Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928

RIN: 1218-AB42

Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is hereby issuing a final rule that requires employers

who receive a package, transport vehicle, freight container, motor

vehicle or rail freight car which contains a hazardous material and

which is required to be marked, placarded, or labeled in accordance

with the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials

Regulations, to retain the markings, placards, and labels on the

package, transport vehicle, freight container, motor vehicle or rail

freight car. Such markings, placards and labels generally must be

retained on packages until the packaging is sufficiently cleaned of

residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazards and

retained on transport vehicles, freight containers, motor vehicles or

rail freight cars until hazardous material which requires the marking

or placarding is removed therefrom. This rule is issued pursuant to

section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the

Act) and in accordance with section 29 of Public Law 101-615, the

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA).

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

1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, OSHA Office of

Public Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 101-615, the Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA), 104 Stat. 3244, was

enacted by Congress on November 17, 1990. Section 29 of HMTUSA reads as

follows:

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this

Act, the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of

Transportation and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall issue under

section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29

U.S.C. 655(b)) standards requiring any employer who receives a

package, container, motor vehicle, rail freight car, aircraft, or

vessel which contains a hazardous material and which is required to

be marked, placarded, or labeled in accordance with regulations

issued under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to retain

the markings, placards, and labels, and any other information as may

be required by such regulations on the package, container, motor

vehicle, rail freight car, aircraft, or vessel, until the hazardous

materials have been removed therefrom.

The Congressional rationale for this requirement was provided in Senate

Report No. 101-449, (p. 16), as follows:

In November 1988, six Kansas City firemen were killed when the

arson-caused fire they were fighting caused the violent explosion of

an unmarked truck-trailer parked at a highway construction site.

Because the trailer's hazardous materials placards had been removed,

the firemen were unaware of the danger it posed. The Secretaries of

Labor, Transportation and the Treasury should cooperate in order to

ensure that placards and labels required on hazardous materials and

explosives, both in transportation and at stationary facilities, be

retained until such materials have been removed to the extent that

they no longer pose a safety risk.

In response to the Congressional mandate, OSHA issued a proposed

rule on September 10, 1993 to address the requirements of HMTUSA (58 FR

47690). A 30-day period was provided during which interested parties

were invited to submit comments and information relative to the

proposed rule. All comments submitted were collected in Docket No. H-

022I, Exhibit No. 5, and prefixed with ``Ex. 5'' or ``Ex. L5'' (the

latter denotes comments received after the close of the comment

period). All comments received were reviewed and considered in

developing this final rule. Most commenters supported OSHA's proposal;

however, certain issues were raised that persuaded OSHA to modify the

final standard in some respects or otherwise provide further

clarification.

As with the proposed rule, OSHA believes that this final rule will

impose no significant compliance burdens on industry. This was also

substantiated in comments to the record.

Congress was specific in its mandate to OSHA for this rule, and the

rule itself is limited to implementing the Congressional mandate. In

this final rule, OSHA has slightly elaborated on the statutory language

to the extent necessary to ensure that its requirements are clear and

do not impose undue burdens on affected employers vis-a-vis other

federal regulations. This regulation is essentially a continuation of

the DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).

Employers may wish to consult those regulations in regard to complying

with this section.

Discussion of Comments to NPRM and Summary and Explanation of the

Final Rule

OSHA received 45 comments in response to its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on the Retention of Markings and Placards. The NPRM

requested specific information on costs, current practices with respect

to the retention of DOT markings, placards and labels and any

foreseeable problems in achieving the requirements of the proposed

rule.

Most commenters supported the Agency's approach in responding to

the congressional mandate for this action. However, some commenters

pointed out potential sources of confusion for affected employers if

appropriate modifications were not made to the final rule. Other

commenters expressed a need for clarification of certain aspects of the

proposal, particularly those relating to the scope of the standard and

the relationship between DOT-required labeling and that required by

OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) at 29 CFR 1910.1200.

