Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems

SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing changes to hazard communication requirements

of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The proposed changes are

based on comments received in response to an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM), recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS), and agency initiative. This action will improve the existing

hazard communication system; better identification of hazardous

materials in transportation will assist emergency response personnel in

responding to and mitigating the effects of incidents and accidents

involving hazardous materials.

DATES: Written comments: Comments must be received on or before

December 2, 1994.

Public hearing: A public hearing will be held beginning at 9:00

a.m., October 18-19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: Address comments to the Dockets Unit (DHM-

30), Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the

Docket (HM-206) and be submitted in five copies. Persons wishing to

receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a

self-addressed stamped postcard showing the docket number. The Dockets

Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Public dockets may be viewed

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Public hearing. The public hearing will be held in the Auditorium

of the Federal Aviation Administration Building located at 800

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Persons desiring to

make oral statements at the hearing should notify the Research and

Special Programs Administration (RSPA) Docket Clerk by telephone (202)

366-5046 or in writing by October 3, 1994. Mail written requests to:

Docket Clerk, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and

Special Programs Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 8421,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. Each request must identify the speaker;

organization represented, if any; daytime telephone number; and the

anticipated length of the presentation, not to exceed 10 minutes.

Written text of the oral statement should be presented to the hearing

officer and reporter prior to the oral presentation. Hearings may

conclude before 5:00 p.m. and the second day of the hearing (October

19, 1994) may be cancelled if all persons wishing to give oral comments

have been heard. To confirm plans to attend, contact Ms. Helen Engrum

at (202) 366-8553.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Engrum or John Potter, telephone

(202) 366-4488, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and

Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legislative Requirements

A. Rulemaking

On November 16, 1990, the President signed into law the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA; Pub. Law

101-615) which amended the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

(HMTA), 49 App. U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et. seq. Section 25 of HMTUSA requires

DOT to initiate a rulemaking to determine methods of improving the

current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials

and to determine methods for establishing and operating a central

reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center that

can provide information to facilitate responses to accidents and

incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials. It

directs DOT to consider methods of improving the placarding system to

include: (1) methods to make placards more visible; (2) methods to

reduce the number of improper and missing placards; (3) alternative

methods of marking vehicles for the purpose of identifying hazardous

materials being transported; (4) methods of modifying the composition

of placards to ensure their resistance to fire; (5) improving the

coding system used with respect to such placards; (6) identification of

appropriate emergency response procedures through symbols on placards;

and (7) display of telephone numbers for continually-monitored

emergency response telephone systems on vehicles transporting hazardous

materials.

Section 25 also requires DOT to evaluate in a rulemaking proceeding

whether a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication

data center should be operated by the Federal Government or a private

entity, either on its own initiative or under contract with the United

States. The evaluation must address: (1) the estimated annualized cost

of establishing, operating and maintaining such a system and center and

for carrier and shipper compliance with such a system; (2) methods for

financing the cost of establishing, operating, and maintaining such a

system and center; (3) the projected safety benefits of establishing,

operating and maintaining such a system and center; (4) whether

shippers, carriers and handlers of hazardous materials should have

access to such a system; (5) methods for ensuring the security of the

information and data stored in such a system; (6) types of hazardous

materials and types of shipments for which information and data should

be stored in such a system; (7) the degree of liability of the operator

of such a system and center for providing incorrect, false or

misleading information; (8) deadlines by which shippers, carriers and

handlers of hazardous materials should be required to submit

information to the operator of such a system and center, and minimum

standards relating to the form and content of such information; (9)

measures for ensuring compliance with the deadlines and standards for

operating such a system; and (10) methods for accessing such a system

through mobile satellite service or other technologies having the

capability to provide two-way voice, data, or facsimile service.

Section 26 of the HMTUSA requires DOT to initiate a rulemaking on

the feasibility, necessity, and safety benefits of requiring hazardous

materials carriers (in addition to an existing requirement for

shippers) to maintain continually-monitored telephone systems to

provide emergency response information and assistance. DOT is required

to determine which hazardous materials, if any, and which segments of

industry (including persons who own and operate motor vehicles, trains,

vessels, aircraft, and in-transit storage facilities) should be covered

by such a requirement.

On June 9, 1992, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register [Docket HM-206; 57 FR 24532]

posing 63 primary questions, most with secondary questions, under three

categories. The ANPRM solicited comments on methods of improving the

current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials,

methods to improve the system of identifying hazardous materials in

transportation, and the feasibility and necessity of requiring carriers

to maintain continually-monitored telephone contacts for emergency

response information.

B. NAS Study/DOT Report

Section 25 of HMTUSA requires DOT to contract with the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study of the feasibility and

necessity of establishing and operating a central reporting system and

computerized telecommunication data center that would receive, store,

and retrieve data on all daily shipments of hazardous materials by all

modes. DOT is to provide Congress a summary of the NAS report with

DOT's recommendations concerning implementation of the NAS

recommendations, giving substantial weight to recommendations on the

feasibility and necessity of implementing a central reporting and

computerized telecommunication data center.

In May 1991, DOT entered into a contract with NAS to conduct the

study. A 16-member committee was formed, representing industry,

academia, and the emergency response and firefighting communities. The

scope of the study was limited to matters that may affect the

consequences of hazardous materials incidents after they occur, and not

methods of preventing incidents. The committee focused on various

potential applications of communications and information technology

that would aid emergency responders in obtaining information at

hazardous materials incidents and accidents and nontechnological

options for improving information through better regulation,

enforcement, or training. NAS made recommendations regarding the

national central reporting system, a long-term approach to using

technology in support of emergency response, and regulatory,

enforcement, and training needs.

The committee also reviewed DOT's existing hazard communication

system with respect to regulatory, enforcement and training options in

the context of not relying on the introduction of new information

technologies. The NAS report was submitted to Congress and DOT on April

29, 1993.

On February 15, 1994, the DOT submitted a report to Congress which

included a summary of the NAS report and DOT's recommendations. A copy

of DOT's report has been included in the Docket.

II. Hazard Identification and Communication System Under the HMR

Over the last 25 years, DOT has developed a comprehensive hazardous

materials identification and communication system. The system is

designed to provide fire and emergency response personnel with

information in the event of a transportation incident or accident

involving the release of hazardous materials. Hazard communication and

emergency response information requirements are set forth in Subparts C

through G of Part 172 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49

CFR Parts 171-180). The system involves communication of the following

types of information: (1) hazardous materials descriptions, including

specific or generic proper shipping names, chemical or technical names,

hazard classes, identification numbers, and other special information,

entered on shipping papers carried on the transport vehicle by the

transporter; (2) hazardous materials proper shipping names and

identification numbers, marked on non-bulk and bulk packages; (3)

primary and subsidiary hazards, identified by labels affixed to

packages; (4) primary hazards, identified by placards affixed to

transport vehicles, freight containers and bulk packagings; and (5)

emergency response information, entered on shipping papers or presented

in separate documents.

Emergency response information must be maintained on the transport

vehicle, train, or vessel during transportation of the hazardous

material in the same manner as is required for shipping papers. On

aircraft, emergency response information must be maintained in the same

manner as is required for the notification of the pilot-in-command. The

information describes immediate hazards to health, risks of fire or

explosion, precautions to be taken by responders first arriving at the

scene of an incident, initial methods for handling spills and leaks in

the absence of fire, and preliminary first aid measures to be taken.

This information may be entered on shipping papers, or be presented on

appropriate guide pages in DOT's ``Emergency Response Guidebook

(ERG),'' on material safety data sheets, or on other appropriate

emergency response guidance documents.

A shipper who offers hazardous materials for transportation must

also enter an emergency response telephone number on a shipping paper.

The number must be monitored at all times while a shipment is in

transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. A first

responder using that number must be able to contact, in one phone call,

a person who is either knowledgeable about the material and has

comprehensive response and mitigation information, or has immediate

access to such a person.

Firefighters and emergency response personnel have been trained to

use hazard communication and emergency response information in

responding to incidents. Shipping names and identification numbers are

cross-referenced to emergency response guides in DOT's ERG. The ERG

provides guidance for initial actions to be taken in response to

hazardous materials incidents. Since 1980, RSPA has distributed more

than 3.5 million copies of the ERG to emergency response entities

without charge.

The current hazard communication system is recognized worldwide.

DOT has aligned U.S. hazard communication requirements with

international standards by adoption of shipping descriptions, labels

and placards conforming to United Nations Recommendations on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations). Hazard communication

requirements currently in effect have been successfully used in

identifying the hazards of materials involved in releases during

transportation.

Over the past five years, DOT has substantially amended the U.S.

hazard communication requirements. On December 21, 1990, a final rule

was published [Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402 and final rule revisions on

12/21/91; 56 FR 66124] which comprehensively revised the HMR with

respect to hazard communication, classification, and packaging

requirements. This action simplified and reduced the volume of the HMR,

enhanced safety through improved classification and packaging, promoted

flexibility, and facilitated international commerce through

harmonization with international transport standards. Further, changes

to labeling requirements for Division 6.1 Packing Group (PG) III

materials, requiring a KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD label, are addressed in an

ANPRM recently published in the Federal Register [Docket HM-217; 58 FR

59224; 11/8/93]. The issues addressed in Docket HM-217 are not

otherwise addressed in this document.

III. NAS Findings and Recommendations

The central recommendation contained in the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) report is that the Federal Government should not attempt

to implement the national central reporting system as originally

proposed for consideration. NAS said:

There is no sound basis for defining performance criteria for

information to be provided and threshold reliability needed in such

a system. There would be no opportunity to allow on-going evaluation

to guide implementation, as a phased implementation would allow; and

the system would not be designed to make maximum use of existing

shipper, carrier, and responder capabilities.

NAS found that the original national central reporting system

proposal ``is not aimed at the most serious failures of the existing

system,'' such as incidents ``in which [shipping] papers or placards

are inaccessible because of a crash or fire.'' NAS concluded that,

``because of these shortcomings, the originally proposed system would

be unlikely to function as intended or to produce benefits sufficient

to justify its costs.''

Although NAS recommended that the Government ``should not attempt

to implement such a system as the originally proposed national central

reporting system,'' it did recommend DOT participation in the

evaluation of new information technologies. NAS stated that DOT should,

on an ongoing basis, and in conjunction with the shipper and carrier

industries and emergency responders, systematically investigate

opportunities for application of information technologies to aid

emergency responders and reduce the costs of hazardous materials

incidents. Specifically, NAS called for pilot programs comprising

``controlled experiments with independent, rigorously designed

evaluation protocols.''

NAS found that, in most instances, the existing hazardous materials

communication system is effective and that information available at

hazardous materials transportation incident sites meets critical

information needs of emergency responders. Based on case studies of 125

incidents, NAS identified six kinds of potential information problems

encountered by responders: (1) required sources of information were

missing or inaccurate; (2) information sources were obscured,

destroyed, or inaccessible because of fire, wreckage, or other

barriers; (3) information sources were available and in compliance with

the regulations, but failed to fully or efficiently convey essential

information; (4) essential information was not provided because the

shipment was not subject to the HMR; (5) vehicle operator did not

assist emergency responders in obtaining essential information; and (6)

responders did not properly use available information. Based on this

finding, NAS made the following recommendation:

DOT, together with the other responsible federal

agencies, should form a plan of action to alleviate each of the six

categories of information failures identified in this study through

changes in regulations, more effective enforcement, and support for

improved training of emergency responders and inspectors.

NAS made a number of additional recommendations to improve

identification of hazardous materials to minimize the dangers and costs

of accidents and enhance emergency response efforts. They are as

follows:

The government should not attempt to implement a system

such as the originally proposed national central reporting system,

that is, one entailing immediate and universal application of a

requirement for shipper or carrier real-time filing of vehicle

contents information in a central data base.

Improvements to the existing system for providing

information to emergency responders at hazardous materials incidents

are necessary. Therefore, Congress, DOT, and other responsible

federal agencies should plan and carry out a program to improve the

system. This program should include appropriate measures to apply

technology; reforms in regulations, enforcement, and training; and

evaluation of the existing system so that efforts can be directed at

the most pressing problems.

DOT should immediately undertake one or more limited

start-ups of automated information systems.

