.........  Blasting agents.      
Division 1.6...........  Explosives 1.6.........  Dangerous.            
Division 2.1...........  Flammable gas..........  Flammable gas.        
Division 2.2...........  Nonflammable gas.......  Nonflammable gas.     
Division 2.3...........  Poison gas.............  Poison gas.           
Class 3................  Flammable..............  Flammable.            
Combustible liquid.....  Combustible............  Combustible.          
Division 4.1...........  Flammable solid........  Flammable solid.      
Division 4.2...........  Spontaneously            Flammable solid.      
                          combustible.                                  
Division 4.3...........  Dangerous when wet.....  Flammable solid W.    
Division 5.1...........  Oxidizer...............  Oxidizer.             
Division 5.2...........  Organic peroxide.......  Organic peroxide.     
Division 6.1, PG I       Poison inhalation        Poison.               
 (Zone A and B,           hazard.                                       
 inhalation hazard).                                                    
Division 6.1, PG I and   Poison.................  Poison.               
 II (other than Zone A                                                  
 and B).                                                                
Division 6.1, PG III...  Keep away from food....  (None required).      
Class 7................  Radioactive............  Radioactive.          
Class 8................  Corrosive..............  Corrosive.            
Class 9................  Class 9................  (None required).      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 172-- HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS 
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE

INFORMATION, AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

    6. The authority citation for Part 172 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1805, 1808; 49 CFR Part 1, 
unless otherwise noted.

    7. In Sec. 172.302, paragraph (g) would be added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.302  General marking requirements for bulk packagings.

* * * * *
    (g) A rail car, freight container, truck body or trailer in which 
the lading has been fumigated with any material, or is undergoing 
fumigation, must be marked as specified in Sec. 173.9 of this 
subchapter.
    8. In Sec. 172.313, paragraph (c) would be added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.313  Poisonous hazardous materials.

* * * * *
    (c) A transport vehicle or freight container loaded with more than 
400 Kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of packages containing a 
material poisonous by inhalation shall be marked as required by 
Sec. 172.332 with the identification number specified for the material, 
in the Sec. 172.101 Table, on each side and each end of the transport 
vehicle or freight container.
    9. Section 172.323 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 172.323  Truckload and carload quantities of hazardous materials 
in non-bulk packages.

    A transport vehicle or freight container containing a truckload or 
carload quantity of non-bulk packages containing hazardous material 
having a single identification number must be marked with the 
identification number specified for the hazardous material in the 
Sec. 172.101 Table on a placard, orange panel or plain white square-on-
point configuration as specified in Secs. 172.332 or 172.336, as 
appropriate. This section does not apply to packages containing ORM-D 
materials or limited quantities of hazardous materials excepted from 
identification number marking requirements by Sec. 172.301(f)(1).
    10. In Sec. 172.328, paragraph (a)(3) would be added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.328  Cargo tanks.

    (a) * * *
    (3) For a cargo tank transported on or in a transport vehicle or 
freight container, if the identification number marking on the cargo 
tank required by Sec. 172.302(a) is not visible, the transport vehicle 
or freight container must be marked as required by Sec. 172.332 on each 
side and each end with the identification number specified for the 
material in the Sec. 172.101 Table.
* * * * *
    11. In Sec. 172.331, paragraph (c) would be added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.331  Bulk packagings other than portable tanks, cargo tanks, 
tank cars and multi-unit tank car tanks.

* * * * *
    (c) For a bulk packaging contained in or on a transport vehicle or 
freight container, if the identification number marking on the bulk 
packaging required by Sec. 172.302(a) is not visible, the transport 
vehicle or freight container must be marked as required by Sec. 172.332 
on each side and each end with the identification number specified for 
the material in the Sec. 172.101 Table.
    12. In Sec. 172.332, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.332  Identification number markings.

