[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25159]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 12, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Highway Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Part 397




Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Highway Routing; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 397

[FHWA Docket No. MC-92-6]
RIN 2125-AC80

 
Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Highway Routing

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is adopting regulations to implement subsections 105 
(b) and (c) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 
(HMTA) as amended by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform 
Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA). The regulations include Federal standards 
and procedures which the States and Indian tribes must follow if they 
establish, maintain, or enforce routing designations that (1) specify 
highway routes over which placarded non-radioactive hazardous materials 
(NRHM) may and may not be transported within their jurisdictions, and/
or (2) impose limitations or requirements with respect to highway 
routing of such hazardous materials. Included are amendments to the 
procedures in 49 CFR part 397, subpart E, relating to Federal 
preemption and waivers of preemption, and new procedures for the 
resolution of disputes involving State or Indian tribe NRHM routing 
designations. States and Indian tribes are also required to furnish 
updated NRHM route information for publication by the FHWA. The 
existing motor carrier regulations with NRHM routing requirements have 
been incorporated into this regulation, along with the new requirements 
which require motor carriers to comply with the NRHM routing 
designations of States and Indian tribes. The intent of these 
requirements is to ensure that NRHM are moved safely and that commerce 
is not burdened by restrictive, uncoordinated, or conflicting 
requirements of various jurisdictions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pamela K. Deadrick, Hazardous 
Materials Routing and Special Studies Branch (HHS-13), Office of 
Highway Safety, (202) 366-8788; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of 
Chief Counsel (HCC-20), (202) 366-0834, Federal Highway Administration, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Office hours are 
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except for 
legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 16, 1990, the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244) 
was enacted and amended the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 
1975 (HMTA) (Pub. L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2156). The FHWA was delegated the 
responsibility by the Secretary, as published in the Federal Register 
(56 FR 31343, July 10, 1991; 49 CFR 1.48), to implement subsections 105 
(b) and (c) of the HMTA (now codified at 49 U.S.C. Secs. 5112 and 5125 
(1994), Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745). This included the rulemaking 
and program responsibility for hazardous materials highway routing, 
with the exception of currently pending applications for inconsistency 
rulings and non-preemption determinations which remain a responsibility 
of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA).
    Section 5112(b) of title 49, United States Code, requires the 
Secretary to establish by regulation standards for States and Indian 
tribes to use in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing these routing 
designations. These Federal standards shall provide for enhancement of 
safety; public participation; transportation of hazardous materials 
between adjacent areas; consultation with other States, Indian tribal 
and local governments; through highway routing; reasonable time to 
reach agreement between affected States or Indian tribes; avoidance of 
unreasonable burden on commerce; timely establishment of State and 
Indian tribe routing; reasonable routes to terminals and other 
facilities; State responsibility for local compliance; and a number of 
``factors'' for States and Indian tribes to consider. Section 
5112(b)(2) prohibits the Secretary from assigning specific weights to 
the ``factors to consider'' in the Federal standards, but Sections 
5125(c) and 5112(d) do provide for Federal preemption and dispute 
resolution of State and Indian tribe routing designations to allow for 
consistent application of the Federal standards among adjacent 
jurisdictions.
    Section 5112(c) also requires the Secretary, in coordination with 
the States, to periodically update and publish a list of currently 
effective hazardous materials highway route designations.
    The FHWA recognizes that 49 CFR 177.810 exempts State and local 
regulations and ordinances regarding the kind, character, or quantity 
of any hazardous material, except radioactive materials, transported 
through urban tunnels used for mass transportation from parts 170 to 
189 of the hazardous materials regulations. However, this section does 
not exempt State, Indian tribes and local governments from having to 
comply with the routing regulations applicable to the transportation of 
Class 7 (radioactive) materials (49 CFR 397, subpart D) or the routing 
regulations established herein. Therefore, tunnel routing designations 
are now subject to the same Federal standards and procedures as are 
other highway routing designations.
    To assist the States and local governments in the development of 
routes, the DOT published ``Guidelines for Selecting Preferred Highway 
Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive 
Materials'' (latest edition DOT/RSPA/OHMT-89/01 dated August 1992) and 
``Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting 
Hazardous Materials'' (latest edition DOT/RSPA/OHMT-89-02 dated July 
1989). The latter publication is being updated to provide guidance on 
the Federal standards in this regulation. Both guides are useful in 
developing highway routing requirements for hazardous materials. These 
documents are available to the public through the National Technical 
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 21661.
    The FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of 
public hearings entitled ``Transportation of Hazardous Materials; 
Highway Routing'' in the Federal Register on August 31, 1992 (57 FR 
39522). The FHWA requested comments from any interested parties to be 
submitted to Docket MC-92-6 by October 30, 1992. In addition, the FHWA 
held four public hearings to solicit comments from interested parties 
in October at Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; San Francisco, 
California; and Rosemont, Illinois.

Discussion of Comments

    A total of fifty-six commenters responded to this proposed 
regulation by written submission to the docket and/or presentation at 
the public hearings. The commenters represented a total of fifty-two 
organizations, including twenty-seven commercial/trade affiliated 
organizations representing shippers and carriers, fourteen State 
government organizations, five local governments, three Federal 
agencies, one Indian tribe, one citizens' group, and one consulting 
firm.
    Nineteen commenters supported and eight opposed the overall format 
and/or intent of the proposed regulations. The remaining commenters did 
not express overall opposition or support for the regulation but did 
comment on specific parts of the regulation. Fifty-four commenters 
discussed details of the proposed rule, and many recommended changes to 
various aspects of the rule. The following topics were of main concern.

Definitions

    Definitions were discussed by fifteen commenters who recommended 
clarification of some definitions and additional definitions for some 
terms used in the regulation. These comments were submitted from eight 
members of the shipper-carrier industry, four States, one local 
government, one Federal agency and a citizens' group.
    Nine commenters recommended clarification of the definition of 
``routing designations.'' The main concern was that routing 
designations broadly defined could include licenses, permits, bonds, 
and other restrictions or requirements which might not be route-
specific. In response to these concerns, the FHWA has clarified routing 
designations to include route-specific features, such as: designations 
of routes, restrictions on routes, curfews/time-of-travel restrictions 
on routes, lane restrictions, routing bans, port-of-entry requirements, 
and weight restrictions on routes which are specifically related to 
NRHM. Common State, Indian tribal, or local regulatory requirements are 
not ``routing designations'' when they are not route specific. These 
can include fee, bonding/insurance, notice, escort, permit, 
registration, inspection, and communication requirements which are 
generally applied to entire jurisdictions rather than specific highway 
routes. Such jurisdictional restrictions are not covered under this 
regulation. Their possible preemption is determined by the RSPA, not 
the FHWA. Other restrictions on motor vehicles that are not specific to 
the transportation of hazardous materials, such as height, weight, or 
width restrictions for roads and bridges, or prohibitions on the use of 
downtown streets by trucks over certain sizes, are not affected by this 
regulation.