DOT should, on an ongoing basis and in conjunction with

the shipper and carrier industries and emergency responders,

systematically investigate opportunities for application of

information technology to aid emergency responders and reduce the

costs of hazardous materials incidents.

The U.S. Fire Administration, DOT, and the other

federal, state, and local agencies that maintain data bases of

hazardous materials incidents should formally coordinate to ensure

that data are defined and collected uniformly, duplicate reporting

is avoided, and data collection is designed to serve essential

program evaluation and research needs.

DOT should establish a monitoring capability that

allows it to determine whether its regulations intended to provide

emergency responders with information at hazardous materials

transportation incidents are working adequately.

DOT and the U.S. Fire Administration should jointly

conduct a study of costs and means of organizing and delivering

training to hazardous materials emergency responders and enforcement

officers.

IV. Regulatory Issues

A. Summary

Over 230 comments were submitted in response to the ANPRM.

Commenters included shippers, carriers, firefighter and police

departments and associations, farmers, Federal and State governments,

trade associations, emergency response telephone services

organizations, and private individuals.

Based on the comments to the ANPRM, the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) recommendations in its report, and RSPA's initiative,

several improvements to the existing hazard communications system have

been identified as needed and are proposed in this notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM).

RSPA is proposing to: (1) require identification number markings on

transport vehicles and freight containers to improve identification of

hazardous materials poisonous by inhalation offered in amounts of more

than 400 kilograms (kg) (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight; 2) require

identification number marking displays on truckload and carload

shipments of non-bulk packages of hazardous materials having a single

identification number; 3) require unique labels and placards for both

liquids and gases that are poisonous by inhalation; 4) lower the

placarding exception in Sec. 172.504(c) from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to

400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of hazardous materials; 5)

revise the requirements for use of a FUMIGANT marking; 6) lower from

2,268 kg (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) the quantity for

specific hazard class placarding when one category of material is

loaded on a transport vehicle at one loading facility; 7) prohibit

display on transport units of slogans, such as ``Drive Safely,'' which

could be confused with placards; 8) require motor carriers to instruct

operators of transport vehicles in methods to contact the motor

carrier; and 9) require placarding for any quantity of ``Organic

peroxides, Type B, controlled temperature'' materials. Also, included

in this proposal are editorial corrections that clarify certain other

requirements under the HMR.

A number of changes considered in the ANPRM are not being proposed.

Based on the comments and its own analysis, RSPA is not proposing to:

1) eliminate the DANGEROUS placard; 2) require added emergency response

information to be displayed on placards or vehicles; 3) revise placard

visibility, size and location, information display and format, or

construction and attachment methods; 4) change existing color tolerance

requirements; or 5) establish a centralized reporting system and

computerized telecommunication data center.

Proposals and the decision not to undertake further rulemaking

action for certain issues are discussed in detail in the following

paragraphs. The complexity of the issues raised and the manner in which

commenters responded make it appropriate to synopsize comments

addressed to groups of questions pertaining to the same issue.

B. Improvements to placarding identification system

Placard visibility, size and location

1. Would increasing the size of placards, incorporating larger

identification numbers and hazard class symbols, improve hazard

recognition? What size would be most effective? Are there any

specific incidents in which the use of larger placards would have

improved emergency response? The HMR specify a minimum size of 273

millimeters (mm) on edge for domestic placards and 250 mm for those

conforming to international standards.

2. Is the existing square-on-point configuration too restrictive

for adding emergency response guidance and hazard identification

information? What changes, if any, should be made? And if so, what

would be the costs and benefits?

3. To improve placard visibility, should RSPA require placards

to be affixed on a vehicle in a manner so that, in the event of an

accident, they can be observed regardless of orientation of the

vehicle? For example, should placards be located on the tops and

bottoms (in addition to each side and end) of transport vehicles to

ensure placard visibility in the event of rollover incidents? This

was suggested by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

Safety Recommendation I-90-11 addressing a November 30, 1988

incident involving an overturned motor vehicle. NTSB pointed out

that ``front placards on the trailer have often been obscured by the

tractor, and rear placards attached to removable gates have been

thrown from the vehicle during an accident sequence.'' Section

172.504(a) prescribes the location of placards on transport

vehicles.

4. Should the three-inch (76 mm) separation distance between

placards and other information displayed on transport vehicles

specified in Sec. 172.516(c)(4) be increased to improve the

presentation of placards? If so, please specify what distance or

height would be effective to ensure that placards are readily

identifiable by emergency responders.

5. RSPA is aware of comments that claim that slogans or

advertisements displayed on configurations similar to placards can

confuse emergency responders. Should RSPA prohibit display of

advertisements and such slogans as ``Drive Safely'' or other

information configured in shapes similar to DOT placards?

6. As an alternative to placarding, are there other methods of

marking a transport vehicle to improve hazard communication

including visibility and durability? For example, would a color

banding scheme for marking transport units, as allowed under

Canadian Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations, be a

workable alternative to placarding?

7. To improve hazard identification and communication during

emergencies, should RSPA consider an additional placarding system to

include a national motor vehicle numbering system similar to the

Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system now

used to identify all rail cars in North America?

8. Domestically, use of reflective placards are permitted but

not required under the HMR. However, placards constructed of

reflective styrene material have been required under Part 5.27 of

the Canadian TDG regulations for explosives and certain bulk

shipments since January 1986. We estimate the cost per reflective

placard as ranging between $6.85 and $15.85 depending on the

quantity of placards ordered and information contained. Should

reflective placards be required? If so, for what class of hazardous

materials? What would be the cost of replacing existing placards

with reflective placards?

9. Should RSPA require placards to be displayed at places where

hazardous materials are stored incidental to transportation? If so,

under what circumstances and in what manner?

Generally, most commenters saw no need to modify DOT's existing

system of placard and identification number display. Since the square-

on-point configuration of placards is internationally recognized, they

believed this standard configuration must be maintained. Most

commenters opposed any increase in placard size or change in the

square-on-point configuration to accommodate additional emergency

response information. Some commenters indicated that an alternative

hazard warning system, such as vehicle color banding, which would force

some carriers to operate dedicated vehicles, should not replace the

existing placarding system. The American Trucking Associations (ATA)

estimated that ``for one mid-size regional carrier alone, the cost to

retrofit its fleet of 1000 vehicles [with revised or additional

placarding] would be $540,000 using the costs of existing products.''

Several commenters indicated that panels on roll-up doors of

trailers and other box-type freight containers are sized to accept the

present placard holders and that companies using permanent flip-type

placards would be forced to utilize a split design (half-on one panel

and half on another) or replace all roll-up doors to accommodate an

increase in size. They said the costs to replace doors would be

enormous.

Most commenters supported prohibiting display of extraneous

information in placard holders. These commenters perceived that safety

slogans or signs, such as ``Drive Safely,'' displayed in a diamond-

shaped format can be confusing to emergency responders when placed in

placard holders or on placard-type displays and, therefore, should be

prohibited. Some commenters indicated that increasing the three-inch

separation distance between placards and other information would not

improve the recognition of placards because placards are readily

identifiable by their shape and color.

Most commenters asserted that, because of the numbers of vehicles,

a national motor vehicle numbering system would prove to be too complex

and ineffective. Several commenters stated that the Universal Machine

Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system is designed for fixed route

transportation systems, such as rail transportation.

Many commenters questioned the extent to which transport vehicles

must be placarded in situations considered to be ``incidental to

transportation.'' For example, they asked if placards are required to

be maintained on transport vehicles not on public roads until hazardous

materials are unloaded, such as when a vehicle remains loaded for an

indefinite period in a consignee's fixed facility.

As long as a hazardous material is in transportation, it is subject

to the HMR, including any requirements for placarding of the vehicle

which contains it. ``Incidental to transportation'' includes hazardous

materials being loaded, unloaded or stored during transportation (e.g.,

at a trucking company terminal or in a railroad switching yard). RSPA

notes that on July 19, 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) published a Final Rule [Docket No. H-022l; 59 FR

36695] in the Federal Register requiring employers to maintain package

marking, labeling and transport vehicle placarding prescribed under the

HMR until hazardous materials are removed. As proposed, OSHA's

regulation would require that placards be maintained on a transport

vehicle containing hazardous materials even when that vehicle is no

longer subject to regulation under the HMR.

A number of commenters supported an increase in the size of

placards and identification number displays to make them more visible

to improve hazard recognition by responders. However, most commenters

indicated that the costs of any major changes to the existing system

would be prohibitive, the benefits would be minimal and the current

placarding system should be maintained.

Based on information available, including estimation of costs, RSPA

believes that revising placard size, orientation or separation distance

requirements, requiring color banding, or implementing a national motor

vehicle numbering system would result in substantial cost increases

without significant improvement in emergency responder abilities to

readily identify hazardous materials in transportation. Therefore, RSPA

is not proposing any changes to the HMR concerning placard size,

visibility or location.

Most commenters believed that retro-reflective placards would only

minimally improve safety and stated that the use of such placards

should remain optional because of their high cost.

RSPA believes that requiring retro-reflective placards would not

provide benefits that are even a small fraction of potential costs,

which may be approximately eight times greater than for current

placards. Therefore, RSPA is not proposing to require retro-reflective

placards.

Placard Information and Format

10. Should placards display information identifying appropriate

emergency response procedures related to the hazardous materials

being transported? Should placards display appropriate DOT Emergency

Response Guidebook guide numbers referencing potential hazards and

corresponding emergency actions?

11. Should there be changes in basic placard format? What

specific incidents, if any, demonstrate the need for such changes?

Do existing hazard class symbols on placards, like the burning ``O''

on the OXYGEN placard, adequately convey hazard information to

emergency responders? Are there other symbols that could be used to

more effectively display hazard warnings?

12. Should RSPA require an additional rectangular placard for

information that cannot effectively be contained in the square-on-

point configuration? For example, the square-on-point placard could

be used as an immediate indicator to responders that hazardous

materials are present in the transport vehicle. Responders could

then refer to the rectangular placard for essential response and

hazard identification information.

13. Should the display of hazardous materials (UN, NA)

identification numbers be more extensively used to convey emergency

response information? Section 13.7.5 of the UN Recommendations on

the Transport of Dangerous Goods (7th Edition) recommends that a

fully-loaded truckload of a packaged commodity be identified with

the UN identification number for that commodity.

14. Would the display of the CLASS 9 or KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD

placards provide emergency responders with needed information in the

event of an incident or accident? Should a CLASS 9 placard be

required for Elevated Temperature Materials?

15. Should DOT develop a new ``Poison Inhalation Hazard''

placard to more specifically identify liquids and gases that are

poisonous by inhalation? If so, what should the placard design be?

Under Sec. 172.505 in Docket HM-181, any quantity of a poisonous

material subject to the ``Poison-Inhalation Hazard'' shipping

description in Sec. 172.203(m)(3) must be placarded with either a

``POISON'' or a ``POISON GAS'' placard.

16. Under Sec. 172.510, if Division 2.3 Zone A gases and

Division 6.1 Packing Group I Hazard Zone A liquids poisonous by

inhalation are shipped by rail, the ``POISON'' and ``POISON GAS''

placards must be placed within a white square background. Should

this requirement be extended to other modes? Should other hazard

classes be included in such a requirement?

17. Technical specifications for color tolerance charts for

determining the acceptability of colors used on labels and placards

are set forth in Appendix A to Part 172. Are color tolerance charts

meeting these or other specifications (e.g., the Pantone Color Code

System which is used in Canada) available from commercial sources?

Are there color standards available which could be incorporated by

reference into the HMR? What would be the cost of these standards to

users?

Generally, commenters believed that RSPA's regulations provide for

an appropriate amount of information through placarding and

identification number markings, and that further changes were not

needed. Most commenters on this issue did not support addition of

emergency response procedural information, such as ERG guide numbers,

on placards. They believed that no changes should be made to basic

placard format. Most commenters were opposed to requiring an additional

placard for other information which they said would complicate

compliance, cause confusion and lead to delays in response. They

believed that these changes are not justified, would be inconsistent

with international hazard communication standards and would add

confusion with no added safety.