Only minimal information was submitted regarding costs. However, of

those commenters who responded to this question, the majority agreed

with OSHA's assessment that the rule would have only minimal economic

impact. The commenters who stated that the costs would not be

insignificant appeared to base their findings on what OSHA believes was

a misunderstanding of the intent of the proposed rule.

Major Issues Raised

A. Scope

The NPRM did not make a distinction as to the size of packagings of

hazardous materials for which employers would be required to retain the

necessary DOT marking, label or placard. A significant number of

commenters, however, (see, e.g., Exs. 5-3, 5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-

30, 5-32, 5-34, 5-35 and 5-36) pointed out that without restricting the

regulation to bulk packaging, employers would be faced with confusing,

redundant, and sometimes, inconsistent labeling requirements between

DOT and OSHA's HCS. (There was no criticism about the retention

provisions for transport vehicles, freight containers, motor vehicles

or rail freight cars.)

The HCS requires, in 29 CFR 1910.1200 (f), that manufacturers,

importers, and distributors label, tag, or mark any containers of

hazardous materials leaving the workplace with the identity of the

hazardous material, appropriate hazard warnings and the name and

address of the chemical manufacturer, importer or other responsible

party. The HCS further requires that such labels, tags and markings be

affixed in a manner that does not conflict with the HMR. Consequently,

the HCS warning labels, tags or markings do not appear on the outer

packagings of combination packagings (e.g., bottles in a box). The

inner packagings are required to be labeled in accordance with the HCS,

while the outside packaging is marked or labeled in accordance with the

HMR. However, in some cases the DOT label and marking may appear on the

same non-bulk packages as those required to be labeled under the HCS.

This situation caused concern among commenters who questioned the need

to retain DOT labels and marking where labeling was already required

under HCS.

The Amoco Corporation (Ex. 5-21) summarized its concerns as

follows:

Amoco supports OSHA's proposal requiring employers who receive

bulk packages of materials defined as hazardous * * * to maintain

the markings, labels, or placards in accordance with the

requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 171 to 180. However, we feel

that retention and maintenance of the markings and labels for non-

bulk packages would be significantly burdensome to both large and

small businesses alike.

* * * We approve of OSHA limiting their rulemaking to the intent

expressed by Congress, and from the rationale excerpted from the

report, we believe that intent focused solely on hazardous materials

transported in bulk packages.

Similar concerns were expressed by the Organization Resources

Counselors (Ex. 5-23):

* * * [T]he proposed rule raises concerns over the broad range

of containers proposed to be covered. In achieving the congressional

mandate, we believe the rule should be limited to requirements for

retention and maintenance of placards on bulk containers, such as

truck trailers and rail tank cars, only.

* * * ORC believes the congressional mandate does not extend to

labeling of non-bulk containers for which labeling requirements

already exist under other regulations.

If the final rule were to apply to non-bulk packagings, according

to at least one commenter, potential liability issues could arise. With

respect to replacing labels that may be lost or deteriorated, Oxychem

(Ex. 5-35) cautioned:

* * * Sending a replacement placard for bulk shipping containers

does not pose a liability issue for a company because the product is

easy to trace through the transportation equipment number. * * *

[S]ending a replacement label to be affixed by nonvendor employees

to a nonbulk package raises several liability issues. The nonbulk

package could be mislabeled resulting in improper handling or misuse

of the product.

OSHA has crafted language which it concludes fulfills the intent of

the statute, is protective of employees and meets the concerns of the

commenters. All bulk packages must at all times retain their DOT

marking until they are cleaned or purged. Such packages are often

reshipped and the large size of the DOT marking is a safety advantage.

DOT markings must be retained on non-bulk packages which will be

reshipped. Clearly, the DOT marking is needed for reshipment.

However, OSHA concludes that the OSHA HCS label is fully protective

for all employees and emergency responders for non-bulk packages which

will not be reshipped. That label was designed to protect against all

types of hazards. OSHA concludes therefore that it will be sufficient

if an HCS label is on a non-bulk package when it is out of

transportation, will not be reshipped and is at its final location at a

factory or other worksite. This should respond to the commenters who

feared that retaining both HCS and DOT labels at that stage might

confuse their employees.