    (a) General. When required by Secs. 172.302, 172.313, 172.323, 
172.326, 172.328, 172.330, or 172.331 of this subpart, identification 
numbers must be displayed on orange panels or placards as specified in 
this section or, when appropriate, on white square-on-point 
configurations as prescribed in Sec. 172.336(b).
* * * * *
    13. In Sec. 172.400, the table of label designations in paragraph 
(b) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 172.400  General labeling requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Label  
                                                               design or
   Hazard class or division               Label name            section 
                                                               reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.1...............    172.411
1.2...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.2...............    172.411
1.3...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.3...............    172.411
1.4...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.4...............    172.411
1.5...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.5...............    172.411
1.6...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.6...............    172.411
2.1...........................  FLAMMABLE GAS................    172.417
2.2...........................  NONFLAMMABLE GAS.............    172.415
2.3...........................  POISON GAS...................    172.416
3 (flammable liquid)..........  FLAMMABLE LIQUID.............    172.419
Combustible liquid............  (None).......................  .........
4.1...........................  FLAMMABLE SOLID..............    172.420
4.2...........................  SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE....    172.422
4.3...........................  DANGEROUS WHEN WET...........    172.423
5.1...........................  OXIDIZER.....................    172.426
5.2...........................  ORGANIC PEROXIDE.............    172.427
6.1 (Packing Group I, Zone A    POISON INHALATION HAZARD.....    172.429
 and B).                                                                
6.1 (Packing Groups I and II,   POISON.......................    172.430
 other than inhalation hazard).                                         
6.1 (Packing Group III).......  KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD..........    172.431
6.2...........................  INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE\1\......    172.432
7 (see Sec. 172.403)..........  RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I..........    172.436
7.............................  RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-II........    172.438
7.............................  RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-III.......    172.440
7 (empty packages, see Sec.     EMPTY........................    172.450
 173.427).                                                              
8.............................  CORROSIVE....................    172.442
9.............................  CLASS 9......................    172.446
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The ETIOLOGIC AGENT label specified in regulations of the Department 
  of Health and Human Services at 42 CFR 72.3 may apply to packages of  
  infectious substances.                                                

    14. Section 172.416 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 172.416  POISON GAS label.

    (a) Except for size and color, the POISON GAS label must be as 
follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.011

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
    (b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.407, the background on 
the POISON GAS label and the symbol must be white. The background of 
the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of the upper 
diamond must be 14 mm (0.54 inches) above the horizontal center line.
    15. Section 172.429 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 172.429  POISON INHALATION HAZARD label.

    (a) Except for size and color, the POISON INHALATION HAZARD label 
must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.012

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
    (b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.407, the background on 
the POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and the symbol must be white. The 
background of the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of 
the upper diamond must be 14 mm (0. 54 inches) above the horizontal 
center line.
    16. In Sec. 172.502, paragraph (a)(2) would be revised and 
paragraph (b)(3) would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 172.502  Prohibited and permissive placarding.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Any sign, advertisement, slogan (such as ``Drive Safely''), or 
other device that, by its color, design, shape or content, could be 
confused with any placard prescribed in this subpart.
    (b) * * *
    (3) The restrictions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section do not 
apply until October 1, 1997 to a safety sign or safety slogan (e.g., 
``Drive Safely'' or ``Drive Carefully''), which was permanently marked, 
on or before October 1, 1994, on a transport vehicle, bulk packaging, 
or freight container.
* * * * *
    17. In Sec. 172.504, paragraph (f)(11) would be added, the heading 
and introductory text to paragraph (c) would be revised, and paragraphs 
(b), (c)(1), and (e) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 172.504  General placarding requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) DANGEROUS placard. A freight container, unit load device, or 
transport vehicle, which contains non-bulk packages with two or more 
categories of hazardous materials that require different placards 
specified in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section, may be placarded 
with DANGEROUS placards instead of the separate placarding specified 
for each of the materials in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section. 
However, when 1000 kg (2,205 pounds) aggregate gross weight or more of 
one category of material is loaded therein at one loading facility on a 
freight container, unit load device, or transport vehicle, the placard 
specified in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section for that category 
must be applied.
    (c) Exception for 400 kg (882 pounds) or less. Except for bulk 
packagings and hazardous materials subject to Sec. 172.505, when 
hazardous materials covered by Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section 
are transported by highway or rail, placards are not required on--
    (1) A transport vehicle or freight container which contains 400 kg 
(882 pounds) or less aggregate gross weight of hazardous materials 
covered by Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section; or
* * * * *
    (e) Placarding tables. Placards are specified for hazardous 
materials in accordance with the following tables:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Placard 
 Category of material (hazard                                    design 
 class or division number and           Placard name            section 
  additional description, as                                   reference
         appropriate)                                           (Sec. ) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.1...............    172.522
1.2...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.2...............    172.522
1.3...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.3...............    172.522
2.3...........................  POISON GAS...................    172.540
4.3...........................  DANGEROUS WHEN WET...........    172.548
5.2 (Organic peroxide, Type B,  ORGANIC PEROXIDE.............    172.552
 liquid or solid, temperature                                           
 controlled).                                                           
6.1 (PG I, inhalation hazard,   POISON INHALATION HAZARD.....    172.555
 Zone A and B).                                                         
7 (Radioactive Yellow III       RADIOACTIVE\1\...............   172.556 
 label only).                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\RADIOACTIVE placard also required for exclusive use shipments of low 
  specific activity material in accordance with Sec. 173.425(b) or (c)  
  of this subchapter.                                                   