Commenters were divided on whether identification numbers should be

used more extensively. For example, the Chlorine Institute and other

commenters supported use of placards with identification numbers on all

full load shipments of packaged hazardous materials. Others said

requiring further display of identification numbers would not enhance

safety, that no change is necessary, and that display of identification

numbers on less-than-truckloads (LTL) could result in information

overload.

Emergency responders have for over a decade been trained in the use

of the existing hazard communication system. There is little evidence

to show that additional information, such as the Emergency Response

Guidebook (ERG) guide numbers on existing placards or a requirement for

a new rectangular placard containing response information would result

in any significant improvement to safety. Therefore, RSPA is not

proposing to require either additional information or an additional

rectangular placard for the display of emergency response information.

There was no consensus on whether a new POISON-INHALATION HAZARD

(PIH) placard is needed to more specifically identify materials which

are poisonous by inhalation. The Chlorine Institute was not sure a more

specific display of PIH information on a placard is warranted, and

believed that such a change should be approved by the UN before being

considered domestically. Others asserted that a new placard to

specifically identify PIH materials would improve response.

Most commenters contend that the current requirement for rail

transportation of PIH materials, specifying a square white background

for POISON and POISON GAS placards, should not be extended to all

modes. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) stated that

a square white background aids visibility of the placard and should be

used whenever a background color causes the placard to be less visible.

However, other commenters recommended eliminating the square white

background requirement altogether. One commenter said that use of the

square white background is not necessary for PIH materials since the

words ``Inhalation Hazard'' are already stenciled as a PIH

identification.

RSPA is proposing new labels and placards for materials poisonous

by inhalation, i.e., Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Zones A and B,

liquids and gases in Division 2.3, Zones A, B, C and D. For poisonous

gases, new graphics for the existing POISON GAS label and placard are

proposed. For liquids, a new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and placard

is proposed. For both liquids and gases, labels and placards would

display a white skull and crossbones on a diamond-shaped black

background placed at the top point/corner of the placard. This proposal

is responsive to a petition (P-1021) submitted by the American Trucking

Associations (ATA) and recognizes one of NAS's principal

recommendations to add greater specificity in the communication of

hazardous materials. RSPA believes the effort to clearly identify the

hazards of these volatile inhalation poisons, already addressed in

shipping paper descriptions and package markings, would be further

enhanced by adding a unique label and placard. Michael Hagen of the

City of Los Angeles Police Department submitted the graphic design

which is proposed in this NPRM.

Several commenters suggested that DOT should require a consistent

color scheme such as the Pantone (TM) color code for labels and

placards. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) said the

existing color tolerance system is obsolete and that a range of color

tolerance should be acceptable. Others did not support a change in

color tolerances, saying that colors already used seem to be adequate.

Color tolerance specifications are necessary to ensure color uniformity

of placards and labels. The present label and placard color code

system, in Appendix A of Part 172 of the HMR, refers to the Munsell

Notation Color Specifications. Some commenters believed that the

Munsell Notation Color Specifications are antiquated. The Pantone (TM)

system was recommended by several commenters. Canada, Great Britain and

European countries use colors based on Pantone. It is RSPA's

understanding that the Pantone system uses specific colors and does not

provide for deviations as does Munsell. At this time, RSPA believes

there is insufficient cost and safety information to justify adopting a

new color system. Therefore, no changes to the present label and

placard color code system are proposed in this notice. However, RSPA

requests comments concerning color code systems which allow for a range

of color, and estimates of the costs and benefits of adopting a new

color tolerance system. RSPA also requests that commenters provide

information regarding specific Pantone (TM) colors that, in their view,

constitute compliance with the label and placard color specifications,

including tolerances, currently referenced in the HMR.

Placard Construction and Attachment

18. Should the composition of placards be improved to minimize

destruction and loss during a fire incident? General placard

specifications are contained in Sec. 172.519. Please provide

examples where fire-resistant placards effectively conveyed hazard

warning information to first responders at incidents involving

vehicular fires?

19. Should means for attaching placards be improved to minimize

tampering or placard loss in an incident? Specifications for a

recommended placard holder are contained in Appendix C to Part 172.

Under the HMR, a placard may be made of any plastic, metal,

tagboard or other material capable of withstanding, without

deterioration or a substantial reduction in effectiveness, a 30-day

exposure to open weather conditions. Placards must also withstand,

without substantial change, a 72-hour fade-resistance test. In its

report, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended evaluation

of new materials for prolonging the fire resistance of placards.

Most commenters on this issue doubted that the safety benefits of

fire resistance would offset the additional costs of changing the

composition of placard materials. The commenters believed that DOT had

not gathered sufficient data to conclude that any placard, regardless

of composition, can effectively withstand fire conditions. Several

commenters believed that even with the use of other material, the

intense heat, fire, and smoke would either destroy or obscure the

placard. The majority of commenters on this issue asserted that

materials now used for constructing placards are adequate. The

International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) doubted that a truly

fire-resistant placard could be created and suggested that any attempt

to do so would involve substantial cost. Most commenters indicated that

the existing system for attaching placards is adequate. They noted that

placards cannot be protected from every possibility for destruction,

such as vandalism and weather. The Illinois EPA said a more secure

method of placard attachment should be specified to reduce the number

of lost placards, but offered no specific information. One commenter

said there may be a need for weather- and accident-proof placards and

holders within reasonable costs. Another commenter suggested that RSPA

look at the feasibility of requiring spare placards on transport

vehicles. The National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) stated that certain

mechanical elements in ``flip-type'' placards impinge upon the

legibility of letters and numbers. For example, in certain instances,

designers and manufacturers have permitted mechanical elements (e.g.,

centerposts, pivot rods and retaining clips) to impinge on the letters

or digits on a placard. Thus, NTTC suggests an amendment to specify

that placard space used to contain digits or numbers contain no other

element of manufacture.

RSPA believes that, although the design of mechanical elements of

certain types of placard holders (e.g., flip-type) used for attaching

placards may encroach upon the legibility of letters and numbers

displayed on placards, placard holders manufactured and designed in

accordance with the specifications and dimensions in Appendix C of Part

172 are adequate, pose little, if any, problem with placard attachment,

and are designed in a manner not to impinge upon the legibility of

placards.

There are insufficient data concerning placard loss due to weather,

fire, or tampering, and the impact of mechanical elements on placard

recognition to conclude that requiring new placard construction

standards would significantly improve overall hazard identification.

Therefore, no changes in placard construction requirements are proposed

at this time. However, for future consideration, RSPA invites further

comment on this issue, particularly from manufacturers of placards and

researchers on fire retardant materials and placard recognition.

Similarly, there is little evidence of significant problems with

placard loss due to inadequate securement. Some commenters indicated

that secure attachment, tampering and placard loss have not been

problems when flip-type placards or placard holders are used. RSPA

believes that plastic or metal placard holders presently used by

industry provide adequate securement of placards on transport vehicles,

and that developing new methods of securement is unnecessary. No

changes are proposed for methods of attaching and securing placards.

Exceptions From Placarding Requirements

20. Should the aggregate gross weight exception for Table 2

materials in Sec. 172.504(c) be raised or lowered? If so, to what

level?

21. If the 1,000-pound placarding exception is maintained,

should it be modified to require that transport vehicles containing

packages of certain size (volume or weight) be placarded? For

example, should a transport vehicle containing a 55-gallon package

be required to be placarded?

22. Should use of the DANGEROUS placard, now specified in

Sec. 172.504(b) to indicate the presence of two or more classes of

Table 2 materials, be further restricted or eliminated?

23. Should RSPA require the DANGEROUS placard for all shipments

of Table 2 materials in amounts less than 1,000 pounds, and specific

placards for all shipments of more than 1,000 pounds or other

amounts? Should all hazardous materials, regardless of quantity, be

required to be placarded when in transportation? Would the meaning

and impact of placarding be diminished should all hazardous

materials, regardless of quantity, be required to be placarded?

24. Based on the risks involved, should RSPA transfer certain

Table 2 materials to Table 1? If so, please detail your

recommendation.

The HMR contains two tables in 49 CFR 172.504. Table 1 specifies

categories of hazardous materials for which any quantity must be

placarded. A transport vehicle, freight container, or unit load device

containing a Table 2 material in non-bulk packagings need not be

placarded unless it contains 454 kilograms (kg) (1,000 pounds) or more

aggregate gross weight. Also, under Sec. 172.504(b), a transport

vehicle or freight container containing two or more classes of

materials requiring different placards specified in Table 2 may be

placarded DANGEROUS in place of the separate placarding. When 2,268 kg

(5,000 pounds) or more of one class of material is loaded at one

loading facility, the placard specified for that material in Table 2

must be used.

Most commenters addressing this issue urged RSPA to retain the

``1,000-pound'' placarding exception for Table 2 materials. The

commenters believed that the current placarding exceptions are

acceptable and should not be changed, although they were divided on

whether to retain the DANGEROUS placard or to limit its use. Most

commenters indicated that there is no justification for the transfer of

placarding assignments from Table 2 to Table 1.

Some commenters contended that a substantial lowering or

elimination of the 1,000-pound exception would result in a

proliferation of placards with the cumulative effect of desensitizing

responders and the public to the warnings placards are intended to

convey. Several commenters said elimination of the exception would

subject sales personnel and small package carriers to commercial

drivers' licensing (CDL) requirements. Another commenter said DOT

should maintain the exception because carrier personnel and shippers

are familiar with it. ATA stated that the 1,000-pound exception for

placarding of Table 2 materials should remain unchanged. ATA also

believed no modifications should be made to the 1000-pound exception

based on package size because a vehicle transporting bulk packages must

display the proper class placard for any amount of material in the

package; thus, the cut-off for package size is already in place at 450

liters (119 gallons) for bulk shipments. Most commenters believed that

to modify or eliminate this exception would promote error and loss of

responder confidence. Most commenters also saw no need to modify the

1000-pound exception on the basis of package size.

Several commenters, including the Chemical Manufacturers

Association (CMA), indicated support for a reduction or elimination of

the exception. The CMA stated:

In the interests of assisting emergency responders, CMA urges

DOT to consider reducing the 1,000 pound placarding exception for

hazardous materials and discontinue use of the DANGEROUS placard.

For less than truckload shipments of multiple hazardous materials,

placards for the top three materials (based on the level of hazard,

as specified in 49 CFR, Section 173.2a, ``Classification of a

material having more than one hazard'') could be required.

However, CMA believed that if DOT chooses to reduce the placarding

exception, DOT should not trigger modifications to the CDL requirements

based on placarding; in this case the 1000-pound exception should

remain. The IAFC believes that the exception should be lowered to no

more than 200 pounds to cover 55-gallon drums. The National Association

of Chemical Recyclers (NACR) said that all vehicles transporting

hazardous materials in any quantity should be placarded. One commenter

believed that eliminating the exception would make things simpler for

shippers, enforcement personnel and responders. Another commenter

stated that the current 1000-pound exception leaves the door wide open

for hazardous materials tragedies.

A majority of commenters on this issue said no change to the

exception allowing use of the DANGEROUS placard is needed. Commenters

who urged retaining the DANGEROUS placard said that it is well

recognized and understood. They acknowledged that the DANGEROUS placard

offers no specific instruction to responders except to alert them that

there is more than one hazard class in a vehicle; on the other hand,

they said that, if hazard class placards were used for each product in

a mixed load, the response system would be overburdened and diluted.

Other commenters said not only should the DANGEROUS placard be retained

but that its use should be extended to Table 1 materials.

Opponents of the continued use of the DANGEROUS placard cited its

lack of useful information and supported its elimination. One commenter

supported elimination of the placard because it offers little

information to responders and the complexity of the DANGEROUS placard

requirements promotes non-compliance. Most commenters opposed

transferring certain Table 2 materials to Table 1 and alleged that they

do not pose the same level of risk.

In this notice, RSPA is proposing three changes to placarding

requirements in Sec. 172.504.