Additional concerns were expressed regarding the labeling of inner

packagings of combination packagings. For example, Penske Truck Leasing

Co. (Ex.5-20) stated:

* * * Manufacturers and distributors pack hazardous materials

for transportation in various packaging, i.e., cans, plastic cases,

cylinders, etc. These receptacles generally require an outer

packaging for various reasons such as ease of handling,

palletization, and storage. The packaging may contain one or more

receptacles (containers) of the same hazardous material. The

packaging is properly labeled with the DOT hazard warning. Upon

entering the workplace, the employer * * * removes the packaging to

find that the receptacle is not marked with the corresponding DOT

hazard label and markings. * * * Under the proposed rule, it is

implied that the employer would have to label and mark each

container in this situation.

The above commenter was also concerned that the rule would require

the labeling of packages that, when in transportation, are excepted

from the labeling requirement of the DOT's HMR. It was not OSHA's

intention to require labeling of containers that were not originally

required to be labeled in accordance with the DOT's HMR. As previously

stated, this final rule requires employers to retain labels on

packages, this rulemaking does not require employers to label the

packages. Inner packagings removed from an outer packaging that is

required to be marked or labeled under DOT's HMR are not required to

have the DOT marking or label affixed. However, those inner packages

are required to have the OSHA HCS label. If the inner packages are to

be reshipped, they would, of course, need the appropriate DOT label. In

addition, packages which are excepted from the DOT's marking, labeling

or placarding requirements, are not required under the DOT's HMR to be

marked, labeled or placarded when stored at the workplace, but they

would be required to be labeled under the OSHA HCS.

One commenter pointed out that sometimes employers receive

hazardous materials which have the DOT-required labels affixed and

subsequently store them at remote sites in trailers that are not

intended for transportation and therefore are not required to be

placarded (Ex. 5-2). The situation that the commenter raises is a small

part of a much broader problem. OSHA believes that the communication of

hazards at all storage locations (e.g. trailers, warehouses and storage

tanks) is an important area for consideration. However, this issue is

not within the scope of the statute directing this rulemaking.

In another matter related to the scope of this rule, the American

Trucking Association requested a clarification as to whether the rule

placed an obligation on operators of transport vehicles (5-22).

Similarly, the Agricultural Retailers Association (Ex. L5-37) wanted

assurance that the responsibility for retaining DOT placards, markings

and labels transfers to the receiving employer. In response to both

concerns, the final rule applies to the employer who receives the

containers of hazardous materials and not the person responsible for

transporting such material unless the material is still under the

control of the transporter at its final destination when it is out of

transportation.

B. Discrepancy Between DOT and OSHA Definitions of Flammable and

Combustible

A number of commenters (Exs. 5-9, 5-25, 5-29, 5-34 and L5-41)

raised the issue of the discrepancy between DOT and OSHA with respect

to the definitions of flammable and combustible liquids. Commenters

correctly stated that OSHA defines a flammable liquid as one with a

flashpoint less than 100 deg. F. and a combustible liquid as one with a

flashpoint between 100 deg. F and 200 deg. F. Commenters stated that

DOT defines a flammable liquid as a material with a flashpoint of below

141 deg. F. and a combustible liquid as a material with a flash point

greater than 141 deg. F but below 200 deg. F. OSHA has conferred with

the DOT on this issue and was informed that while these statements are

correct, DOT does allow in 49 CFR 173.150 (f), for domestic

transportation, flammable liquids with a flash point greater than

100 deg. F to be reclassed as a combustible liquid. A combustible

liquid is not required to be labeled under DOT's HMR and, therefore,

the provisions of this rule regarding the retention of required DOT

labels would not apply. OSHA believes that this clarification should

satisfy the concerns of commenters who raised the issue of combustible

and flammable liquids being defined differently by OSHA and DOT.

However, the broader issue of different definitions presents other

technical, policy and legal issues and involves many institutions

nationally and internationally. These issues cannot be properly

addressed nor be solved in this rulemaking.