                                 Table 2                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Placard 
 Category of material (hazard                                    design 
 class or division number and            Placard name           section 
  additional description, as                                   reference
         appropriate)                                           (Sec. ) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.4...............    172.523
1.5...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.5...............    172.524
1.6...........................  EXPLOSIVES 1.6...............    172.525
2.1...........................  FLAMMABLE GAS................    172.532
2.2...........................  NON-FLAMMABLE GAS............    172.538
3.............................  FLAMMABLE....................    172.542
Combustible liquid............  COMBUSTIBLE..................    172.544
4.1...........................  FLAMMABLE SOLID..............    172.546
4.2...........................  SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE....    172.547
5.1...........................  OXIDIZER.....................    172.550
5.2 (Other than organic         ORGANIC PEROXIDE.............    172.552
 peroxide, Type B, liquid or                                            
 solid, temperature                                                     
 controlled).                                                           
6.1 (PG I or II, other than PG  POISON.......................    172.554
 I inhalation hazard).                                                  
6.1 (PG III)..................  KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD..........    172.553
6.2...........................  (None).......................  .........
8.............................  CORROSIVE....................    172.558
9.............................  CLASS 9......................    172.560
ORM-D.........................  (None).......................  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) * * *
    (11) For domestic transportation, a POISON placard is not required 
on a transport vehicle or freight container required to display a 
POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS placard.
* * * * *
    18. In Sec. 172.505, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 172.505  Placarding for subsidiary hazards.

    (a) Each transport vehicle, freight container, portable tank or 
unit load device that contains a poisonous material subject to the 
``Poison-Inhalation Hazard'' shipping description of Sec. 172.203(m)(3) 
must be placarded with a POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS 
placard, as appropriate, on each side and each end, in addition to any 
other placard required for that material in Sec. 172.504. Duplication 
of the POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS placard is not required.
* * * * *


Sec. 172.510  [Amended]

    19. In Sec. 172.510, the following changes would be made:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2), the words ``POISON GAS or POISON'' would be 
replaced with the words ``POISON GAS or POISON INHALATION HAZARD''.
    b. In paragraph (a)(3), the term ``POISON-RESIDUE'' would be 
replaced by the words ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD-RESIDUE''.
    c. Paragraph (d) would be removed and reserved.
    d. In paragraph (e), the words ``POISON GAS or POISON'' would be 
replaced by the words ``POISON GAS or POISON INHALATION HAZARD''.
    20. Section 172.540 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 172.540  POISON GAS placard.

    (a) Except for size and color, the POISON GAS placard must be as 
follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.013

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
    (b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.519, the background on 
the POISON GAS placard and the symbol must be white. The background of 
the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of the upper 
diamond must be 38 mm (1-1/2 inches) above the horizontal center line. 
The text, class number, and inner border must be black.
    21. Section 172.555 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 172.555  POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard.

    (a) Except for size and color, the POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard 
must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-p

TP15AU94.014

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C
    (b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.519, the background on 
the POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard and the symbol must be white. The 
background of the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of 
the upper diamond must be 38 mm (1-1/2 inches) above the horizontal 
center line. The text, class number, and inner border must be black.
    22. In Sec. 172.602, the introductory text to paragraph (c) and 
paragraph (c)(1) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 172.602  Emergency response information.

* * * * *
    (c) Maintenance of information. Emergency response information 
shall be made readily available to authorities, including emergency 
response personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving 
hazardous materials, or inspection and must be maintained as follows:
    (1) Carriers. Each carrier who transports a hazardous material 
shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section and Sec. 172.606 in the same manner as prescribed for shipping 
papers, except that the information must be maintained in the same 
manner aboard aircraft as the notification of pilot-in-command, and 
aboard vessels in the same manner as the dangerous cargo manifest. This 
information must be immediately accessible to train crew personnel, 
drivers of motor vehicles, flight crew members, and bridge personnel on 
vessels for use in the event of incidents involving hazardous 
materials.
* * * * *
    23. Section 172.606 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 172.606  Carrier information contact.