The DANGEROUS placard and the 1,000-pound placarding exception are

components of a well-understood system which has been in use for many

years; however, without these, or similar, exceptions, RSPA believes

there might be such a proliferation of placards on transport vehicles

as to diminish the effectiveness of placarding. However, RSPA agrees

with NAS recommendations and commenters' suggestions that some

modification of provisions for use of the DANGEROUS placard is

warranted. RSPA is proposing to revise 49 CFR 172.504(b) to specify

that when 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) (rather than 2268 kg (5,000 pounds)

as currently specified) of one or more category of materials requiring

the same placard is loaded on a transport vehicle at one loading

facility, the specific placard for that class is required to be

displayed. This proposal recognizes both the needs of enforcement

personnel for more specific identification when large quantities of

non-bulk packagings are present on a transport vehicle and the

operational difficulties for shippers and carriers when transporting

mixed loads of categories of hazardous materials requiring different

placards. It is believed that this proposal would incrementally improve

hazard communication without unduly impacting current practices. RSPA

also proposes to lower the placarding exception in Sec. 172.504(c)(1)

from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross

weight of hazardous materials. The 400-kg level is proposed also to

incrementally improve hazard communication without unduly impacting

current practices. This breakpoint was selected because it is generally

consistent with the breakpoint between non-bulk and bulk packagings. In

general, this proposed lowering of the placarding exception would allow

one 55-gallon drum of Table 2 hazardous material on a transport vehicle

to go unplacarded, whereas the current exception would allow two. RSPA

recognizes that lowering the placarding exception to 400 kg (882

pounds) may increase costs to industry but believes that more specific

hazard warning information is needed to aid emergency responders in

making more effective emergency response decisions.

A third change is proposed to placarding Tables 1 and 2 of

Sec. 172.504(e). RSPA believes materials that must be refrigerated

during transportation should be identified without regard to quantity.

Certain organic peroxides can decompose with such rapidity within a

package that the resultant heat and gas will violently burst the

package. A control temperature is the temperature above which a package

of this material may not be offered for transportation, or transported.

RSPA believes that such organic peroxides may pose significant risk if

involved in accidents that result in a loss of temperature control.

Because of the unique hazards associated with these materials in

transportation, RSPA proposes to include ``Organic peroxides, Type B,

liquid or solid, temperature controlled'' in Table 1 of

Sec. 172.504(e), which would require placarding in any quantity.

Transition Period

25. Is there a need for a longer transition period, beyond

October 1, 1994 as required in Sec. 171.14(b)(4) under HM-181, for

the implementation of placarding requirements? What effect would a

longer transition period have on the ability of emergency responders

to respond to hazardous materials incidents?

Many of the comments concerning the 1994 effective date are no

longer applicable because the transition period for implementing the

new placarding system was extended for hazardous materials transported

domestically by motor vehicles. On October 1, 1992, in response to

numerous petitions from motor carriers to minimize the impact of

converting to the new placarding system, RSPA amended Sec. 171.14(c)(2)

to extend the transition period from October 1, 1994, until October 1,

2001, for highway operations only (see Docket HM-181; 57 FR 45446).

Many commenters, including the Conference On the Safe

Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) and the CMA, urged

RSPA to establish one effective date for the implementation of new

placarding requirements under HM-181 and HM-206. They contended that

different effective dates for changes made under HM-181 and for changes

made under HM-206 would result in additional implementation costs. A

number of commenters said the original October 1, 1994 effective date

for implementation of HM-181 placarding changes (applicable to

domestic, intermodal and rail shipment) would be adequate, provided the

final rule in HM-206 made no major revision to the placarding system.

Several commenters suggested a flexible transition period, depending on

the extent of changes to the system. Most commenters believed that

major revisions in HM-206 would require new transition periods.

RSPA is not proposing any change to the transitional placarding

provisions in Sec. 171.14 in this notice. With regard to placarding

changes proposed in this notice, it is anticipated that a minimum of a

one year transition period would be provided for implementation of new

requirements following issuance of a final rule. (See section-by-

section highlights for Sec. 172.502).

C. Central Reporting System and Computerized Telecommunication Data

Center

Establishment of Data Center

26. Should a central reporting system and computerized

telecommunications data center be established? If so, should it be

operated by the Federal Government or by a private entity, either on

its own initiative, or under contract to the Government?

27. What would be the projected safety benefits of establishing

and operating such a system?

28. Should remote locations, such as Alaska, be excluded from

mandatory participation in a central computerized data reporting

system?

29. To what extent do existing centralized data reporting

systems already provide dispatcher-to-vehicle transmissions? Could

these systems be modified to provide information to emergency

responders in the event of incidents or accidents involving

hazardous materials?

30. What elements of DOT's hazard communication system, if any,

could be eliminated by the use of centralized reporting? Marking,

Labeling and/or Placarding? Shipping papers? Incident reporting?

Out of 196 commenters responding to Question 26, 170 were opposed

to such a system. They contended that costs were incalculable and that

such a system is unworkable and of minimal use to responders. One

commenter summarized his opposition to mandatory participation in a

central reporting system. The commenter stated:

It would not add one piece of information not already required

under 49 CFR. It would require a massive effort to train industry

employees and an estimated 40,000 paid and volunteer fire

departments. It would encourage non-compliance due to the cost and

complexity of complying with reporting requirements, and it would

increase risk of misinformation. Mandatory reporting would put US

businesses at a disadvantage or, if applied to foreign shippers,

encourage trade retaliation.

Five commenters stressed that emphasis should be placed on training

rather than tracking shipments. Seventeen commenters opposed the

proposed data system but supported the application of some kind of

electronic notification for tracking extremely hazardous materials,

such as those requiring registration. Three commenters said the

proposed reporting system and data center needs further study.

Three commenters supported establishment of the reporting system,

one without qualification, the International Association of

Firefighters (IAFF), and two on the condition that the U.S. Government

operate it. The IAFF presented no information in response to questions

26 through 55. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated:

Because the Safety Board has not investigated any accidents in

which a computerized tracking system would have affected the outcome

of the response to the accident, the Board has no basis for comments

on this issue.

Commenters offered little detailed discussion of whether a

mandatory central reporting system should be operated by the Federal

Government or by a private entity. Several commenters asked why a

government-operated reporting system should be established in

competition with existing services being operated in the private

sector. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) referred to

extensive voluntary cooperation between shippers and existing

communication services that would disappear if a central reporting

system is set up and operated by the Federal Government. NPGA stated

that the costs of government operation of this system would exceed the

costs of operating existing communication network. They also said that

a government-operated central reporting system would be subjected to

budget cuts and appropriation constraints.

Many commenters indicated that a centralized reporting system could

not replace all or part of DOT's existing hazard communication

requirements.

D. Other Comments Relating to the Central Reporting System

RSPA Evaluation

RSPA agrees with the central recommendation contained in the NAS

report and the majority of commenters on this issue. Therefore, RSPA is

not proposing to establish a centralized reporting system and

telecommunication data center. RSPA believes that the national central

reporting system described in the Hazardous Materials Transportation

Uniform Safety Act would be extremely complicated, burdensome,

expensive in its implementation, and of questionable benefit. In the

long term, however, RSPA believes that the existing system will be

augmented by real- or near-real-time technologies capable of providing

information to responders electronically. RSPA also believes that such

capabilities will piggy-back communications systems established by

industry for economic rather than safety reasons.

RSPA agrees with NAS' finding that overall information system

improvement would best evolve from advances in the efficiencies of many

existing systems already applied daily to hundreds of shipper and

carrier operations. Carefully phased-in improvements will build overall

effectiveness of hazard communications systems already universally

relied on.

RSPA will continue to review the emerging technology of electronic

monitoring for both rail and highway modes. In the near term, RSPA will

evaluate the results of such pilot programs for rail carriers as the

Houston Cooperative Emergency Planning Project. This project

establishes the first direct computer link between a railroad and a

major fire department designed to exchange hazardous material and

freight information for the benefit of first responders.

Based on the findings and recommendation in the NAS report and lack

of supporting information by commenters to the ANPRM and our

assessment, RSPA is not proposing the establishment and implementation

of the central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data

center.

Data Entry and Removal

31. When, and by whom, would data be entered into the system?

For example, must a farmer who picks up a variety of pesticides from

a chemical distributor enter data into this system? Who would enter

data, and when would data be entered, for shipments originated by

foreign shippers? How would required data be entered by shippers and

carriers who do not have computer capabilities?

32. At what points in the distribution chain would additional

entries have to be made, e.g., highway/rail interchanges? How would

the system accommodate data interchange between carriers? Between

modes? Who would be responsible for entering data regarding

intermodal shipments?

33. If only shippers enter data, how would the system include

less-than-truckload distribution where an average shipment will

involve multiple vehicles (pickup, line hauls, and delivery)?

34. Should a shipment report contain: the name and address of

the party providing the data; point of shipment origin; point of

shipment destination; vehicle identification; DOT proper shipping

name, hazard class and commodity identification number; emergency

telephone contact number; and quantity of materials involved and

reportable quantities for hazardous materials that are also

hazardous substances? Are disclosures related to so-called ``blind''

shipments of any relevance to current business practices?

35. What additional information should be included for hazardous

waste shipments? Who should be required to enter hazardous waste

data? The original shipper or generator? The consolidator of various

waste shipments from small generators? The treatment facility? The

disposal facility?

36. How can the accuracy of data entered into the system be

assured?

37. Once data is entered into the system, how long should it

remain in the data base until it is purged? Who should purge the

system once shipments reach consignees: The originating shipper;

carrier; consignee or system personnel?

Many commenters dismissed Questions 31-37 by reiterating that no

such system should be established. Several commenters said these

questions indicate the complexity of running such a system.

Responsibilities need to be assigned, information needs to be entered,

transferred and accepted in timely fashion. They said for the system to

work effectively, data reliability must be perfect and noted that the

system must be promptly purged of data when shipments are complete or

it will be overwhelmed.

Commenters questioned expected benefits gained from such a system

since information on placards, labels, shipping papers, and emergency

response information documents is already available to emergency

responders, without delay, at incident sites. One commenter indicated

that the complicated operations involved in establishing and

maintaining a reporting center increase the risk of error. Probability

of error increases as a result of making and deleting entries

throughout hazardous materials distribution.

Commenters contended that the proposed system provides no mechanism

to ensure accuracy of massive amounts of data. Deletions from the data

base relating to completed shipments may seriously lag behind actual

termination. The American Trucking Associations commented that,

``Vigilance on the part of the person entering information is the only

`assurance' of accuracy. With only a 1% error rate that vigilance

results in excess of 365 million errors per year. The key to accurate

data is to minimize and control those who can change data.'' Many

commenters indicated, given that the system would accept data from a

variety of people, accuracy could suffer.

System Access and Safeguards

38. Who should have access to such a system for obtaining

information about hazardous materials shipments and technical and

other emergency response information? Should other governmental

organizations, such as Federal and state emergency response teams,

or law enforcement agencies monitoring the distribution of chemicals

commonly used in illegal drug manufacture, be permitted to access

the system? Should industry emergency response teams have access?

39. What methods should be employed for ensuring the security of

the information in such a system?

40. How can shipment information be limited to persons who have

no competitive interest in other shippers' or carriers' information?

No consensus emerged from Questions 38-40 regarding who should have

access to the system or how to maintain confidentiality of data. Many

commenters stated that there is an enormous potential for abuse of the

system and indicated that, as proposed, the system would lack access

control. Commenters indicated that uncontrolled access to a centralized

system would be a threat to individual business security and

confidentiality. Some commenters said that private enterprises should

not have access to shipping data because of competitive reasons. Others

said that no government entity should have access to any centralized

data system. National Tank Truck Carriers commented that it is

essential that access be limited only to governmental entities that

pledge confidentiality.

A few commenters stated that access cannot be limited in any way if

the system is to work well. INFOTRAC said, ``There is no way to

accurately forecast who might have emergency need of the information

and under what circumstances.'' Another commenter agreed that tight

security to confidential and sensitive business data would lead to

delayed access, negating the intended effect of such a system.

Some commenters suggested procedures for maintaining

confidentiality of data. Their concerns are illustrated by the National

Industrial Transportation League's comments. NITL stated:

Only emergency response personnel that are certified and bonded

for handling confidential information should have access to any

central data base system. Access by any individual must be fully

traceable, and with a documented need-to-know reason for accessing

the system.

No government organization at any level, other than Emergency

Responders, should have access to a central reporting system.

Confidential data is involved. ICC rules prohibit carriers from

disclosing shipping data; same rules should apply here.