Motor Carrier Responsibilities for Routing

    Five commenters recommended clarifying the applicability of the 
rule to placarded and marked vehicles. These commenters were concerned 
that the regulation would be applicable to placarded NRHM transport 
while other motor carrier regulations are applicable to both placarded 
and marked NRHM transport. The FHWA has amended Sec. 397.67(b), which 
deals with the motor carriers responsibilities, to include motor 
vehicles that are marked or placarded.
    One State recommended that reasonable deviation cover highway and 
law enforcement situations that require a driver to take an alternative 
route. The FHWA agreed with this recommendation and amended 
Sec. 397.67(b)(3) to provide for highway agency detours, such as in 
work zones, and law enforcement situations.
    The FHWA also amended the terms ``Class A or Class B explosives'' 
to ``Explosives, in Class 1, Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3'' so as to be 
consistent with the current terminology in the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (49 CFR 171-180).

Quantities of NRHM

    Four commenters recommended limiting the placarded quantity and 
type of NRHM for which the regulation applied, such as to bulk rather 
than to vehicles transporting small individual cylinders of hazardous 
materials. The FHWA did not adopt this recommendation because 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 5112(a)(1) requires that the highway routing regulations apply to 
a vehicle if such vehicle is transporting in commerce a hazardous 
material for which placarding of the vehicle is required. This section 
authorized the Secretary of Transportation to extend application of the 
regulations to other hazardous materials, but did not authorize 
limiting their application to only ``in bulk'' hazardous materials.

Factors

    Twenty-four commenters discussed the factors which States and 
Indian tribes must consider in developing NRHM routing designations. 
These commenters included twelve shippers and carriers, four States, 
three local governments, three Federal agencies, one citizens' group 
and one consulting firm. Eleven commenters recommended clarification of 
the factors and development of specific measures or benchmarks by which 
the factors could be evaluated. These commenters were concerned that 
the factors can be applied differently by various jurisdictions, 
resulting in different routing designations. Sixteen commenters 
indicated that specific risk criteria should be considered more 
important than the other factors, while seven commenters recommended 
the Federal government establish minimum criteria for each of the 
factors. The FHWA declined to adopt these recommendations because the 
HMTUSA specifically provided the States and Indian tribes with the 
flexibility to determine how each standard should be applied.
    Five commenters mentioned the importance of providing updated 
Federal guidelines for analyzing the factors; five commenters 
recommended additional factors, including accident histories, the use 
of tunnels, and hours of service for drivers; and several commenters 
recommended clarification of the terms ``unreasonably burden 
commerce,'' ``climatic conditions,'' and ``congestion factors.'' In 
response to these comments, the FHWA revised several of the factors. 
The factor on ``terrain considerations'' was amended to include both 
accident severity and clean up of spills; ``alternative routes'' was 
amended to specifically consider safety; ``climatic conditions'' was 
amended to provide examples, such as snow, high winds, ice, and fog; 
and ``consideration of accident history'' was added to the congestion 
factor. Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of updating the 
guidelines for analyzing routing designations and intends to address 
each of the factors in the updated publication.

Grandfather Provision

    The notice of proposed rulemaking contained a section incorporating 
the grandfather clauses included in the HMTA as amended by the HMTUSA. 
One clause provides that routing designations established before 
November 16, 1990, are not required to comply with the factors 
discussed in Sec. 397.71 of the regulation. Another clause provides 
that the routing designations established before the date of issuance 
of these regulations do not have to be in accordance with the routing 
standards dealing with public participation, consultation with other 
jurisdictions, and timeliness.
    The FHWA received numerous comments from the public expressing 
their concern that incorporation of these grandfather clauses in the 
regulation resulted in unnecessary confusion. The FHWA agrees. A strict 
reading of the grandfather clauses would make the factors established 
in this regulation retroactively applicable to routing designations 
established after enactment of the HMTUSA on November 16, 1990. It 
would be impracticable and unduly burdensome on the States and Indian 
tribes to interpret the statute in such a manner. The FHWA would be 
applying to these routing designations factors that did not exist in 
Federal regulations at that time. As a result, the FHWA has decided to 
apply the factors established in this final rule prospectively from 30 
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    This action should not be interpreted to mean that the routing 
designations established prior to the publication of the final rule are 
not subject to Federal preemption. These routing designations are still 
subject to Federal preemption under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5125(a), if--

    (1) Complying with a requirement of the State, political 
subdivision, or tribe and a requirement of this chapter or a 
regulation prescribed under this chapter is not possible; or
    (2) The requirement of the State, political subdivision, or 
tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing and 
carrying out this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this 
chapter.

Jurisdictional Coordination

    Twenty-two commenters addressed the issue of jurisdictional 
coordination between Federal, State, Indian tribal, and local 
governments in the routing designation process. These commenters 
included ten members of the shipper-carrier industry, eight States, two 
local governments, one Federal agency, and one consulting firm. 
Fourteen commenters expressed concern about the role of the Federal 
government versus State and local governments. Many of the commenters 
did not recommend changes to the regulation but expressed their 
concerns about the administration of this regulation.
    Eleven commenters discussed the potential for conflicts between 
States, between local jurisdictions, and between States and local 
jurisdictions. Eight commenters were concerned that the required 
communications between States, Indian tribes, and local jurisdictions 
would not be adequately coordinated. The FHWA revised 
Sec. 397.71(b)(3)(i), dealing with consultation with others, to provide 
for better interagency coordination.
    Comments from shippers and carriers recommended increasing the 
State, Indian tribal, or local governments' burden in establishing and 
administering a routing designation. For example, their recommendations 
included requiring States to produce a risk analysis for each class of 
NRHM for a specific route designation and for each route designation 
that transfers risk from one jurisdiction to another. They also 
recommended that States develop consistent standards to be used by all 
local jurisdictions. State and local governments, on the other hand, 
expressed concerns about the proposed requirements that would be 
imposed on them in establishing and maintaining routing designations. 
These comments focused on the administrative burdens associated with 
the proposed requirements, such as those involving records maintenance, 
public hearings, and those that would require a finding that any 
routing designation would enhance public safety.
    The FHWA believes that the increased requirements proposed by the 
shipper and carrier industries would unduly burden State and local 
governments without producing a corresponding safety benefit. 
Similarly, the FHWA believes that the requirements proposed in the NPRM 
are the minimum necessary to ensure that States or Indian tribes 
adopting routing designations fully and fairly consider all of the 
factors required under the law. Accordingly, the FHWA is promulgating 
this final rule without a change in the proposed coordination 
requirements for establishing and administering route designations.
    Two commenters recommended that States or local governments be 
allowed to have varying standards which could differ based on the type 
and quantity of material involved. The FHWA believes that no changes 
are necessary since States are already provided the latitude to 
determine how the standards in this regulation or any additional 
standards a State or Indian tribe select are to be applied.