    Each carrier who transports or accepts a hazardous material for 
which shipping papers are required for transportation--
    (a) Shall instruct the operator of a motor vehicle, train, 
aircraft, or vessel to contact the carrier (e.g., by telephone or 
mobile radio) in the event of an accident or incident involving 
hazardous materials.
    (b) For a transport vehicle for which shipping papers are required 
which is separated from its motive power and parked at other than a 
consignee's, consignor's, or carrier's facility shall--
    (1) Meet the emergency response information requirements for 
facility operators specified in Sec. 172.602(c)(1);
    (2) Mark the transport vehicle with the telephone number of the 
motor carrier on the front of the transport vehicle near the electrical 
equipment and brake hose connections; or
    (3) Have the shipping papers and emergency response information 
readily available on the transport vehicle.

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND 
PACKAGINGS

    24. The authority citation for Part 173 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 
1817; 49 CFR Part 1, unless otherwise noted.

    25. Section 173.9 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 173.9  Transport vehicles or freight containers containing lading 
which has been fumigated.

    (a) For the purpose of this section, a rail car, freight container, 
truck body, or trailer in which the lading has been fumigated with any 
material, or is undergoing fumigation, is a package containing a 
hazardous material, unless the transport vehicle or freight container 
has been sufficiently aerated so that it does not pose an unreasonable 
risk to health and safety or property.
    (b) No person may offer for transportation or transport a rail car, 
freight container, truck body, or trailer in which the lading has been 
fumigated or treated with any material, or is undergoing fumigation, 
unless the FUMIGANT marking specified in paragraph (c) of this section 
is prominently displayed so that it can be seen by any person 
attempting to enter the interior of the transport vehicle or freight 
container. For domestic transportation, a hazard warning label 
authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 156 may be used as an alternative 
to the FUMIGANT marking.
    (c) FUMIGANT marking. (1) The FUMIGANT marking must consist of red 
letters on a white background that is at least 30 cm (11.8 inches) wide 
and at least 25 cm (9.8 inches) high. Except for size and color, the 
FUMIGANT marking must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.026


    (2) The ``*'' shall be replaced with the technical name of the 
fumigant.
    (d) No person may affix or display on a rail car, freight 
container, truck body, or trailer (a package) the FUMIGANT marking 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless the lading has been 
fumigated or is undergoing fumigation.
    (e) No person may offer for transportation or transport a rail car, 
freight container, truck body, or trailer which displays the FUMIGANT 
marking following:
    (1) Unloading of the fumigated lading.
    (2) Sufficient aeration of the transport vehicle or freight 
container to assure that it does not pose an unreasonable risk to 
health and safety or property.
    (f) For international shipments, transport documents should 
indicate the date of fumigation, type and amount of fumigant used, and 
instructions for disposal of any residual fumigant, including 
fumigation devices.
    (g) Any person that offers for transportation or transports a rail 
car, freight container, truck body, or trailer that is subject to the 
HMR solely because of the hazardous materials designation specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section is not subject to any requirements of 
this subchapter, except:
    (1) The requirements of this section; and
    (2) Training requirements specified in Subpart H of Part 172 of 
this subchapter.
    26. In Sec. 173.29, paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 173.29  Empty packagings.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Any hazardous material shipping name and identification number 
markings, any hazard warning labels or placards, and any other markings 
indicating that the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION HAZARD) 
are removed, obliterated, or securely covered in transportation. This 
provision does not apply to transportation in a transport vehicle or a 
freight container if the packaging is not visible during transportation 
and the packaging is loaded by the shipper and unloaded by the shipper 
or consignee;
* * * * *

PART 174-- CARRIAGE BY RAIL

    27. The authority citation for Part 174 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1808; 49 CFR 1.53(e), 
1.53, App. A to Part 1.