No data should remain on system after it is purged.

Another commenter said computer passwords could be issued to

parties approved for access.

Emergency Responders: Use of System

41. What data elements pertaining to emergency response should

be required to be entered into the system? If emergency response

information is to be a part of the system, who should be responsible

for its inclusion for uniformity of presentation and content?

42. How would emergency responders identify individual shipments

in transit by using this system? By vehicle identification numbers?

By vehicle registration numbers? By aircraft tail numbers? By other

means?

43. How would the system deliver information to emergency

responders? Direct data center-to-response vehicles? Data center-to

state or local level dispatching units-to-vehicle? Modem-to-modem?

Telephonic link? Facsimile hard copy to vehicle receivers? Other

methods? Would data from an electronic notification system reach on-

scene responders in time to make basic first-response decisions?

44. How can such a system be accessed through mobile satellite

service or other technologies having the capability of providing 2-

way voice, data or facsimile services?

45. Would only satellite tracking-augmented real-time

information (providing vehicle identification at all times) be of

any use to responders?

46. If the electronic shipment notification system is extended

to the local level, would it be more cost-effective to link the

system with local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) established

under Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,

local fire departments, police departments or other local

organizations?

47. Please provide details regarding any accident in which

emergency response personnel have been killed or injured due to

involvement of hazardous materials transported in compliance with

existing regulations (e.g., placarding, labeling, package marking

and shipping paper requirements) that would have been averted had a

centralized data system been established and operating at that time.

Considering the complexities involved in manipulating massive

amounts of data nationwide, most commenters to this issue indicated

that response information from a central reporting system may not reach

first-responders in time to be of much use. They believed that no

centralized system would effectively replace the real-time observance

of placards, package labels, markings, shipping papers and emergency

response information required under 49 CFR part 172.

Some commenters asserted that, if a centralized system is

implemented, only the information now required by DOT for emergency

response should be entered into it. Others expressed concern over an

inevitable lack of data uniformity in a nationwide system involving a

diversity of users and varying levels of response expertise. One way to

assure uniformity of information, they said, would be to rely on the

Chemical Transportation Emergency Center's (CHEMTREC's) files of

response data that already cover the most commonly transported

hazardous materials. One commenter suggested that a data base with

information similar to DOT's Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) should

be established. INFOTRAC commented that ``emergency response elements

should be left to existing professional response systems with the

experience and ability to deal with the unique attributes of hazardous

materials emergencies. The uniformity of content would be impossible to

control.''

Some commenters were not sure how emergency responders would

identify individual shipments in transit by using a central reporting

system. They suggested that either vehicle identification numbers could

be entered into the system and used to access cargo manifest data or

shipment information could be linked with the vehicle registration

system or with vehicle license plate numbers. Commenters contended that

a centralized computer system would be of little use without real-time

capabilities. No information was presented about how a nationwide

satellite tracking system might be configured or how satellite tracking

capabilities might be meshed with a near-real-time notification system

presumably consisting of telephonic data entries to a mainframe

computer at system headquarters for voice, data, or facsimile access by

responders.

Some commenters concluded that any lag time resulting from the

intricacies of transferring data from thousands of terminals to a

mainframe for responder access would defeat the intended purpose of

centralized reporting, i.e., to provide cargo identification

information in time for a first responder to make decisions. With so

much information being entered into such a system, lag time between

entry and transmission could be significant. They said some shipments

may be completed before original entry is recorded in the system and

made accessible. Given the presumed technical sophistication of a

centralized reporting system, most commenters on this issue doubted

that most local emergency response organizations like fire or police

departments, have the technical capability to effectively link with it

at this time. Many commenters, such as the Association of American

Railroads (AAR) and National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), stated that

they were not aware of any situation where a fatality or an injury

occurred due to hazardous materials transportation that would have been

mitigated had a central reporting system existed.

Training In Use of System

48. How would training for operating a central computerized

tracking system be presented? How often? To whom should training be

presented or required?

49. How would the system be organized to allow for different

operational training levels or operator sophistication?

Some commenters asserted that training for the operation of a

centralized reporting system must be substantial and widespread. Many

commenters said all system users would have to obtain equal levels of

basic training in order to properly enter, change, retrieve and delete

information. Some said training must reflect different uses of the

system and that training should be customized based on use and need.

Several commenters said training for those needing access to the system

would present the biggest problem.

As a first step, ATA said RSPA should develop a manual on use of

the system and suggested that initial and recurrent training

requirements could mirror the training schedules in 49 CFR part 172,

subpart H. Several commenters, including NPGA, said that, although it

would be very difficult to estimate the scope of training needed

without knowing the dimensions of the system, it could be accomplished

in cooperation with appropriate trade associations and professional

societies.

System Costs

50. What would be the total annualized estimated costs of

employing a nationwide central reporting system?

51. What would be the capital costs, operating costs (including

telecommunication costs), and personnel or contractor costs for

establishing and maintaining a centralized reporting system?

52. Should user fees be imposed to cover the costs of operating

such a system? If so, should fees be based on total annual

shipments? On a per shipment basis? On a per entry basis? Should

governmental agencies using the system be charged a fee based on the

amount of system usage?

53. What would be the impact of the added costs of complying

with mandatory electronic shipment notification requirements on the

ability of U.S. industry to compete in the international

marketplace?

54. What would be the impact of imposing a user fee on foreign

shippers or carriers?

55. What would be the cost impact of requiring Federal agencies

to comply with mandatory electronic shipment notification

requirements? (Federal agencies make over 500,000 hazardous

materials shipments a year.)

A number of commenters said the cost of implementing the system

would be prohibitive to industry, would drive up pass-through costs to

the public and could have the effect of making U.S. industry non-

competitive in European and Asian markets. Several commenters said they

had no idea of a total cost of implementing the proposed reporting

system. NTTC said that since proponents of the system have given the

public ``not a clue'' regarding the elements or dimensions of the

system, it was refraining from comment on system costs. Another

commenter said it is impossible to evaluate this proposal without a

specific study of the hardware, software and administration that would

be put in place to establish this system. Several commenters said

required software alone would cost tens of millions of dollars.

Many commenters addressing total system cost ventured a range of

total cost estimates from ``billions'' for all industry to tens of

millions annually for association-represented groups of businesses.

Individual companies claimed they would pay millions annually. The

National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA) claimed that the cost

would be prohibitive and especially burdensome and discriminatory for

small business and that no justification has been given to prove it

would provide more accurate or even more timely information to

responders. One commenter said that creation and maintenance of this

system would impose enormous costs on shippers and carriers of

hazardous materials not only in terms of computer manifest fees but in

terms of the labor needed to generate and transmit them. The NITL

stated that, at $12 per shipment, total system costs could run in the

billions of dollars. NITL added that internal costs for training and

administering the system would add an additional loss to productivity--

and that this does not include capital expense needed to implement and

utilize the system.

ATA estimated a total cost to the trucking industry, based on an

estimate of $12 per entry, would be in excess of $2.19 billion a year.

ATA said that this cost does not take into account shipments in LTL

(less-than-truckload) operations that will be transferred in transit up

to six times. The National Welding Supply Association (NWSA) in its

summary of expectations said, at a minimum, each distributor would have

to transmit 156 sets of shipping papers daily by facsimile to the

system. The association said that even at the low end cost range the

average NWSA member would pay $1,872 each day in manifest fees, and

that assuming a distributor operates 250 days/year that distributor

would pay $468,000 in manifest fees. NWSA notes that this cost would

have a devastating effect on profits for the average NWSA distributor,

and that system fees would amount to an annual operating cost of from

9.4% to 28% of gross sales.

Commenters representing regional interests emphasized the high cost

of a national program to their areas. For example, the Petroleum

Marketers of Iowa estimated an annual cost of between $5.8 and $19.4

million annually for Iowa petroleum businesses.

Because so little is known about the specifics of the central

reporting system as proposed, many commenters said it would be very

difficult to arrive at precise estimates of the costs of participating

in such a system. Many commenters were unable to give good estimates of

specific capital or operating costs to establish and maintain a

centralized reporting system introduced as a concept with few

parameters. The Fertilizer Institute's comment is representative:

``Costs would be extremely high and anybody's guess at this time. Since

there is no system and no staff currently, everything would be new and

would include development costs.''

Commenters were divided about the efficacy of imposing user fees to

support a government-operated system. Many commenters believed that if

a system is established, it is certain user fees would be imposed, and

that equitable fees would be based on annual shipment data. Some

commenters said imposition of user fees would push many companies

beyond profit margins.

A majority of commenters on this issue, including NITL, said

mandatory requirements to participate in a centralized reporting system

would definitely reduce the trade surplus that chemicals generate every

year for the United States. ATA said a required centralized reporting

system would raise costs of goods transported within, imported into,

and exported from the U.S., cutting deeper into imbalance of trade.

Considering massive cost to U.S. chemical companies if the system is

implemented, CMA said our global competitiveness would be greatly

affected. Many commenters warned that the impact of imposing user-fee

requirements on foreign shippers for the operation of the U.S.-based

system would create a substantial barrier for companies seeking to

export to our country, undercutting U.S. trade policies. Many

commenters envisioned retaliatory actions.

If the proposed central reporting system is imposed, most

commenters on this issue said agencies of the Federal Government must

not be exempted from participating in the system regardless of what it

would cost. Other commenters noted, that based on an estimate of

500,000 government shipments annually, the cost to taxpayers would be

in excess of $6 million a year.

E. Continually-monitored Telephone Systems

56. Should carriers, in addition to shippers, be required to

maintain continually-monitored emergency response telephone systems

for all or certain hazardous materials in transportation as

specified in 49 CFR 172.604? Why? What would be the costs or

benefits? What specific incidents, if any, demonstrate the need for

the carrier requirement?

57. What has been the experience of the continually-monitored

telephone system requirement in 49 CFR Sec. 172.604 imposed on

shippers?

58. Should a requirement for a carrier continually-monitored

telephone system be triggered by a specific amount of hazardous

materials being carried? Should a requirement for carrier

continually-monitored telephone systems be applied only to shipments

of hazardous materials in bulk packaging?

59. Should such a requirement be applied only to certain types

and quantities of hazardous materials, such as Packing Group I or II

poisons, flammable or corrosive materials; certain classes of

explosives, or highway-route-controlled radioactive materials?

60. Should a carrier's continually-monitored number be added to

shipping papers or other shipper documentation? Or should it be

marked on the transport vehicle or on the transport vehicle

placarding? Any or all of these options?

61. How would carriers obtain detailed emergency response

information regarding the hazardous materials on their vehicles?

Would placement of continually-monitored phone numbers on placards,

or transport vehicles, be useful to emergency responders? Would the

addition of this kind of information diminish the effectiveness of

placards?

62. What qualifications should be established for carriers to

carry out response assistance through a continually-monitored

telephone system?

63. As shippers are permitted to do, should carriers be

authorized to use such chemical information services such as

CHEMTREC to perform the carrier's monitored phone responsibility?

Most of the 93 commenters on this issue opposed requiring carriers

to maintain a continually-monitored 24-hour telephone number for

providing emergency response information. Opponents of this requirement

believed the existing emergency response communication system is

sufficient. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), among

others, said that since shippers already provide a 24-hour emergency

response telephone number on shipping papers, they see no need for a

continually-monitored telephone system for motor carriers. Some

carriers have voluntarily provided 24-hour telephone numbers, although

it is not clear whether these numbers are intended to be used for

emergency response purposes. Many commenters said they believed this

would be a duplication of effort and the cost of such a system and of

training personnel to operate it would be enormous, without any

increase in the level of safety.

Sixteen commenters supported requiring carriers to maintain

continually-monitored emergency response telephone systems. Some of the

commenters said it may only be feasible to apply this requirement to

carriers transporting extremely hazardous materials, such as

radioactive materials, chlorine and explosives. The International

Association of Fire Chiefs stated:

The easiest way to do this when shipping papers or further

identification is not available, is to be able to immediately

contact the carrier. The carrier can then identify the load on that

vehicle and refer us to the proper manufacturer for information.

