[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