Dispute Resolution, Preemption, and Waivers of Preemption

    Preemption, waivers of preemption, and dispute resolution 
procedures were discussed by fourteen commenters. These commenters 
included nine members of the shipper-carrier industry, three States, 
one Federal agency, and one citizens' group. Four commenters addressed 
eligibility or standing to petition under the dispute resolution 
process, with three commenters recommending the local jurisdiction be 
eligible to participate in the dispute resolution process. The FHWA 
decided not to adopt these recommendations because the HMTUSA 
authorizes the FHWA only to resolve disputes between States and between 
States and Indian tribes. The FHWA believes that States will consider 
the views and concerns of local jurisdictions in formulating their 
positions on preemption and preemption waiver determinations. 
Additionally, the dispute resolution procedures provide affected local 
jurisdictions with notice and the opportunity to participate, through 
their State, in the process.
    Eight commenters addressed waiver of preemptions. Two suggested 
that local governments could use this process to circumvent State 
administration of routing designations, another recommended the FHWA 
prevent local governments from seeking a waiver of preemption when the 
State has disapproved the designation, and one remarked that the waiver 
of preemption process provides protection for jurisdictions where 
unique circumstances justify extraordinary routing measures. The FHWA 
has decided not to adopt these recommendations because it believes that 
the finding required by 49 CFR 397.219 (that the waived routing 
designation provide an equal or higher level of highway safety to the 
public without unreasonably burdening commerce) is sufficient to ensure 
that the waiver process is not used arbitrarily. Additionally, States 
are able to express their views as part of the process.
    Four commenters discussed the status of a routing designation 
pending a preemption determination, with three recommending the use of 
an administrative stay until the determination is issued. Another 
recommended the interim status of a routing designation be decided by 
the FHWA. Two commenters recommended an administrative appeals process. 
The FHWA believes no changes are necessary because the procedures in 49 
CFR part 397, subpart E, maintain the status of a highway routing 
pending a preemption determination and provide for administrative 
reconsideration and judicial review.
    The FHWA, in considering all the comments and the current 
provisions in subpart E of 49 CFR part 397, determined that the 
proposed provisions should be incorporated into the existing procedures 
in subpart E rather than being included as redundant procedures unique 
to this final rule. Consequently, Sec. 397.79 Preemption determination 
procedure; Sec. 397.81 Waivers of preemption; Sec. 397.85 Timeliness; 
and Sec. 397.87 Judicial review of preemption or waiver of preemption 
decision have been removed and this final rule has been amended to 
refer to the applicable sections of subpart E, and subpart E is amended 
to refer to the provisions of this final rule.

Public Notification

    Public notification procedures were discussed by twenty-nine 
commenters. This included seventeen members of the shipper-carrier 
industry, five States, three Federal agencies, two local governments, 
one citizens' group and one consulting firm. Thirteen commenters 
discussed public participation. Highway users tended to recommend more 
public notification through publications, such as newspapers or the 
Federal Register, while two government agencies recommended reducing 
the publication requirements because of costs. Additionally, five 
commenters discussed public hearing requirements and recommended 
providing an opportunity for a public hearing rather than requiring a 
public hearing. The FHWA has revised the regulation to grant States and 
Indian tribes discretion to hold public hearings on proposed NRHM 
routing designations after providing the public with notice and an 
opportunity to comment. The FHWA also believes publication of the 
notice for both the comment period and the public hearing, if one is 
held, to be most appropriately administered at the State and Indian 
tribe level, through publications, such as the official register of the 
State regulations, rather than through publication in the Federal 
Register.

Reporting of Routing Designations

    Ten commenters discussed the requirement for State and Indian 
tribes to report routing designations to the FHWA. The majority 
recommended the FHWA frequently publish new and existing route 
designations in the Federal Register. Several also recommended that 
States and Indian tribes, as a prerequisite, be required to report 
their intention to establish a route designation to the FHWA for 
publication in the Federal Register. Upon further review, the FHWA 
determined it would be more practical and appropriate to provide some 
form of current information on established routing designations; 
consequently, the FHWA is considering alternative methods, such as 
establishing an electronic bulletin board, to update and provide this 
information to the public in a timely manner along with publishing 
annual lists of routing designations in the Federal Register.

Signs, Maps and Lists of Routing Designations

    Ten commenters were concerned about the use and availability of 
road signs and maps. Highway users were generally in favor of requiring 
the use of road signs. They recommended that routing designations be 
enforceable only to the extent they are signed. Several States, notably 
California and Colorado, have successfully operated rather extensive 
and efficient routing systems through the use of lists and maps rather 
than signs. The requirement to sign all routing designations could also 
be a considerable administrative and economic burden for States which 
have or develop extensive routing designations. Therefore, the FHWA 
declines to adopt this suggestion.

Reasonable Routes to Terminals and Other Facilities

    Reasonable access to terminals and other facilities was discussed 
by fifteen commenters, including twelve shippers and carriers, one 
State, one Federal entity, and one local agency.
    Nine commenters representing shippers and carriers of fuels and 
farm supplies recommended more flexibility be provided for their 
products in designating route restrictions because many of their 
deliveries are local and unplanned. Seven of these commenters, mostly 
representing short-haul, irregular route carriers, recommended they be 
exempted from the proposed limits on reasonable access deviations, 
because they could impose a financial burden on them. The FHWA declined 
to adopt these recommendations because the HMTUSA was specific on 
providing the States and Indian tribes with the flexibility to 
accommodate local and special interests which may be unique to an 
area's geographic or commercial situation.
    Three government agencies recommended a larger maximum deviation 
distance, whereas three carriers recommended a shorter maximum 
deviation. In response to these comments, the FHWA amended 
Sec. 397.71(b)(7) by replacing the proposed requirement that such 
routes or deviations not exceed twice the distance of the most direct 
route with a requirement that States or Indian tribes which establish 
or provide for reasonable access to and from designated routes use the 
shortest practicable route based upon consideration of 13 factors 
listed in paragraph (b)(9) of that section.
    Several commenters recommended clarification of the applicability 
of reasonable access and through routing provisions to local 
deliveries. The FHWA revised the reasonable access provisions to also 
apply to pickup and deliveries.

Through Routing

    Through routing issues were discussed by twenty-seven commenters, 
including nineteen shippers and carriers, three Federal agencies, three 
States, one Indian tribe, and one citizens' action group. Fifteen 
commenters recommended a decrease in the maximum deviation distance and 
two commenters favored an increase to as much as twice the distance of 
the most direct route. Four commenters recommended elimination of 
percentage-based permissible routing deviations and suggested that 
consideration of the factors would be adequate. Three commenters also 
indicated that it was inappropriate to use an arbitrary percentage to 
determine the length of permissible deviations when such a percentage 
has no correlation to safety. Four commenters recommended clarifying 
how the maximum deviation limitation would be applied to each 
designated routing encountered during a trip or to the sum of all 
deviations contained in an entire trip. Seven commenters recommended 
clarifying the difference between through routing and reasonable routes 
to terminals and other facilities, and when the separate regulations 
are applicable. Several of the commenters recommended that deviations 
from through routing should only be implemented when the deviation is 
safer than the through route or at least as safe and not an 
unreasonable burden on commerce. The FHWA has revised the section on 
through routing to consider public safety and economic burden (rather 
than use only percentages and mileage measurements). The revised 
section provides a relationship between route deviations and public 
safety and requires that new routing designations have substantially 
lower relative risk than the current routing. When the relative risk of 
the routing deviation is not substantially lower, the potential 
economic effect becomes a significant factor.