Commenters opposed to the requirement believed that it would result

in confusion to have two 24-hour emergency response telephone numbers

on the shipping paper, which could result in delays from mistakes. The

Conference on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA)

stated:

Without additional study of the potential costs and benefits of

a continually monitored telephone system for carriers, DOT should

not saddle transporters with this responsibility. Additional

telephone numbers could seriously complicate emergency response

efforts and coordination.

Several commenters believed placement of an additional emergency

response telephone number on a shipping paper may actually hinder

emergency response, since the carrier would most likely only be

knowledgeable about the transport equipment and not necessarily the

characteristics and constituents of the material being transported.

NITL stated that they support CMA's position that a carrier number, in

addition to other numbers on a shipping paper, could actually confuse

responders, seriously complicate the situation, and could delay proper

mitigation.

In their response to the issue of whether a carrier's continually-

monitored telephone number should be marked on a transport vehicle or

on transport vehicle placarding, most commenters opposed display of any

additional information on placards, including a carrier's continually-

monitored emergency response telephone number. Although several

commenters, such as, the Illinois EPA and PPG Industries, Inc.,

supported marking of the transport vehicle with a carrier's

continually-monitored emergency response telephone number, the majority

of the commenters made no specific comment or recommendation on whether

a carrier's continually-monitored emergency response telephone number

should be marked directly on a transport vehicle.

Opposition to marking a carrier's continually-monitored emergency

response telephone number on a transport vehicle is illustrated by

ATA's comment. ATA stated:

As the name and address of the motor carrier already is required

to be displayed on the sides of the power unit (and in most cases

company logos are prominently displayed across all four sides of a

trailer) emergency responders generally have no trouble identifying

the carrier. Paperwork accompanying shipments generally are

imprinted with home office telephone numbers and other company

information. Motor carrier identification and telephone notification

generally is needed to inform the motor carrier that their vehicle

has been involved in an incident, not to request information

regarding incident management.

Most commenters believed that such a requirement would be costly

and confusing, and there is no evidence that the current emergency

response information requirements are not adequate.

RSPA generally agrees with commenters that potential problems and

confusion may occur by requiring a carrier contact telephone number, in

addition to the shipper's and possibly other organizations (e.g.,

CHEMTREC) telephone numbers, on shipping papers for accessing emergency

response information. RSPA also agrees with the commenters that the

display of a carrier contact telephone number on the carrier's

transport vehicle would not be necessary in most situations, since

there is other identifying information already displayed on the

transport vehicle to assist responders. However, RSPA shares NAS'

concerns that in some instances vehicle operators may be unprepared or

unable to provide pertinent carrier-related information to emergency

responders and others at the scene of hazardous materials accidents/

incidents. Consequently, RSPA proposes to require each carrier who

transports or accepts a hazardous material for transportation by air,

highway, rail, or water, for which shipping papers are required, to

instruct the operator of the transport vehicle to contact the carrier

in the event of an emergency involving hazardous materials.

In addition, RSPA has been made aware that emergency responders

have had difficulty in identifying what hazardous materials are present

on a transport vehicle when the transport vehicle is disconnected or

separated from its motive power and dropped or parked at such places as

truck stops, motels, or other locations. RSPA believes there is a need

to assist emergency responders in obtaining information about hazardous

materials in these situations. Therefore, RSPA proposes to require each

carrier to mark its telephone number on the separated transport

vehicle, have shipping papers and emergency response information

readily available on the separated transport vehicle, or comply with

the emergency response information facility requirements specified in

Sec. 172.602(c)(1). This proposal would not apply to transport vehicles

that are dropped or parked at a carrier facility, e.g., terminal or

consignee/consignor facility, since these facilities are subject to the

requirements in Sec. 172.602(c)(1). Nothing in this proposal would

waive or modify the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations' (49 CFR

385-399) vehicle parking requirements (Sec. 397.7) for motor carriers.

RSPA believes that this proposal is responsive to NAS' concerns on the

ability of carriers to provide some assistance to emergency responders

at the scene of hazardous materials accidents/incidents and would be a

beneficial augmentation to the current hazard communication

requirements.

F. Other RSPA Initiatives

In evaluating potential improvements of the existing hazard

communication system, RSPA identified a number of potential changes

which were not specifically addressed in the ANPRM. These are discussed

in the following paragraphs.

Identification Numbers

Under the HMR, identification numbers are currently required to be

displayed on cargo tanks, portable tanks, multi-unit tank car tanks,

and other bulk packagings. RSPA believes that application of

identification number markings to packaged hazardous materials

shipments in truckload or carload quantities would enhance the ability

of emergency responders to respond effectively to incidents involving

these types of shipments. Although NAS made no specific recommendation

to require identification numbers for packaged hazardous materials in

fully loaded transport vehicles, RSPA believes such a requirement would

be responsive in part to NAS' concerns regarding sufficiency of

emergency response information available to responders. For example,

fully loaded transport vehicles containing packaged hazardous materials

marked with a single identification number would display the

identification number on the outside of the vehicle. This would be used

in conjunction with the DOT ERG by emergency responders to more quickly

obtain mitigation information. In most instances, responders now must

rely on shipping paper information and package markings inside the

vehicle to determine identification numbers. RSPA believes this

extension of the use of identification numbers would add to the overall

effectiveness of DOT's hazard communications system by improving on-

scene recognition of hazardous materials by emergency responders.

Therefore, RSPA proposes to require the display of the identification

number on a fully-loaded transport vehicle or freight container

(proposed Sec. 172.323) containing one category of packaged hazardous

materials, and on transport vehicles or freight containers containing

more than 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of a material

poisonous by inhalation (Sec. 172.313). RSPA believes these two changes

would improve mitigation efforts and be responsive to NAS' concerns for

improving the identification of hazardous materials in emergency

situations.

In certain instances, a cargo tank or other bulk packaging may be

transported inside a closed transport vehicle or freight container, and

identification numbers may not be displayed on the transport vehicle or

freight container. In this notice, RSPA is proposing to revise

Sec. 172.328 to clarify that an identification number marking must be

displayed on a transport vehicle or freight container containing a

hazardous material in a cargo tank, if the identification number

marking on the cargo tank is not visible during transportation.

Similarly, Sec. 172.331 would be clarified to provide that a transport

vehicle or freight container containing a hazardous material in a bulk

packaging other than a cargo tank, portable tank, tank car and multi-

unit tank car tank must be marked with the identification number, if

the identification number is not visible during transportation. This

proposed clarification of the two sections is consistent with the

requirement in Sec. 172.326(c)(1) for portable tanks.

Fumigant Marking

Many consignments of goods are treated with fumigants that pose a

risk during transportation, in particular to workers who may be exposed

unknowingly when they open transport units. Currently, Sec. 173.9 sets

forth requirements, for rail transportation only, for identifying each

transport unit containing a lading that has been treated with a

fumigant.

In this notice, RSPA proposes to: 1) extend the requirements in

Sec. 173.9 to all modes of transportation; 2) extend the requirement to

display the FUMIGANT marking from only Division 2.3 and Division 6.1

materials to every material used to fumigate the contents of a

transport vehicle or freight container; 3) specify that a fumigated

transport vehicle or freight container is a package containing a

hazardous material for application of the fumigation requirements; 4)

for international shipments, require that the bill of lading or other

shipping document accompanying the shipment contain hazard warning

information concerning the fumigant; and 5) revise the FUMIGANT

marking, consistent with the display specified in the United Nations

Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.

RSPA believes the FUMIGANT marking currently specified in

Sec. 173.9 is obsolete and ineffective for communicating hazard warning

information. Furthermore, RSPA believes that the design of the FUMIGANT

marking appearing in the United Nations Recommendations on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods would better communicate the hazards

through use of the POISON symbol, pared down text, and larger size.

Adoption of the U.N. marking would align domestic regulations with

international regulations. Therefore, RSPA also is proposing to revise

the design of the FUMIGANT marking to more appropriately identify the

hazard and to conform to international standards. As an alternative to

the FUMIGANT marking, RSPA proposes to recognize use of the label

authorized by the EPA in 40 CFR part 156. RSPA requests comments as to

whether there is a need to reference requirements of other agencies

pertaining to fumigants. RSPA also requests estimates of the numbers of

fumigated shipments that would be marked under this proposal and the

costs of marking.

Availability of Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information

For transportation by highway, Sec. 177.817(e) requires that a

shipping paper ``is readily available to, and recognizable by,

authorities in the event of an accident or inspection.'' RSPA proposes

to amend Sec. 177.817(e) to clarify that the term ``authorities''

includes emergency response personnel such as volunteer and paid fire

personnel and that the requirement also applies to an incident

involving hazardous materials, not necessarily resulting from an

accident such as a vehicular collision. RSPA proposes to add similar

provisions to Secs. 174.26, 175.33 and Sec. 176.30 to ensure that

hazardous materials information is readily available to authorities

(including emergency responders) in the rail, air and water modes,

respectively. Although this is an obvious intent of existing

requirements for maintaining shipping paper information, it is

currently unstated. Similarly, RSPA proposes to revise requirements for

emergency response information in Sec. 172.602 to clarify that this

information also must be made available to authorities, including

emergency responders, in the event of an incident involving hazardous

materials, or an inspection.

V. Section-by-Section Highlights

This section-by-section summary addresses highlights of the

proposed changes to hazard communications requirements.

Section 171.11, 171.12 and 171.12a. In Secs. 171.11(d)(9)(iii),

171.12(b)(8)(iii) and 171.12a(b)(5)(iii) the words ``POISON INHALATION

HAZARD'' would replace the word ``POISON'' in reference to labeling

poison inhalation hazard materials other than gases.

Section 171.14. The Placard Substitution Table in paragraph (c)(2)

would be revised by addition of a POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard for

Division 6.1, Packing Group I, materials poisonous by inhalation.

Section 172.302. A new paragraph (g) would be added to reference

the fumigation marking requirements in Sec. 173.9.

Section 172.313. Paragraph (c) would be added to require transport

vehicles or freight containers containing more than 400 kilograms (kg)

(882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of non-bulk packages containing a

material poisonous by inhalation to be marked with the identification

number of that material.

Section 172.323. Section 172.323 would be added to require an

identification number display on a fully-loaded transport vehicle or

freight container containing non-bulk packages of hazardous materials

having a single identification number. This requirement would not apply

to materials classed as ORM-D or to limited quantities of hazardous

materials that are excepted from identification number marking

requirements.

Section 172.328. Paragraph (a)(3) would be added to clarify that an

identification number marking must be displayed on a transport vehicle

or freight container containing a hazardous material in a cargo tank,

if the identification number marking on the cargo tank is not visible

during transportation.

Section 172.331. Paragraph (c) would be added to clarify that a

transport vehicle or freight container containing a hazardous material

in a bulk packaging other than a cargo tank, portable tank, tank car

and multi-unit tank car tank must be marked with the identification

number, if the identification number marking on the bulk packaging is

not visible during transportation.

Section 172.332. Paragraph (a) would be revised to reference new

Secs. 172.313(c) and 172.323.

Section 172.400. The table of label designations in paragraph (b)

would be revised by adding reference to the new POISON INHALATION

HAZARD label (proposed Sec. 172.429) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and

B materials. The entry for the POISON label applying to 6.1, PG I and

II materials would be revised to read ``other than inhalation hazard.''

Section 172.416. This section would be revised to prescribe the new

POISON GAS label.

Section 172.429. Section 172.429 would be added to prescribe the

new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label.

Section 172.502. Paragraph (a)(2) would be revised to specifically

prohibit display of safety signs or safety slogans, such as ``Drive

Safely,'' that by their color, shape, design or content could be

mistaken for a hazard warning placard. Paragraph (b)(3) would be added

to provide a transition period for removing existing safety signs or

safety slogans which could be confused with hazard warning placards.

Section 172.504. 1) Paragraph (b) would be revised by lowering from

2,268 kg (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) aggregate gross

weight, the amount of one category of material contained on a transport

vehicle, freight container or rail car for which specific placarding is

required. 2) In paragraph (c) the placarding exception would be lowered

from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross

weight of hazardous materials. 3) In paragraph (e), Table 1 placard

assignments would be revised to add the new POISON INHALATION HAZARD

placard (proposed Sec. 172.555) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and B

materials and to include the entry ``5.2 (Organic peroxide, Type B,

liquid or solid, temperature controlled)'' in the first column, the

placard name ``ORGANIC PEROXIDE'' in the second column, and

``Sec. 172.552'' in the third column. 4) In Table 2, the entry ``5.2''

would be replaced by the entry ``5.2 (Other than Organic peroxides,

Type B, liquid or solid, temperature controlled)'' in the first column.