C. Duration Required for Retention of Hazard Warnings

Paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed standard required that markings,

placards and labels remain on the package, freight container, etc. of

hazardous material until the hazardous materials are removed therefrom

so that they no longer pose a health or safety risk. A number of

comments (see, e.g. Exs. 5-10, 5-13, 5-17, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-

34, 5-36, L5-40, L5-41 and L5-42) suggested that the language in this

provision was ambiguous and employers would be uncertain as to when DOT

labels, placards and markings could be removed without being in

violation of the rule. Various suggestions were offered regarding how

to clarify this issue, ranging from deleting paragraph (a)(1) (Exs. 5-

25, 5-29, L5-40) to allowing removal of the markings and placards as

long as no more than a de minimis amount of the hazardous material

remains in a container (Ex 5-10).

In the final standard OSHA has amended the language in paragraphs

(a) and (b) so that it is now clear. Employers need only retain the DOT

label, marking or placard until such time as the packaging which

contained the hazardous material is sufficiently cleaned of residue and

purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard. Paragraph (b), which

requires the retention of markings and placards on transport vehicles,

etc., states that markings and placards may be removed from transport

vehicles if the transport vehicle no longer contains hazardous material

subject to the marking or placarding requirements of the DOT's HMR. In

the alternative, employers will be in compliance if they choose to

retain the appropriate DOT hazard warning on packaging containing only

the residue of the hazardous chemical in the same manner as when it

contained a greater quantity of the hazardous material.

In the case where an outside package, (including transport

vehicles), contains smaller packages of hazardous materials, DOT hazard

warnings need be retained on the outside packaging only until the inner

packages are removed. However, if a contained package leaks into the

outer packaging, the cleaning and purging requirement applies.

D. Other Issues

The Edison Electric Institute (Ex 5-26) requested an exemption from

this standard for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees whose

radioactive material handling practices are already regulated by the

NRC. This request was made on the basis of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the NRC and OSHA which gives the NRC

jurisdiction in regulating most situations involving hazards that may

be associated with NRC-licensed nuclear facilities, including worksite

conditions which affect the safety of radioactive materials and thus

the health and safety of workers.

The MOU, however, is not relevant in this case since OSHA is not

regulating radioactive materials themselves but is only requiring an

extension of DOT requirements. Since the DOT requirements already apply

to employers handling radioactive materials, this standard does not

represent any change. Therefore, including an exemption in the standard

is not appropriate.

There was some confusion regarding paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed

rule which required that markings, placards and labels be maintained in

a manner that ensures the legend is visible. In effect, all that was

intended by this provision was to assure that the label, placard, or

marking be kept sufficiently clean (unobscured by dust, dirt, mud,

etc.) that it would be easily seen in the event of an emergency or as

necessary to prevent a hazardous situation. The provision was never

intended to place restrictions on how or where DOT-labeled materials

should be stored. However, since one commenter (Ex. L5-42) objected to

the use of the term ``legend,'' the provision has been revised as

paragraph (c) in the final rule to read: ``Such markings, placards and

labels shall be maintained in a manner that assures they are readily

visible.'' This does not mean that non-bulk packages with DOT labels

that are stored in a warehouse (e.g. cartons containing 4-gallon cans

of a hazardous material) have to be arranged in a manner which allows

every label to be in view at all times. Rather it requires that where

DOT hazard warnings are required to be retained, that such warnings are

maintained in a manner that ensures that the message which the hazard

warning is intended to convey is not compromised. In other words, at

least some labeling should be visible for each type of hazardous

material.

Additional minor changes were also suggested (Exs. 5-33 and L5-42)

that OSHA agrees are appropriate for completeness and has incorporated

in the final rule. Specifically, the title of the final rule has been

amended to include the term ``label.'' The terms ``aircraft'' and

``vessel'' have been deleted from the regulatory text as there are no

specific DOT requirements to affix warning labels to an aircraft or

vessel. The term ``container'' was also changed to ``freight

container'' as Ex. 5-33 suggested. The section has been editorially

revised in order to be more consistent with the DOT's HMR and in order

that the section is more readily understandable. For example, the

requirements for packages versus transport vehicles have been separated

into two separate paragraphs.