Discussion of Final Rule

Purpose and Scope

    The FHWA is implementing the requirements of the HMTUSA in a new 
subpart C, Routing, in Part 397 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations. This regulation implements the requirements of the HMTUSA 
by establishing Federal standards and procedures which States and 
Indian tribes are required to follow if they establish, maintain, or 
enforce routing designations for the highway transportation of non-
radioactive hazardous materials. The intent of these requirements is to 
ensure that NRHM are moved safely and that commerce is not burdened by 
restrictive, uncoordinated, or conflicting requirements of various 
jurisdictions. The standards and requirements of this regulation, 
however, allow for the flexibility intended in the HMTUSA. The FHWA 
will not designate routes used for transporting NRHM. Any State or 
Indian tribe that chooses to establish, maintain, or enforce NRHM 
routing designations is required to comply with the Federal standards 
established in this regulation. The States and Indian tribes are also 
required to ensure that any NRHM routing designations by political 
subdivisions under their jurisdiction are established, maintained, and 
enforced in accordance with this regulation. Any NRHM routing 
designations that fail to comply with the standards can be preempted. 
Any State, political subdivision thereof, Indian tribe, business, 
organization, or individual affected by a NRHM routing designation can 
apply to the Federal Highway Administrator (Administrator) for a 
preemption determination pursuant to 49 CFR 397, subpart E, which 
contains procedures for Federal preemption determinations, waivers of 
preemptions, and petition for reconsideration. Procedures for dispute 
resolution are included in this final rule (49 CFR 397, subpart C).
    The regulations require States and Indian tribes to report existing 
NRHM routing designations within their boundaries to the FHWA and, 
thereafter, to report any additions or changes to these routing 
designations 60 days after the effective date of designation.

Applicability

    The provisions of this regulation are applicable to States, 
including any political subdivisions, and Indian tribes that establish, 
maintain, or enforce any highway routing designations over which 
placarded NRHM may or may not be transported. The regulation also 
contains several provisions which are applicable to motor carriers 
transporting NRHM.
    This regulation requires States, including political subdivisions, 
and Indian tribes to comply with Federal standards in establishing NRHM 
highway routing designations and to follow certain procedures. This 
regulation also requires States and Indian tribes that establish, 
maintain, or enforce routing designations to report these routing 
designations to the FHWA.

Motor Carrier Responsibility for Routing

    Motor carriers transporting NRHM as of the effective date of this 
regulation are required to comply with the NRHM routing designations of 
States or Indian tribes. Where States and Indian tribes have not 
established NRHM routing designations, motor carriers are required to 
operate in accordance with 49 CFR 397.67, previously set forth in 49 
CFR 397.9(a), over routes that avoid heavily populated areas, places 
where crowds are assembled, tunnels, narrow streets, or alleys. The 
routing plan requirements previously set forth in 49 CFR 397.9(b) for 
transporting Class 1 explosives, divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, as defined in 
49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53, have also been incorporated into the same 
section.
    The Federal regulations for highway routing of Class 7 
(radioactive) materials, 49 CFR 397, subpart D, remain unchanged by 
this regulation.

State and Indian Tribe Jurisdiction Over Routing

    States and Indian tribes are required to comply with this 
regulation if they impose routing designations for NRHM. If a political 
subdivision of a State wishes to impose NRHM routing designations, the 
State is required to ensure that the political subdivision follows 
these regulations, including coordination with and approval by the 
routing agency designated by the Governor. The State is responsible for 
all NRHM routing designations that local jurisdictions establish, 
including resolving any disputes between local jurisdictions. The 
regulation requires the States and Indian tribes to designate routing 
agencies who will be responsible for ensuring that all NRHM routing 
designations are made in accordance, and substantively comply, with the 
procedural requirements of the Federal standards.

Procedures for States and Indian Tribes

1. Federal Standards
    This regulation establishes standards which closely follow the 
specific requirements of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5112(b) and include procedures 
for States and Indian tribes to follow if they impose routing 
designations for NRHM transportation by motor carriers. The Federal 
standards provide for enhancement of safety; public participation; 
consultation with other State, local, and tribal governments; through 
routing; reasonable time to reach agreement between affected States or 
Indian tribes; not unduly burdening commerce; timely establishment of 
State and Indian tribe routing; reasonable routes to terminals; State 
responsibility for local compliance; and a number of ``factors to 
consider.'' The list of ``factors to consider'' which States (political 
subdivisions) and Indian tribes are required to use in regulating 
routing is contained in Sec. 397.71 of this final rule and includes the 
factors required by 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5112(b)(1)(I) and additional factors 
addressing climatic conditions, congestion, and accident analysis. In 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5112(b)(2), the FHWA will not assign any 
specific weight to be given by the States or Indian tribes in 
considering the factors. Additionally, in analyzing these factors, the 
States or Indian tribes shall use the most current version of 
``Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting 
Hazardous Materials'' or an equivalent routing analysis.
2. Public Information and Reporting Requirements
    Section 5112(c) of title 49, United States Code, requires the 
Secretary, in coordination with the States, to periodically update and 
publish a list of current hazardous materials highway routing 
designations. Accordingly, the FHWA will compile and publish annually 
in the Federal Register a listing of all hazardous materials routing 
designations. The FHWA will also maintain a list of all current 
designations, including additions and changes, and provide this 
information, upon request, to interested parties. To comply with this 
requirement, the FHWA is, through this regulation, requiring States and 
Indian tribes to initially submit, to the FHWA, information on all the 
existing NRHM routing designations within their boundaries. After the 
initial submission, any new or changed NRHM routing designation shall 
be submitted to the FHWA 60 days after the routing designation takes 
effect.
    The States (political subdivisions) and Indian tribes are required 
to use methods such as maps, listings, road signs, or some combination 
of these measures as may be needed to adequately inform the public of 
their NRHM routing designations.
3. Dispute Resolution
    Disputes involving highway routing agreements between political 
jurisdictions within a State are to be resolved by the State's routing 
agency. Unresolved disputes involving through highway routing or 
routing designation agreements between States or Indian tribes may be 
submitted to the Administrator for resolution. Details of the dispute 
shall be furnished to the Administrator by the petitioner, together 
with a description of what was done to try to settle it, plus a 
recommendation of the actions that should be taken by the Administrator 
to resolve the dispute. The FHWA has revised Sec. 397.75 of this 
regulation to clearly set forth the importance of public safety in any 
routing designation. The State or Indian tribe filing the petition for 
dispute resolution shall be responsible for providing a comparative 
risk analysis for the proposed routing designation and the current 
routing condition. Once a dispute is submitted to the Administrator, no 
court action may be taken for one year or until after a decision by the 
Administrator, whichever occurs first.
4. Judicial Review of Dispute Decision
    A party to a dispute who is adversely affected by a dispute 
resolution decision of the Administrator can obtain judicial review of 
the decision if such court action is filed within 90 days after the 
Administrator's decision becomes final.
5. Preemption Determinations and Waivers of Preemption
    On September 24, 1992, the FHWA published an interim final rule (57 
FR 44132) amending 49 CFR 397 by adding a subpart E which established 
procedures applicable to preemption determinations and waivers of 
preemption. This final rule amends subpart E to make these procedures 
applicable to NRHM routing designations which are now included in 
subpart C.
    Any highway routing designation established, maintained or enforced 
by a State, a political subdivision thereof, or an Indian tribe is 
preempted if:
    (1) Compliance with both the highway routing designation and any 
requirement of chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, or of a 
regulation prescribed thereunder is not possible;
    (2) The highway routing designation, as applied or enforced is an 
obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out chapter 51 of title 49, 
United States Code, or the regulations prescribed thereunder; or
    (3) A State or Indian tribe establishes, maintains or enforces any 
routing designation that does not comply with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the Federal standards set forth in this 
regulation.
    Any person, including a State, political subdivision thereof, or 
Indian tribe, affected by a NRHM routing designation can apply to the 
Administrator for a determination of whether such routing designation 
is preempted.
    A State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe may apply to the 
Administrator for a waiver of preemption. The Administrator is 
authorized to waive preemption of a NRHM routing designation, based on 
a determination that it provides equal or better protection to the 
public than these regulations would provide, and it does not 
unreasonably burden commerce.