5) In paragraph (f), an exception would be provided from displaying a

POISON placard in those instances when a POISON INHALATION HAZARD

placard or POISON GAS placard is required.

Section 172.505. Paragraph (a) would be revised to replace

``POISON'' with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD'' to correctly reference the

new placard (proposed Sec. 172.555) for Division 6.1, PG I, Zone A and

B materials.

Section 172.510. In paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) ``POISON'' would be

replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD''. In paragraph (a)(3),

``POISON--RESIDUE'' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD--

RESIDUE'' to correctly reference the placard proposed in Sec. 172.555.

Paragraph (d) would be removed and reserved, as requirements for

fumigated transport vehicles would be relocated to Secs. 172.302(g) and

173.9.

Section 172.540. This section would be revised to include the new

POISON GAS placard.

Section 172.555. Section 172.555 would be added to prescribe the

POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard.

Section 172.602. Paragraph (c) would be revised to clarify that

emergency response information must be readily available to

authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of an

accident, incident involving hazardous materials, or inspection.

Section 172.606. This section would be added to require each

carrier who transports a hazardous material, for which shipping papers

are required, to instruct the operator of a motor vehicle, train,

aircraft, or vessel to contact the carrier in the event of an accident

or incident involving hazardous materials. The section would prescribe

information requirements for transport vehicles separated from motive

power and parked at other than consignee, consignor or carrier

facilities.

Section 173.9. The FUMIGANT marking would be revised for

consistency with changes provided in the United Nations Recommendations

on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (8th Edition). These requirements

would apply to transportation by rail, highway, vessel, and aircraft.

In addition, the size of the FUMIGANT marking would be revised from

``25 cm (9.8 inches) wide and 20 cm (7.9 inches) high'' to at least

``30 cm (11.8 inches) wide and at least 25 cm (9.8 inches) high.'' See

discussion under Section IV.F. of this preamble.

Section 173.29. An empty packaging is not subject to any other

requirements in the HMR if the shipping name and identification number

markings and hazard warning labels or placards are removed,

obliterated, or covered. For clarity, the introductory text of

paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to add the phrase ``any other

markings indicating the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION

HAZARD).''

Section 174.25. In the placard notation and endorsement table, the

placard notation ``POISON'' for the entry ``Division 6.1 PG I Zone A''

would be revised to read ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD;'' and ``Division

6.1 PG I Zone B, placarded POISON INHALATION HAZARD,'' would be added

in its appropriate sequence to conform to the proposed placarding

requirements for materials poisonous by inhalation.

Section 174.26. (1) Paragraph (a) would be revised to reference the

new POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard for Division 6.1, PG I, Hazard

Zone A materials, and to clarify that the referenced placards are

displayed on a square background. (2) Although train consists are

presumed to be accurate, the NTSB recommended that the matter be

clarified in the HMR (see NTSB Safety Recommendation R-90-38).

Therefore, paragraph (b) would be revised to clarify that a train

consist must reflect the current position in the train of each rail car

containing a hazardous material. (3) Also, paragraph (c) would be

revised to require that shipping paper information be readily available

to authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of

an accident, incident involving hazardous materials, or inspection.

Section 175.33. Paragraph (b) would be revised to require that a

copy of the written notification of pilot-in-command shall be made

readily available to authorities, including emergency response

personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving hazardous

materials, or inspection.

Section 175.630. This section would be revised to add references to

the new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and delete obsolete references

to ``etiologic'' substances.

Section 176.30. Paragraph (a) would be revised to require that the

dangerous cargo manifest be made readily available to authorities,

including emergency response personnel, in the event of an accident,

incident involving materials listed on the manifest, or inspection.

Section 177.817. Paragraph (e) would be revised to clarify that the

term ``authorities'' includes emergency response personnel and that an

incident involving hazardous materials is an event requiring that

shipping papers be made available to authorities.

Sections 174.680, 176.600, and 177.841. Editorial corrections would

be made in these sections to reference the proposed POISON INHALATION

HAZARD label.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was subject

to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is

considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). A regulatory evaluation

is available for review in the docket.

B. Executive Order 12612

This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612

(``Federalism''). The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act contains

an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. App. 1804(a)(4)) that

preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered

subjects. Covered subjects are:

(i) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous

materials;

(ii) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and

placarding of hazardous materials;

(iii) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents

pertaining to hazardous materials and requirements respecting the

number, content, and placement of such documents;

(iv) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the

unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or

(v) the design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance,

reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which

is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the

transportation of hazardous materials.

This proposed rule concerns improvements to the standards mandated

under 49 CFR Part 172 for placarding, labeling, marking, emergency

response information and shipping papers. If a final rule is issued, it

would preempt State, local, or Indian tribe requirements in accordance

with the standards set forth above. The HMTA (49 App. U.S.C.

1804(a)(5)) provides that if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of

the covered subjects after November 16, 1990, DOT must determine and

publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal

preemption. That effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day

following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two

years after the date of issuance. RSPA proposes that the effective date

of Federal preemption for these requirements be six months after

publication of the final rule. Comments are solicited on this proposed

date. Thus, RSPA has limited discretion in this area, and preparation

of a federalism assessment is not warranted.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although

this proposed rule would apply to all shippers and carriers of

hazardous materials, some of whom are small entities, the proposals

contained herein would not result in significant economic impacts.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have

been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h))

and assigned control number 2137-0034 and 2137-0580.

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The

Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in

April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading

of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

Hazardous materials transportation, General information,

Regulations, and Definitions.

49 CFR Part 172

Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labels,

Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,

Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Uranium.

49 CFR Part 174

Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad

safety.

49 CFR Part 175

Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 176

Hazardous materials transportation, Maritime carriers, Radioactive

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 177

Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Radioactive

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, title 49, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations would be amended as set forth below:

PART 171-- GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

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

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1808, 1815,

1818; 49 CFR Part 1.

Sec. 171.11 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 171.11, in paragraph (d)(9)(iii), the word ```POISON' or

`POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or

POISON GAS''.

Sec. 171.12 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 171.12, in paragraph (b)(8)(iii), the word ```POISON' or

`POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or

POISON GAS''.

Sec. 171.12a [Amended]

4. In Sec. 171.12a, in paragraph (b)(5)(iii), the word ```POISON'

or `POISON GAS''' would be replaced with ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD or

POISON GAS''.

5. In Sec. 171.14, the Placard Substitution Table in paragraph

(c)(2) would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 171.14 Transitional provisions for implementing requirements

based on the UN Recommendations.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

Placard Substitution Table

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

Hazard class or Old (Sept. 30, 1991)

division No. Current placard name placard name

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

Division 1.1........... Explosives 1.1......... Explosives A.

Division 1.2........... Explosives 1.2......... Explosives A.

Division 1.3........... Explosives 1.3......... Explosives B.

Division 1.4........... Explosives 1.4......... Dangerous.

Division 1.5........... Explosives 1.5......... Blasting agents.

Division 1.6........... Explosives 1.6......... Dangerous.

Division 2.1........... Flammable gas.......... Flammable gas.

Division 2.2........... Nonflammable gas....... Nonflammable gas.

Division 2.3........... Poison gas............. Poison gas.

Class 3................ Flammable.............. Flammable.

Combustible liquid..... Combustible............ Combustible.

Division 4.1........... Flammable solid........ Flammable solid.

Division 4.2........... Spontaneously Flammable solid.

combustible.

Division 4.3........... Dangerous when wet..... Flammable solid W.

Division 5.1........... Oxidizer............... Oxidizer.

Division 5.2........... Organic peroxide....... Organic peroxide.

Division 6.1, PG I Poison inhalation Poison.

(Zone A and B, hazard.

inhalation hazard).

Division 6.1, PG I and Poison................. Poison.

II (other than Zone A

and B).

Division 6.1, PG III... Keep away from food.... (None required).

Class 7................ Radioactive............ Radioactive.

Class 8................ Corrosive.............. Corrosive.

Class 9................ Class 9................ (None required).

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

* * * * *

PART 172-- HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE

INFORMATION, AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

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

follows:

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

unless otherwise noted.

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

follows:

Sec. 172.302 General marking requirements for bulk packagings.

* * * * *

(g) A rail car, freight container, truck body or trailer in which

the lading has been fumigated with any material, or is undergoing

fumigation, must be marked as specified in Sec. 173.9 of this

subchapter.

8. In Sec. 172.313, paragraph (c) would be added to read as

follows:

Sec. 172.313 Poisonous hazardous materials.

* * * * *

(c) A transport vehicle or freight container loaded with more than

400 Kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of packages containing a

material poisonous by inhalation shall be marked as required by

Sec. 172.332 with the identification number specified for the material,

in the Sec. 172.101 Table, on each side and each end of the transport

vehicle or freight container.

9. Section 172.323 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 172.323 Truckload and carload quantities of hazardous materials

in non-bulk packages.

A transport vehicle or freight container containing a truckload or

carload quantity of non-bulk packages containing hazardous material

having a single identification number must be marked with the

identification number specified for the hazardous material in the

Sec. 172.101 Table on a placard, orange panel or plain white square-on-

point configuration as specified in Secs. 172.332 or 172.336, as

appropriate. This section does not apply to packages containing ORM-D

materials or limited quantities of hazardous materials excepted from

identification number marking requirements by Sec. 172.301(f)(1).

10. In Sec. 172.328, paragraph (a)(3) would be added to read as

follows:

Sec. 172.328 Cargo tanks.

(a) * * *

(3) For a cargo tank transported on or in a transport vehicle or

freight container, if the identification number marking on the cargo

tank required by Sec. 172.302(a) is not visible, the transport vehicle

or freight container must be marked as required by Sec. 172.332 on each

side and each end with the identification number specified for the

material in the Sec. 172.101 Table.

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 172.331, paragraph (c) would be added to read as

follows:

Sec. 172.331 Bulk packagings other than portable tanks, cargo tanks,

tank cars and multi-unit tank car tanks.

* * * * *

(c) For a bulk packaging contained in or on a transport vehicle or

freight container, if the identification number marking on the bulk

packaging required by Sec. 172.302(a) is not visible, the transport

vehicle or freight container must be marked as required by Sec. 172.332

on each side and each end with the identification number specified for

the material in the Sec. 172.101 Table.

12. In Sec. 172.332, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 172.332 Identification number markings.

(a) General. When required by Secs. 172.302, 172.313, 172.323,

172.326, 172.328, 172.330, or 172.331 of this subpart, identification

numbers must be displayed on orange panels or placards as specified in

this section or, when appropriate, on white square-on-point

configurations as prescribed in Sec. 172.336(b).

* * * * *

13. In Sec. 172.400, the table of label designations in paragraph

(b) would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 172.400 General labeling requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

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

Label

design or

Hazard class or division Label name section

reference

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

1.1........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.1............... 172.411

1.2........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.2............... 172.411

1.3........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.3............... 172.411

1.4........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.4............... 172.411

1.5........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.5............... 172.411

1.6........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.6............... 172.411

2.1........................... FLAMMABLE GAS................ 172.417

2.2........................... NONFLAMMABLE GAS............. 172.415

2.3........................... POISON GAS................... 172.416

3 (flammable liquid).......... FLAMMABLE LIQUID............. 172.419

Combustible liquid............ (None)....................... .........

4.1........................... FLAMMABLE SOLID.............. 172.420

4.2........................... SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE.... 172.422

4.3........................... DANGEROUS WHEN WET........... 172.423

5.1........................... OXIDIZER..................... 172.426

5.2........................... ORGANIC PEROXIDE............. 172.427

6.1 (Packing Group I, Zone A POISON INHALATION HAZARD..... 172.429

and B).

6.1 (Packing Groups I and II, POISON....................... 172.430

other than inhalation hazard).