Suggestions also were made (Exs. 5-19 and 5-25) to delete the

phrase ``* * * and other information as may be required by such

regulations * * *'' from paragraph (a). The commenters were concerned

that the phrase might be interpreted as requiring materials not

designed for display (e.g. manifests) to be kept on the container,

package, etc. by the receiving employer. While this language was

consistent with Section 29 of HMTUSA, OSHA did not intend it to place

an additional burden on employers. OSHA is therefore removing this

language from the final rule to eliminate any misconceptions about the

requirements of the final rule.

Several commenters suggested that OSHA should go beyond the

Congressional mandate in developing this rule. For example, the

Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of North America recommended that the

rule be expanded to cover hazardous materials being loaded or stored

prior to shipment (Ex. 5-8). DOT's regulations generally do not apply

until a material is offered for transportation. To require marking,

labeling or placarding in accordance with the HMR prior to a material

being offered for transportation is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

The New York Department of State pointed out that mixed loads of

hazardous materials are identified with the all purpose ``dangerous''

placard. While the vehicle may be parked, the shipping papers may have

been taken away by the driver, thus removing a vital asset to the

identification of hazards of the contents (Ex. 5-14). OSHA interprets

the Congressional mandate to be limited to the retention of DOT hazards

warnings which are designed for display. Consequently, shipping papers

are not included.

Finally, Growmark suggested that this rulemaking presents OSHA with

an opportunity to consider making all hazard warnings on vehicles,

warehouses, storage tanks, etc. more uniform so that emergency

responders could recognize and respond to one type of marking instead

of having to learn dual systems (Ex. 5-11).

OSHA is aware that employers and others have expressed a need for

consistency in labeling practices. However, this issue is beyond the

scope of the specific authorizing statute and would require a major and

lengthy interagency approach to complete. Moreover, the Agency

published a Request for Information in the context of the Hazard

Communication Standard on May 17, 1990 (see 55 FR 20580). The issue is

still being considered with respect to what action the Agency should

take in the context of that standard.

In a similar matter concerning the authority granted the Agency by

the HMTUSA legislation, at least one commenter (Ex. 5-4) suggested that

since the real issue addressed in the legislation was hazard

communication, the requirement to retain DOT hazard warnings should

have been integrated in the Hazard Communication Standard in lieu of

issuing a separate regulation. OSHA, however, believes that Congress

was quite specific in its instructions to the Secretary of Labor that

this requirement apply to DOT regulations and that it be addressed as a

separate rule. Paragraph (d) does, however, make this final rule better

integrated with the Hazard Communication Standard.

Finally, Amoco (Ex. 5-21) raised the issue of whether the rule

would apply to an employer's current inventory of DOT-labeled materials

and whether changes to the existing markings and labels would be

required. In response to this comment, the Agency is allowing 90 days

following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for

employers to come into compliance. The rule requires no changes in the

content of the label. However, OSHA is providing what it believes is

sufficient time for employers to replace labels, markings or placards

that may have been removed, or to empty containers of hazardous

materials. Once the effective date of the rule has passed, employers

will be subject to OSHA citations if packages, transport vehicles,

freight containers, etc. of hazardous materials covered by DOT's HMR

are present in the workplace, do not have the appropriate DOT hazard

warning and violate the standard. It is not possible for OSHA

compliance officers to readily know the date transport vehicles or

packages were received and DOT warnings were removed. The 90-day period

is a realistic time in which to replace removed placards, markings or

labels or to empty containers.

Because Congress has directed that OSHA issue this regulation for

all employers covered by the OSH Act, this notice includes separate but

identical standards for general industry (Sec. 1910.1201), construction

(Sec. 1926.60), shipyards (Sec. 1915.100), marine terminals

(Sec. 1917.29) and longshoring (Sec. 1918.100). The general industry

standard will also be added to the list of Part 1910 standards which

apply to agricultural operations, as a new paragraph (a)(7) of

Sec. 1928.21.