Technical Amendments

    Public Law 103-272 (108 Stat. 745), enacted on July 5, 1994, 
codified certain U.S. transportation laws as title 49, United States 
Code. Like other transportation statutes, the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act was repealed and its contents restated in title 49. 
This final rule changes the citations contained in the NPRM to conform 
to the provisions of the new law.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The FHWA has determined that this 
regulation is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
that Order. This rulemaking is considered a significant regulation 
under Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures 
because of substantial congressional and public interest. This interest 
involves minimizing risks while allowing reasonable highway routing for 
the transportation of NRHM. The regulation does not require the 
establishment of NRHM routing designations or the use of Federal 
preemption determinations, waivers of preemption, and dispute 
resolution, but does provide standards and procedures which are 
required to be followed if these actions are taken. The FHWA believes 
that for those States or Indian tribal governments which choose to 
adopt routing designations, the benefits from implementing these 
regulations, such as NRHM routing designation continuity, public 
participation, uniform standards, and preemption and dispute resolution 
procedures, will be greater than the costs, such as providing the 
required documentation, coordination, and analysis which allow 
discretion in level of detail. The FHWA anticipates that the economic 
impact of this regulation will be minimal based upon a regulatory 
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this 
regulation on small entities such as Indian tribes, local governments, 
and small businesses. The HMTUSA requires the Secretary to adopt 
standards which States and Indian tribes must follow if they establish, 
maintain, or enforce NRHM routing designations (specific highway routes 
over which NRHM may or may not be transported within their 
jurisdictions, limitations or requirements for highway routing). The 
regulation does not require the use of NRHM routing designations or 
Federal preemption determinations, waivers of preemption, and dispute 
resolution, but provides standards and procedures which are required to 
be followed if these actions are chosen to be used. The discretionary 
nature of the actions allows for cost saving options to be used in 
balancing the needs in commerce and the risks in the transportation of 
NRHM. To date, relatively few States and local jurisdictions have 
chosen to establish NRHM routing designations. The FHWA has concluded 
that the regulation does not substantially affect the ability of, or 
cost to, local jurisdictions establishing needed NRHM routing 
designations. The preemption and dispute resolution procedures provide 
all entities more effective and efficient means of resolving routing 
issues. Based on this evaluation, the FHWA certifies that this 
regulation does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The HMTUSA requires the 
Secretary to adopt standards which States and Indian tribes must follow 
if they establish, maintain, or enforce NRHM routing designations 
(specific highway routes over which NRHM may or may not be transported 
within their jurisdictions, limitations or requirements for highway 
routing). The regulation recognizes the State and Indian tribal role in 
the designation of highway routes for NRHM while de-emphasizing the 
role of local governments. The regulation provides for discretion by 
the States and Indian tribes as to whether they impose NRHM routing 
designations. Each State and Indian tribe is free to establish NRHM 
routing designations tailored to its own needs in accordance with the 
Federal standards, using the DOT ``Guidelines for Applying Criteria to 
Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials,'' or an 
equivalent routing analysis which adequately considers overall risk to 
the public. States and localities have a better understanding of the 
relative safety of the highways within their jurisdictions than does 
the Federal government.
    The regulation limits the policymaking discretion of the States, 
their political subdivisions and Indian tribes. The regulation is 
necessary, however, to achieve the purposes and implement the 
requirements of the HMTUSA. Accordingly, it is certified that this 
action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles, criteria, 
and requirements contained in Executive Order 12612 and, it has been 
determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions 
in Sec. 397.73 of this regulation were submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget under control number 2125-0554.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
determined that this action does not have any effect on the quality of 
the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. 
The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-
reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 397

    Hazardous materials transportation, Highways and roads, Motor 
carrier safety permits.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Highway 
Administration is amending title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
subtitle B, chapter III, part 397, by adding a subpart C, and amending 
subpart E, as set forth below.

    Issued on October 4, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.

PART 397--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

    1. The authority citation for part 397 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.48.


Sec. 397.9  [Removed and Reserved]

    2. Section 397.9 is removed and reserved.
    3. Part 397 is amended by adding subpart C to read as follows:
SUBPART C--ROUTING OF NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Sec.
397.61 Purpose and scope.
397.63 Applicability.
397.65 Definitions.
397.67 Motor carrier responsibility for routing.
397.69 Highway routing designations; preemption.
397.71 Federal standards.
397.73 Public information and reporting requirements.
397.75 Dispute resolution.
397.77 Judicial review of dispute decision.


Sec. 397.61  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains routing requirements and procedures that 
States and Indian tribes are required to follow if they establish, 
maintain, or enforce routing designations over which a non-radioactive 
hazardous material (NRHM) in a quantity which requires placarding may 
or may not be transported by a motor vehicle. It also provides 
regulations for motor carriers transporting placarded or marked NRHM 
and procedures for dispute resolutions regarding NRHM routing 
designations.


Sec. 397.63  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to any State or Indian tribe 
that establishes, maintains, or enforces any routing designations over 
which NRHM may or may not be transported by motor vehicle. They also 
apply to any motor carrier that transports or causes to be transported 
placarded or marked NRHM in commerce.


Sec. 397.65  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
    Administrator. The Federal Highway Administrator, who is the chief 
executive of the Federal Highway Administration, an agency within the 
United States Department of Transportation, or his/her designate.
    Commerce. Any trade, traffic, or transportation in the United 
States which:
    (1) is between a place under the jurisdiction of a State or Indian 
tribe and any place outside of such jurisdiction; or
    (2) is solely within a place under the jurisdiction of a State or 
Indian tribe but which affects trade, traffic, or transportation 
described in subparagraph (a).
    FHWA. The Federal Highway Administration, an agency within the 
Department of Transportation.
    Hazardous material. A substance or material, including a hazardous 
substance, which has been determined by the Secretary of Transportation 
to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or 
property when transported in commerce, and which has been so 
designated.
    Indian tribe. Has the same meaning as contained in Sec. 4 of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 25 U.S.C. 450b.
    Motor carrier. A for-hire motor carrier or a private motor carrier 
of property. The term includes a motor carrier's agents, officers and 
representatives as well as employees responsible for hiring, 
supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers.
    Motor vehicle. Any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or 
semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used upon the 
highways in the transportation of passengers or property, or any 
combination thereof.
    NRHM. A non-radioactive hazardous material transported by motor 
vehicle in types and quantities which require placarding, pursuant to 
Table 1 or 2 of 49 CFR 172.504.
    Political subdivision. A municipality, public agency or other 
instrumentality of one or more States, or a public corporation, board, 
or commission established under the laws of one or more States.
    Radioactive material. Any material having a specific activity 
greater than 0.002 microcuries per gram (uCi/g), as defined in 49 CFR 
173.403.
    Routing agency. The State highway agency or other State agency 
designated by the Governor of that State, or an agency designated by an 
Indian tribe, to supervise, coordinate, and approve the NRHM routing 
designations for that State or Indian tribe.
    Routing designations. Any regulation, limitation, restriction, 
curfew, time of travel restriction, lane restriction, routing ban, 
port-of-entry designation, or route weight restriction, applicable to 
the highway transportation of NRHM over a specific highway route or 
portion of a route.
    Secretary. The Secretary of Transportation.
    State. A State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa or Guam.