    28. In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 174.25, the placard endorsement 
table would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 174.25  Additional information on waybills, switching orders and 
other billings.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * * 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Placard    
      Class/Division             Placard notation          endorsement  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 1.1..............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES        Explosives.     
                             1.1\1\.                                    
Division 1.2..............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES        Explosives.     
                             1.2\1\.                                    
Division 1.1 or 1.2, and    Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.1    Explosives and  
 Div. 2.3\2\ (chemical       or EXPLOSIVES 1.2, and      poison gas.    
 ammunition).                POISON GAS\1\.                             
Diivision 1.3.............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.3..  Dangerous.      
Division 1.4..............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.4..  Dangerous.      
Division 1.5..............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.5..  Dangerous.      
Division 1.6..............  Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.6..  (None).         
Division 2.1..............  Placarded FLAMMABLE GAS...  Dangerous.      
Division 2.2..............  Placarded NON-FLAMMABLE     Dangerous.      
                             GAS.                                       
Division 2.3 Zone A\2\....  Placarded POISON GAS.\1\..  Poison gas Zone 
                                                         A.             
Division 2.3 (other than    Placarded POISON GAS......  Dangerous.      
 Zone A).                                                               
Class 3...................  Placarded FLAMMABLE.......  Dangerous.      
Combustible liquid........  Placarded COMBUSTIBLE.....  (None).         
Division 4.1..............  Placarded FLAMMABLE SOLID.  Dangerous.      
Division 4.2..............  Placarded SPONTANEOUSLY     Dangerous.      
                             COMBUSTIBLE.                               
Division 4.3..............  Placarded DANGEROUS WHEN    Dangerous.      
                             WET.                                       
Division 5.1..............  Placarded OXIDIZER........  Dangerous.      
Division 5.2..............  Placarded ORGANIC PEROXIDE  Dangerous.      
Division 6.1 PG I Zone      Placarded POISON            Poison PG I Zone
 A\2\.                       INHALATION HAZARD\1\.       A.             
Division 6.1 PG I Zone      Placarded POISON            Poison PG I Zone
 B\2\.                       INHALATION HAZARD.          B.             
Division 6.1 PG I and II    Placarded POISON..........  Dangerous.      
 (other than PG 1 Zone A                                                
 and B).                                                                
6.1 (PG III)..............  Placarded KEEP AWAY FROM    (None).         
                             FOOD.                                      
Class 7...................  Placarded RADIOACTIVE.....  Radioactive     
                                                         material.      
Class 8...................  Placarded CORROSIVE.......  Dangerous.      
Class 9...................  Placarded CLASS 9.........  (None).         
ORM-D.....................  (None)....................  (None).         
Mixed loads of hazardous    Placarded DANGEROUS.......  Dangerous.      
 materials placarded                                                    
 DANGEROUS.                                                             
Tank cars which contain a   See Sec. 174.25(c)........  Dangerous.      
 residue of a hazardous                                                 
 mateial other than a                                                   
 combustible liquid.                                                    
Tank cars which contain a   See Sec. 174.25(c)........  (None).         
 residue of a combustible                                               
 liquid, a residue of a                                                 
 6.1 PG III material, or a                                              
 residue of a Class 9                                                   
 material.                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Use of square background required (See Sec. 172.510(a) of this       
  subchapter).                                                          
\2\Identified as required in Sec. 172.203(m)(3) of this subchapter.     

* * * * *
    29. Section 174.26, would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 174.26  Notice to train crews of placarded cars.

    (a) At each terminal or other place where trains are made up or 
switched by crews other than train crews accompanying the outbound 
movement of cars, the carrier shall execute consecutively numbered 
notices showing the location in each train of each rail car placarded 
EXPLOSIVES 1.1 or 1.2 (EXPLOSIVES A), POISON GAS (Division 2.3, Hazard 
Zone A only) or POISON INHALATION HAZARD (Division 6.1, PG I, Hazard 
Zone A only) on a square background. A copy of each notice must be 
delivered to the train and engine crew concerned, and a copy thereof 
showing delivery to the train and engine crew must be kept on file by 
the carrier at each point where the notice is given. At points where 
train or engine crews are changed, the notice must be transferred from 
crew to crew. See paragraph (b) of this section for other placarded 
cars.
    (b) The train crew must have a document that reflects the current 
position in the train of each rail car containing a hazardous material. 
An updated train consist may be used to meet this requirement.
    (c) A member of the train crew of a train transporting a hazardous 
material shall possess a copy of the shipping papers for the shipment 
of hazardous materials being transported showing the information 
required by Secs. 172.202 and 172.203 and Sec. 172.602 of this 
subchapter. The shipping paper information must be made readily 
available to authorities, including emergency response personnel, in 
the event of an accident, incident involving the hazardous materials, 
or inspection.
    30. In Sec. 174.680, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 174.680  Division 6.1 (poisonous) materials with foodstuffs.