As with the proposed rule, OSHA has consulted with delegated

officials of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the

Treasury, as required by HMTUSA, in preparing this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

OSHA has not performed a Regulatory Impact Analysis for this

standard since adoption of the proposed requirements would add no new

regulatory burden on employers with respect to either cost or

information collection.

Executive Orders 12866, 12612, and 12778

This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes

of Executive Order 12866. It also does not have federalism implications

warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in accordance

with Executive Order 12612. This rule has been certified in accordance

with Executive Order 12778 regarding Civil Justice Reform.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking action imposes no paperwork burdens under the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

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

1928

Occupational safety and health, hazardous materials transportation,

hazardous substances, explosives, chemicals, health, safety.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 29 of the Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat.

3244), sections 4 and 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655), Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and

Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-

90 (55 FR 9033) and 29 CFR Part 1911, Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918,

1926 and 1928 of 29 CFR are amended as set forth below.

Signed this 14th day of July 1994.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

OSHA is amending Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928 of

Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD

EMPLOYMENT

PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS

PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING

PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION

1. The authority citation for subpart Z of Part 1910 is revised to

read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 6, 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29

U.S.C. 655, 657: Secretary of Labor's Order 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 9-76

(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as

applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act, except those substances which have exposure

limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The

latter were issued under Section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 533. Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 not issued

under 29 CFR Part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds),

benzene and cotton dust listings.

Section 1910.1001 also issued under Sec. 107 of Contract Work

Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333.

Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR Part

1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1025 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

Section 1910.1201 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104

Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).

Sections 1910.1200, 1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 553.

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

follows:

Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order

Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or

1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

Section 1915.99 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1915.100 also issued under Section 29, Hazardous

Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-

615, 104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).

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

follows:

Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order

Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or

1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.

Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1917.129 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104

Stat. 3244) and 5 U.S.C. 553.

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

follows:

Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order

Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or

1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

Section 1918.90 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR Part

1911.

Section 1918.100 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104

Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819, 5 U.S.C. 553, and 29 U.S.C. Part

1911).

5. The authority citation for subpart D of part 1926 is revised to

read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, 8,

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,

657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41

FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

Section 1926.59 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR Part

1911.

Section 1926.60 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104

Stat. 3244), 5 U.S.C. 553, and 29 U.S.C. Part 1911.

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

6. Parts 1910, 1915, subpart F; 1917, subpart B; 1918, subpart I

and 1926, subpart D of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended by adding identical sections as Secs. 1910.1201, 1915.100,

1917.29, 1918.100 and 1926.61 to read as follows:

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

(a) Any employer who receives a package of hazardous material which

is required to be marked, labeled or placarded in accordance with the

U. S. Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations

(49 CFR Parts 171 through 180) shall retain those markings, labels and

placards on the package until the packaging is sufficiently cleaned of

residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazards.

(b) Any employer who receives a freight container, rail freight

car, motor vehicle, or transport vehicle that is required to be marked

or placarded in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations

shall retain those markings and placards on the freight container, rail

freight car, motor vehicle or transport vehicle until the hazardous

materials which require the marking or placarding are sufficiently

removed to prevent any potential hazards.

(c) Markings, placards and labels shall be maintained in a manner

that ensures that they are readily visible.

(d) For non-bulk packages which will not be reshipped, the

provisions of this section are met if a label or other acceptable

marking is affixed in accordance with the Hazard Communication Standard

(29 CFR 1910.1200).

(e) For the purposes of this section, the term ``hazardous

material'' and any other terms not defined in this section have the

same definition as in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts

171 through 180).

PART 1928--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE

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

follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order Nos. 12-

71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55

FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.

Section 1928.21 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials

Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-615, 104

Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 553).

PART 1928--[AMENDED]

8. Section 1928.21 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph

(a)(6) and adding a new paragraph (a)(7) reading as follows:

Sec. 1928.21 Applicable standards in 29 CFR Part 1910.

(a) * * *

(6) [Reserved]

(7) Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels --

Sec. 1910.1201.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 94-17534 Filed 7-18-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P