Sec. 397.67  Motor carrier responsibility for routing.

    (a) A motor carrier transporting NRHM shall comply with NRHM 
routing designations of a State or Indian tribe pursuant to this 
subpart.
    (b) A motor carrier carrying hazardous materials required to be 
placarded or marked in accordance with 49 CFR 177.823 and not subject 
to a NRHM routing designations pursuant to this subpart, shall operate 
the vehicle over routes which do not go through or near heavily 
populated areas, places where crowds are assembled, tunnels, narrow 
streets, or alleys, except where the motor carrier determines that:
    (1) There is no practicable alternative;
    (2) A reasonable deviation is necessary to reach terminals, points 
of loading and unloading, facilities for food, fuel, repairs, rest, or 
a safe haven; or
    (3) A reasonable deviation is required by emergency conditions, 
such as a detour that has been established by a highway authority, or a 
situation exists where a law enforcement official requires the driver 
to take an alternative route.
    (c) Operating convenience is not a basis for determining whether it 
is practicable to operate a motor vehicle in accordance with paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (d) Before a motor carrier requires or permits a motor vehicle 
containing explosives in Class 1, Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, as defined 
in 49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53 respectively, to be operated, the carrier 
or its agent shall prepare a written route plan that complies with this 
section and shall furnish a copy to the driver. However, the driver may 
prepare the written plan as agent for the motor carrier when the trip 
begins at a location other than the carrier's terminal.


Sec. 397.69  Highway routing designations; preemption.

    (a) Any State or Indian tribe that establishes or modifies a 
highway routing designation over which NRHM may or may not be 
transported on or after November 14, 1994, and maintains or enforces 
such designation, shall comply with the highway routing standards set 
forth in Sec. 397.71 of this subpart. For purposes of this subpart, any 
highway routing designation affecting the highway transportation of 
NRHM, made by a political subdivision of a State is considered as one 
made by that State, and all requirements of this subpart apply.
    (b) Except as provided in Secs. 397.75 and 397.219, a NRHM route 
designation made in violation of paragraph (a) of this section is 
preempted pursuant to section 105(b)(4) of the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. app. 1804(b)(4)). This provision shall 
become effective after November 14, 1996.
    (c) A highway routing designation established by a State, political 
subdivision, or Indian tribe before November 14, 1994 is subject to 
preemption in accordance with the preemption standards in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Sec. 397.203 of this subpart.
    (d) A State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe may petition 
for a waiver of preemption in accordance with Sec. 397.213 of this 
part.


Sec. 397.71  Federal standards.