    (a) A carrier may not transport any package bearing a POISON or 
POISON INHALATION HAZARD label in the same car with any material marked 
as or known to be a foodstuff, feed, or any other edible material 
intended for consumption by humans or animals.
* * * * *

PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT

    31. The authority citation for Part 175 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1807, 1808, 49 CFR Part 1.

    32. In Sec. 175.33, the first sentence of paragraph (b) would be 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 175.33  Notification of pilot-in-command.

* * * * *
    (b) A copy of the written notification of pilot-in-command shall be 
readily available to the pilot-in-command during flight and a copy must 
be made readily available to authorities, including emergency response 
personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving the 
hazardous material, or inspection. * * *
    33. Section 175.630 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 175.630  Special requirements for Division 6.1 (poisonous) 
material and Division 6.2 (infectious substance) material.

    (a) A hazardous material bearing a POISON, POISON INHALATION 
HAZARD, KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD, or INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE label may not be 
carried in the same compartment of an aircraft with material which is 
marked as or known to be a foodstuff, feed, or any other edible 
material intended for consumption by humans or animals unless either 
the Division 6.1 (poisonous) material or material in Division 6.2 
(infectious substance) and the foodstuff, feed, or other edible 
material are loaded in separate unit load devices which, when stowed on 
the aircraft, are not adjacent to each other, or the Division 6.1 
(poisonous) material or material in Division 6.2 (infectious substance) 
are loaded in one closed unit load device and the foodstuff, feed or 
other material is loaded in another closed unit load device.
    (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has been used to 
transport any package bearing a POISON or POISON INHALATION HAZARD 
label unless, upon removal of such package, the area in the aircraft in 
which it was carried is visually inspected for evidence of leakage, 
spillage, or other contamination. All contamination discovered must be 
either isolated or removed from the aircraft. The operation of an 
aircraft contaminated with such Division 6.1 (poisonous) materials is 
considered to be the carriage of poisonous materials under paragraph 
(a) of this section.

PART 176--CARRIAGE BY VESSEL

    34. The authority citation for Part 176 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1805, 1808; 49 CFR Part 
1.53. App. A to Part 1.

    35. In Sec. 176.30, the third sentence of paragraph (a) 
introductory text would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 176.30  Dangerous cargo manifest.

    (a) * * * This document must be kept in a designated holder on or 
near the vessel's bridge and must be made readily available to 
authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of an 
accident, incident involving materials listed on the manifest, or 
inspection. * * *
* * * * *
    36. In Sec. 176.600, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 176.600  General stowage requirement.

    (a) Each package required to have a POISON GAS, POISON INHALATION 
HAZARD, or POISON label thereon being transported on a vessel must be 
stowed clear of living quarters and any ventilation ducts serving 
living quarters and separate from foodstuffs.
* * * * *

PART 177--CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC HIGHWAY

    37. The authority citation for Part 177 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1805; 49 CFR Part 1.


Sec. 177.817  [Amended]

    38. In the introductory text of paragraph (e) of Sec. 177.817, the 
phrase ``authorities in the event of accident or inspection.'' would be 
replaced with the phrase ``authorities, including emergency response 
personnel, in the event of accident, incident involving a hazardous 
material, or inspection.''.
    39. In Sec. 177.841, paragraph (e) introductory text would be 
republished and paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) would be revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 177.841  Division 6.1 (poisonous) and Division 2.3 (poisonous gas) 
materials.

* * * * *
    (e) A motor carrier may not transport a package:
    (1) Bearing a POISON or POISON INHALATION HAZARD label in the same 
motor vehicle with material that is marked as or known to be a 
foodstuff, feed or edible material intended for consumption by humans 
or animals unless the inside package is overpacked in a liquid-tight 
and dust proof container identified as package 4000 in the National 
Motor Freight Classification 100-1 or is overpacked in a metal drum as 
specified in Sec. 173.25(c) of this subchapter;
    (2) Bearing or required to bear a POISON, POISON GAS or POISON 
INHALATION HAZARD label in the driver's compartment (including a 
sleeper berth) of a motor vehicle; or
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC on August 4, 1994, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR Part 106, Appendix A.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 94-19490 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P