    (a) A State or Indian tribe shall comply with the Federal standards 
under paragraph (b) of this section when establishing, maintaining or 
enforcing specific NRHM routing designations over which NRHM may or may 
not be transported.
    (b) The Federal standards are as follows:
    (1) Enhancement of public safety. The State or Indian tribe shall 
make a finding, supported by the record to be developed in accordance 
with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3)(iv) of this section, that any 
NRHM routing designation enhances public safety in the areas subject to 
its jurisdiction and in other areas which are directly affected by such 
highway routing designation. In making such a finding, the State or 
Indian tribe shall consider:
    (i) The factors listed in paragraph (b)(9) of this section; and
    (ii) The DOT ``Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes 
for Transporting Hazardous Materials,'' DOT/RSPA/OHMT-89-02, July 
19891 or its most current version; or an equivalent routing 
analysis which adequately considers overall risk to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This document may be obtained from Safety Technology and 
Information Management Division, HHS-10, Federal Highway 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Public participation. Prior to the establishment of any NRHM 
routing designation, the State or Indian tribe shall undertake the 
following actions to ensure participation by the public in the routing 
process:
    (i) The State or Indian tribe shall provide the public with notice 
of any proposed NRHM routing designation and a 30-day period in which 
to comment. At any time during this period or following review of the 
comments received, the State or Indian tribe shall decide whether to 
hold a public hearing on the proposed NRHM route designation. The 
public shall be given 30 days prior notice of the public hearing which 
shall be conducted as described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 
section. Notice for both the comment period and the public hearing, if 
one is held, shall be given by publication in at least two newspapers 
of general circulation in the affected area or areas and shall contain 
a complete description of the proposed routing designation, together 
with the date, time, and location of any public hearings. Notice for 
both the comment period and any public hearing may also be published in 
the official register of the State.
    (ii) If it is determined that a public hearing is necessary, the 
State or Indian tribe shall hold at least one public hearing on the 
record during which the public will be afforded the opportunity to 
present their views and any information or data related to the proposed 
NRHM routing designation. The State shall make available to the public, 
upon payment of prescribed costs, copies of the transcript of the 
hearing, which shall include all exhibits and documents presented 
during the hearing or submitted for the record.
    (3) Consultation with others. Prior to the establishment of any 
NRHM routing designation, the State or Indian tribe shall provide 
notice to, and consult with, officials of affected political 
subdivisions, States and Indian tribes, and any other affected parties. 
Such actions shall include the following:
    (i) At least 60 days prior to establishing a routing designation, 
the State or Indian tribe shall provide notice, in writing, of the 
proposed routing designation to officials responsible for highway 
routing in all other affected States or Indian tribes. A copy of this 
notice may also be sent to all affected political subdivisions. This 
notice shall request approval, in writing, by those States or Indian 
tribes, of the proposed routing designations. If no response is 
received within 60 days from the day of receipt of the notification of 
the proposed routing designation, the routing designation shall be 
considered approved by the affected State or Indian tribe.
    (ii) The manner in which consultation under this paragraph is 
conducted is left to the discretion of the State or Indian tribe.
    (iii) The State or Indian tribe shall attempt to resolve any 
concern or disagreement expressed by any consulted official related to 
the proposed routing designation.
    (iv) The State or Indian tribe shall keep a record of the names and 
addresses of the officials notified pursuant to this section and of any 
consultation or meeting conducted with these officials or their 
representatives. Such record shall describe any concern or disagreement 
expressed by the officials and any action undertaken to resolve such 
disagreement or address any concern.
    (4) Through routing. In establishing any NRHM routing designation, 
the State or Indian tribe shall ensure through highway routing for the 
transportation of NRHM between adjacent areas. The term ``through 
highway routing'' as used in this paragraph means that the routing 
designation must ensure continuity of movement so as to not impede or 
unnecessarily delay the transportation of NRHM. The State or Indian 
tribe shall utilize the procedures established in paragraphs (b)(2) and 
(b)(3) of this section in meeting these requirements. In addition, the 
State or Indian tribe shall make a finding, supported by a risk 
analysis conducted in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
that the routing designation enhances public safety. If the risk 
analysis shows--
    (i) That the current routing presents at least 50 percent more risk 
to the public than the deviation under the proposed routing 
designation, then the proposed routing designation may go into effect.
    (ii) That the current routing presents a greater risk but less than 
50 percent more risk to the public than the deviation under the 
proposed routing restriction, then the proposed routing restriction 
made by a State or Indian tribe shall only go into effect if it does 
not force a deviation of more than 25 miles or result in an increase of 
more than 25 percent of that part of a trip affected by the deviation, 
whichever is shorter, from the most direct route through a jurisdiction 
as compared to the intended deviation.
    (iii) That the current route has the same or less risk to the 
public than the deviation resulting from the proposed routing 
designation, then the routing designation shall not be allowed.
    (5) Agreement of other States; burden on commerce. Any NRHM routing 
designation which affects another State or Indian tribe shall be 
established, maintained, or enforced only if:
    (i) It does not unreasonably burden commerce, and
    (ii) It is agreed to by the affected State or Indian tribe within 
60 days of receipt of the notice sent pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i) 
of this section, or it is approved by the Administrator pursuant to 
Sec. 397.75.
    (6) Timeliness. The establishment of a NRHM routing designation by 
any State or Indian tribe shall be completed within 18 months of the 
notice given in either paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section, 
whichever occurs first.
    (7) Reasonable routes to terminals and other facilities. In 
establishing or providing for reasonable access to and from designated 
routes, the State or Indian tribe shall use the shortest practicable 
route considering the factors listed in paragraph (b)(9) of this 
section. In establishing any NRHM routing designation, the State or 
Indian tribe shall provide reasonable access for motor vehicles 
transporting NRHM to reach:
    (i) Terminals,
    (ii) Points of loading, unloading, pickup and delivery, and
    (iii) Facilities for food, fuel, repairs, rest, and safe havens.
    (8) Responsibility for local compliance. The States shall be 
responsible for ensuring that all of their political subdivisions 
comply with the provisions of this subpart. The States shall be 
responsible for resolving all disputes between such political 
subdivisions within their jurisdictions. If a State or any political 
subdivision thereof, or an Indian tribe chooses to establish, maintain, 
or enforce any NRHM routing designation, the Governor, or Indian tribe, 
shall designate a routing agency for the State or Indian tribe, 
respectively. The routing agency shall ensure that all NRHM routing 
designations within its jurisdiction comply with the Federal standards 
in this section. The State or Indian tribe shall comply with the public 
information and reporting requirements contained in Sec. 397.73.
    (9) Factors to consider. In establishing any NRHM routing 
designation, the State or Indian tribe shall consider the following 
factors:
    (i) Population density. The population potentially exposed to a 
NRHM release shall be estimated from the density of the residents, 
employees, motorists, and other persons in the area, using United 
States census tract maps or other reasonable means for determining the 
population within a potential impact zone along a designated highway 
route. The impact zone is the potential range of effects in the event 
of a release. Special populations such as schools, hospitals, prisons, 
and senior citizen homes shall, among other things, be considered when 
determining the potential risk to the populations along a highway 
routing. Consideration shall be given to the amount of time during 
which an area will experience a heavy population density.
    (ii) Type of highway. The characteristics of each alternative NRHM 
highway routing designation shall be compared. Vehicle weight and size 
limits, underpass and bridge clearances, roadway geometrics, number of 
lanes, degree of access control, and median and shoulder structures are 
examples of characteristics which a State or Indian tribe shall 
consider.
    (iii) Types and quantities of NRHM. An examination shall be made of 
the type and quantity of NRHM normally transported along highway routes 
which are included in a proposed NRHM routing designation, and 
consideration shall be given to the relative impact zone and risks of 
each type and quantity.
    (iv) Emergency response capabilities. In consultation with the 
proper fire, law enforcement, and highway safety agencies, 
consideration shall be given to the emergency response capabilities 
which may be needed as a result of a NRHM routing designation. The 
analysis of the emergency response capabilities shall be based upon the 
proximity of the emergency response facilities and their capabilities 
to contain and suppress NRHM releases within the impact zones.
    (v) Results of consultation with affected persons. Consideration 
shall be given to the comments and concerns of all affected persons and 
entities provided during public hearings and consultations conducted in 
accordance with this section.
    (vi) Exposure and other risk factors. States and Indian tribes 
shall define the exposure and risk factors associated with any NRHM 
routing designations. The distance to sensitive areas shall be 
considered. Sensitive areas include, but are not limited to, homes and 
commercial buildings; special populations in hospitals, schools, 
handicapped facilities, prisons and stadiums; water sources such as 
streams and lakes; and natural areas such as parks, wetlands, and 
wildlife reserves.
    (vii) Terrain considerations. Topography along and adjacent to the 
proposed NRHM routing designation that may affect the potential 
severity of an accident, the dispersion of the NRHM upon release and 
the control and clean up of NRHM if released shall be considered.
    (viii) Continuity of routes. Adjacent jurisdictions shall be 
consulted to ensure routing continuity for NRHM across common borders. 
Deviations from the most direct route shall be minimized.
    (ix) Alternative routes. Consideration shall be given to the 
alternative routes to, or resulting from, any NRHM route designation. 
Alternative routes shall be examined, reviewed, or evaluated to the 
extent necessary to demonstrate that the most probable alternative 
routing resulting from a routing designation is safer than the current 
routing.
    (x) Effects on commerce. Any NRHM routing designation made in 
accordance with this subpart shall not create an unreasonable burden 
upon interstate or intrastate commerce.
    (xi) Delays in transportation. No NRHM routing designations may 
create unnecessary delays in the transportation of NRHM.
    (xii) Climatic conditions. Weather conditions unique to a highway 
route such as snow, wind, ice, fog, or other climatic conditions that 
could affect the safety of a route, the dispersion of the NRHM upon 
release, or increase the difficulty of controlling it and cleaning it 
up shall be given appropriate consideration.
    (xiii) Congestion and accident history. Traffic conditions unique 
to a highway routing such as: traffic congestion; accident experience 
with motor vehicles, traffic considerations that could affect the 
potential for an accident, exposure of the public to any release, 
ability to perform emergency response operations, or the temporary 
closing of a highway for cleaning up any release shall be given 
appropriate consideration.


Sec. 397.73  Public information and reporting requirements.

    (a) Public information. Information on NRHM routing designations 
must be made available by the States and Indian tribes to the public in 
the form of maps, lists, road signs or some combination thereof. If 
road signs are used, those signs and their placements must comply with 
the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,2 
published by the FHWA, particularly the Hazardous Cargo signs 
identified as R14-2 and R14-3 shown in Section 2B-43 of that Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\This publication may be purchased from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 
20402 and has Stock No. 050-001-81001-8. It is available for 
inspection and copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D. 
See 23 CFR 655, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Reporting and publishing requirements. Each State or Indian 
tribe, through its routing agency, shall provide information 
identifying all NRHM routing designations which exist within their 
jurisdictions on November 14, 1994 to the FHWA, HHS-30, 400 7th St., 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 by March 13,1995. The State or Indian 
tribe shall include descriptions of these routing designations, along 
with the dates they were established. This information may also be 
published in each State's official register of State regulations. 
Information on any subsequent changes or new NRHM routing designations 
shall be furnished within 60 days after establishment to the FHWA. This 
information will be available from the FHWA, consolidated by the FHWA, 
and published annually in whole or as updates in the Federal Register. 
Each State may also publish this information in its official register 
of State regulations.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 2125-0554)


Sec. 397.75  Dispute resolution.

    (a) Petition. One or more States or Indian tribes may petition the 
Administrator to resolve a dispute relating to an agreement on a 
proposed NRHM routing designation. In resolving a dispute under these 
provisions, the Administrator will provide the greatest level of safety 
possible without unreasonably burdening commerce, and ensure compliance 
with the Federal standards established at Sec. 397.71 of this subpart.
    (b) Filing. Each petition for dispute resolution filed under this 
section must:
    (1) Be submitted to the Administrator, Federal Highway 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Attention: HCC-10 Docket Room, Hazardous 
Materials Routing Dispute Resolution Docket.
    (2) Identify the State or Indian tribe filing the petition and any 
other State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe whose NRHM routing 
designation is the subject of the dispute.
    (3) Contain a certification that the petitioner has complied with 
the notification requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, and 
include a list of the names and addresses of each State, political 
subdivision, or Indian tribe official who was notified of the filing of 
the petition.
    (4) Clearly set forth the dispute for which resolution is sought, 
including a complete description of any disputed NRHM routing 
designation and an explanation of how the disputed routing designation 
affects the petitioner or how it impedes through highway routing. If 
the routing designation being disputed results in alternative routing, 
then a comparative risk analysis for the designated route and the 
resulting alternative routing shall be provided.
    (5) Describe any actions taken by the State or Indian tribe to 
resolve the dispute.
    (6) Explain the reasons why the petitioner believes that the 
Administrator should intervene in resolving the dispute.
    (7) Describe any proposed actions that the Administrator should 
take to resolve the dispute and how these actions would provide the 
greatest level of highway safety without unreasonably burdening 
commerce and would ensure compliance with the Federal standards 
established in this subpart.
    (c) Notice.
    (1) Any State or Indian tribe that files a petition for dispute 
resolution under this subpart shall mail a copy of the petition to any 
affected State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe, accompanied by 
a statement that the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe may 
submit comments regarding the petition to the Administrator within 45 
days.
    (2) By serving notice on any other State, political subdivision, or 
Indian tribe determined by the Administrator to be possibly affected by 
the issues in dispute or the resolution sought, or by publication in 
the Federal Register, the Administrator may afford those persons an 
opportunity to file written comments on the petition.
    (3) Any affected State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe 
submitting written comments to the Administrator with respect to a 
petition filed under this section shall send a copy of the comments to 
the petitioner and certify to the Administrator as to having complied 
with this requirement. The Administrator may notify other persons 
participating in the proceeding of the comments and provide an 
opportunity for those other persons to respond.
    (d) Court actions. After a petition for dispute resolution is filed 
in accordance with this section, no court action may be brought with 
respect to the subject matter of such dispute until a final decision 
has been issued by the Administrator or until the last day of the one-
year period beginning on the day the Administrator receives the 
petition, whichever occurs first.
    (e) Hearings; alternative dispute resolution. Upon receipt of a 
petition filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the 
Administrator may schedule a hearing to attempt to resolve the dispute 
and, if a hearing is scheduled, will notify all parties to the dispute 
of the date, time, and place of the hearing. During the hearing the 
parties may offer any information pertinent to the resolution of the 
dispute. If an agreement is reached, it may be stipulated by the 
parties, in writing, and, if the Administrator agrees, made part of the 
decision in paragraph (f) of this section. If no agreement is reached, 
the Administrator may take the matter under consideration and announce 
his or her decision in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section. 
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the parties 
from settling the dispute or seeking other methods of alternative 
dispute resolution prior to the final decision by the Administrator.
    (f) Decision. The Administrator will issue a decision based on the 
petition, the written comments submitted by the parties, the record of 
the hearing, and any other information in the record. The decision will 
include a written statement setting forth the relevant facts and the 
legal basis for the decision.
    (g) Record. The Administrator will serve a copy of the decision 
upon the petitioner and any other party who participated in the 
proceedings. A copy of each decision will be placed on file in the 
public docket. The Administrator may publish the decision or notice of 
the decision in the Federal Register.


Sec. 397.77  Judicial review of dispute decision.

    Any State or Indian tribe adversely affected by the Administrator's 
decision under Sec. 397.75 of this subpart may seek review by the 
appropriate district court of the United States under such proceeding 
only by filing a petition with such court within 90 days after such 
decision becomes final.
    4. In Sec. 397.201, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (c) is 
amended by revising the definitions for ``Act'', ``Administrator'', 
``routing agency'' and ``routing designation'' and by adding new 
definitions for ``hazardous material'' and ``Indian tribe'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 397.201  Purpose and scope of the procedures.

    (a) This subpart prescribes procedures by which:
    (1) Any person, including a State, political subdivision thereof, 
or Indian tribe, directly affected by any highway routing designation 
for hazardous materials may apply to the Administrator for a 
determination as to whether that highway routing designation is 
preempted under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5125, or Sec. 397.69 or Sec. 397.203 of 
this part; and
    (2) A State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe may 
apply to the Administrator for a waiver of preemption with respect to 
any highway routing designation that the State, political subdivision 
thereof, or Indian tribe acknowledges to be preempted by 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 5125, or Sec. 397.69 or Sec. 397.203 of this part, or that has 
been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be so 
preempted.
* * * * *
    (c) For purposes of this subpart:
    Act means 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5101 et seq., formerly known as the 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
    Administrator means the Federal Highway Administrator, who is the 
chief executive of the Federal Highway Administration, an agency of the 
United States Department of Transportation, or his/her designate.
    Hazardous material means a substance or material, including a 
hazardous substance, which has been determined by the Secretary of 
Transportation to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, 
safety, or property, when transported in commerce, and which has been 
so designated.
    Indian tribe has the same meaning as contained in Sec. 4 of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Act, 25 U.S.C. 450b.
* * * * *
    Routing agency  means the State highway agency or other State 
agency designated by the Governor of a State, or an agency designated 
by an Indian tribe, to supervise, coordinate, and approve the highway 
routing designations for that State or Indian tribe. Any highway 
routing designation made by a political subdivision of a State shall be 
considered a designation made by that State.
    Routing designation includes any regulation, limitation, 
restriction, curfew, time of travel restriction, lane restriction, 
routing ban, port-of-entry designation, or route weight restriction 
applicable to the highway transportation of hazardous materials over a 
specific highway route or portion of a route.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 397.203, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 397.203  Standards for determining preemption.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The highway routing designation is preempted pursuant to 
Sec. 397.69(b) of this part.

[FR Doc. 94-25159 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P