6.1 (Packing Group III)....... KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD.......... 172.431

6.2........................... INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE\1\...... 172.432

7 (see Sec. 172.403).......... RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I.......... 172.436

7............................. RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-II........ 172.438

7............................. RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-III....... 172.440

7 (empty packages, see Sec. EMPTY........................ 172.450

173.427).

8............................. CORROSIVE.................... 172.442

9............................. CLASS 9...................... 172.446

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

\1\The ETIOLOGIC AGENT label specified in regulations of the Department

of Health and Human Services at 42 CFR 72.3 may apply to packages of

infectious substances.

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

Sec. 172.416 POISON GAS label.

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

follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.011

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

(b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.407, the background on

the POISON GAS label and the symbol must be white. The background of

the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of the upper

diamond must be 14 mm (0.54 inches) above the horizontal center line.

15. Section 172.429 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 172.429 POISON INHALATION HAZARD label.

(a) Except for size and color, the POISON INHALATION HAZARD label

must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.012

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

(b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.407, the background on

the POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and the symbol must be white. The

background of the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of

the upper diamond must be 14 mm (0. 54 inches) above the horizontal

center line.

16. In Sec. 172.502, paragraph (a)(2) would be revised and

paragraph (b)(3) would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 172.502 Prohibited and permissive placarding.

(a) * * *

(2) Any sign, advertisement, slogan (such as ``Drive Safely''), or

other device that, by its color, design, shape or content, could be

confused with any placard prescribed in this subpart.

(b) * * *

(3) The restrictions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section do not

apply until October 1, 1997 to a safety sign or safety slogan (e.g.,

``Drive Safely'' or ``Drive Carefully''), which was permanently marked,

on or before October 1, 1994, on a transport vehicle, bulk packaging,

or freight container.

* * * * *

17. In Sec. 172.504, paragraph (f)(11) would be added, the heading

and introductory text to paragraph (c) would be revised, and paragraphs

(b), (c)(1), and (e) would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 172.504 General placarding requirements.

* * * * *

(b) DANGEROUS placard. A freight container, unit load device, or

transport vehicle, which contains non-bulk packages with two or more

categories of hazardous materials that require different placards

specified in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section, may be placarded

with DANGEROUS placards instead of the separate placarding specified

for each of the materials in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section.

However, when 1000 kg (2,205 pounds) aggregate gross weight or more of

one category of material is loaded therein at one loading facility on a

freight container, unit load device, or transport vehicle, the placard

specified in Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section for that category

must be applied.

(c) Exception for 400 kg (882 pounds) or less. Except for bulk

packagings and hazardous materials subject to Sec. 172.505, when

hazardous materials covered by Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section

are transported by highway or rail, placards are not required on--

(1) A transport vehicle or freight container which contains 400 kg

(882 pounds) or less aggregate gross weight of hazardous materials

covered by Table 2 of paragraph (e) of this section; or

* * * * *

(e) Placarding tables. Placards are specified for hazardous

materials in accordance with the following tables:

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

Placard

Category of material (hazard design

class or division number and Placard name section

additional description, as reference

appropriate) (Sec. )

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

1.1........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.1............... 172.522

1.2........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.2............... 172.522

1.3........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.3............... 172.522

2.3........................... POISON GAS................... 172.540

4.3........................... DANGEROUS WHEN WET........... 172.548

5.2 (Organic peroxide, Type B, ORGANIC PEROXIDE............. 172.552

liquid or solid, temperature

controlled).

6.1 (PG I, inhalation hazard, POISON INHALATION HAZARD..... 172.555

Zone A and B).

7 (Radioactive Yellow III RADIOACTIVE\1\............... 172.556

label only).

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

\1\RADIOACTIVE placard also required for exclusive use shipments of low

specific activity material in accordance with Sec. 173.425(b) or (c)

of this subchapter.

Table 2

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

Placard

Category of material (hazard design

class or division number and Placard name section

additional description, as reference

appropriate) (Sec. )

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

1.4........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.4............... 172.523

1.5........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.5............... 172.524

1.6........................... EXPLOSIVES 1.6............... 172.525

2.1........................... FLAMMABLE GAS................ 172.532

2.2........................... NON-FLAMMABLE GAS............ 172.538

3............................. FLAMMABLE.................... 172.542

Combustible liquid............ COMBUSTIBLE.................. 172.544

4.1........................... FLAMMABLE SOLID.............. 172.546

4.2........................... SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE.... 172.547

5.1........................... OXIDIZER..................... 172.550

5.2 (Other than organic ORGANIC PEROXIDE............. 172.552

peroxide, Type B, liquid or

solid, temperature

controlled).

6.1 (PG I or II, other than PG POISON....................... 172.554

I inhalation hazard).

6.1 (PG III).................. KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD.......... 172.553

6.2........................... (None)....................... .........

8............................. CORROSIVE.................... 172.558

9............................. CLASS 9...................... 172.560

ORM-D......................... (None)....................... .........

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

(f) * * *

(11) For domestic transportation, a POISON placard is not required

on a transport vehicle or freight container required to display a

POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS placard.

* * * * *

18. In Sec. 172.505, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 172.505 Placarding for subsidiary hazards.

(a) Each transport vehicle, freight container, portable tank or

unit load device that contains a poisonous material subject to the

``Poison-Inhalation Hazard'' shipping description of Sec. 172.203(m)(3)

must be placarded with a POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS

placard, as appropriate, on each side and each end, in addition to any

other placard required for that material in Sec. 172.504. Duplication

of the POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS placard is not required.

* * * * *

Sec. 172.510 [Amended]

19. In Sec. 172.510, the following changes would be made:

a. In paragraph (a)(2), the words ``POISON GAS or POISON'' would be

replaced with the words ``POISON GAS or POISON INHALATION HAZARD''.

b. In paragraph (a)(3), the term ``POISON-RESIDUE'' would be

replaced by the words ``POISON INHALATION HAZARD-RESIDUE''.

c. Paragraph (d) would be removed and reserved.

d. In paragraph (e), the words ``POISON GAS or POISON'' would be

replaced by the words ``POISON GAS or POISON INHALATION HAZARD''.

20. Section 172.540 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 172.540 POISON GAS placard.

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

follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.013

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

(b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.519, the background on

the POISON GAS placard and the symbol must be white. The background of

the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of the upper

diamond must be 38 mm (1-1/2 inches) above the horizontal center line.

The text, class number, and inner border must be black.

21. Section 172.555 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 172.555 POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard.

(a) Except for size and color, the POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard

must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-p

TP15AU94.014

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

(b) In addition to complying with Sec. 172.519, the background on

the POISON INHALATION HAZARD placard and the symbol must be white. The

background of the upper diamond must be black and the lower point of

the upper diamond must be 38 mm (1-1/2 inches) above the horizontal

center line. The text, class number, and inner border must be black.

22. In Sec. 172.602, the introductory text to paragraph (c) and

paragraph (c)(1) would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 172.602 Emergency response information.

* * * * *

(c) Maintenance of information. Emergency response information

shall be made readily available to authorities, including emergency

response personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving

hazardous materials, or inspection and must be maintained as follows:

(1) Carriers. Each carrier who transports a hazardous material

shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this

section and Sec. 172.606 in the same manner as prescribed for shipping

papers, except that the information must be maintained in the same

manner aboard aircraft as the notification of pilot-in-command, and

aboard vessels in the same manner as the dangerous cargo manifest. This

information must be immediately accessible to train crew personnel,

drivers of motor vehicles, flight crew members, and bridge personnel on

vessels for use in the event of incidents involving hazardous

materials.

* * * * *

23. Section 172.606 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 172.606 Carrier information contact.

Each carrier who transports or accepts a hazardous material for

which shipping papers are required for transportation--

(a) Shall instruct the operator of a motor vehicle, train,

aircraft, or vessel to contact the carrier (e.g., by telephone or

mobile radio) in the event of an accident or incident involving

hazardous materials.

(b) For a transport vehicle for which shipping papers are required

which is separated from its motive power and parked at other than a

consignee's, consignor's, or carrier's facility shall--

(1) Meet the emergency response information requirements for

facility operators specified in Sec. 172.602(c)(1);

(2) Mark the transport vehicle with the telephone number of the

motor carrier on the front of the transport vehicle near the electrical

equipment and brake hose connections; or

(3) Have the shipping papers and emergency response information

readily available on the transport vehicle.

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

PACKAGINGS

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

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808,

1817; 49 CFR Part 1, unless otherwise noted.

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

Sec. 173.9 Transport vehicles or freight containers containing lading

which has been fumigated.

(a) For the purpose of this section, a rail car, freight container,

truck body, or trailer in which the lading has been fumigated with any

material, or is undergoing fumigation, is a package containing a

hazardous material, unless the transport vehicle or freight container

has been sufficiently aerated so that it does not pose an unreasonable

risk to health and safety or property.

(b) No person may offer for transportation or transport a rail car,

freight container, truck body, or trailer in which the lading has been

fumigated or treated with any material, or is undergoing fumigation,

unless the FUMIGANT marking specified in paragraph (c) of this section

is prominently displayed so that it can be seen by any person

attempting to enter the interior of the transport vehicle or freight

container. For domestic transportation, a hazard warning label

authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 156 may be used as an alternative

to the FUMIGANT marking.

(c) FUMIGANT marking. (1) The FUMIGANT marking must consist of red

letters on a white background that is at least 30 cm (11.8 inches) wide

and at least 25 cm (9.8 inches) high. Except for size and color, the

FUMIGANT marking must be as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

TP15AU94.026

(2) The ``*'' shall be replaced with the technical name of the

fumigant.

(d) No person may affix or display on a rail car, freight

container, truck body, or trailer (a package) the FUMIGANT marking

specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless the lading has been

fumigated or is undergoing fumigation.

(e) No person may offer for transportation or transport a rail car,

freight container, truck body, or trailer which displays the FUMIGANT

marking following:

(1) Unloading of the fumigated lading.

(2) Sufficient aeration of the transport vehicle or freight

container to assure that it does not pose an unreasonable risk to

health and safety or property.

(f) For international shipments, transport documents should

indicate the date of fumigation, type and amount of fumigant used, and

instructions for disposal of any residual fumigant, including

fumigation devices.

(g) Any person that offers for transportation or transports a rail

car, freight container, truck body, or trailer that is subject to the

HMR solely because of the hazardous materials designation specified in

paragraph (a) of this section is not subject to any requirements of

this subchapter, except:

(1) The requirements of this section; and

(2) Training requirements specified in Subpart H of Part 172 of

this subchapter.

26. In Sec. 173.29, paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 173.29 Empty packagings.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Any hazardous material shipping name and identification number

markings, any hazard warning labels or placards, and any other markings

indicating that the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION HAZARD)

are removed, obliterated, or securely covered in transportation. This

provision does not apply to transportation in a transport vehicle or a

freight container if the packaging is not visible during transportation

and the packaging is loaded by the shipper and unloaded by the shipper

or consignee;

* * * * *

PART 174-- CARRIAGE BY RAIL

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

follows:

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

1.53, App. A to Part 1.

28. In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 174.25, the placard endorsement

table would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 174.25 Additional information on waybills, switching orders and

other billings.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

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

Placard

Class/Division Placard notation endorsement

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

Division 1.1.............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES Explosives.

1.1\1\.

Division 1.2.............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES Explosives.

1.2\1\.

Division 1.1 or 1.2, and Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.1 Explosives and

Div. 2.3\2\ (chemical or EXPLOSIVES 1.2, and poison gas.

ammunition). POISON GAS\1\.

Diivision 1.3............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.3.. Dangerous.

Division 1.4.............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.4.. Dangerous.

Division 1.5.............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.5.. Dangerous.

Division 1.6.............. Placarded EXPLOSIVES 1.6.. (None).

Division 2.1.............. Placarded FLAMMABLE GAS... Dangerous.

Division 2.2.............. Placarded NON-FLAMMABLE Dangerous.

GAS.

Division 2.3 Zone A\2\.... Placarded POISON GAS.\1\.. Poison gas Zone

A.

Division 2.3 (other than Placarded POISON GAS...... Dangerous.

Zone A).

Class 3................... Placarded FLAMMABLE....... Dangerous.

Combustible liquid........ Placarded COMBUSTIBLE..... (None).

Division 4.1.............. Placarded FLAMMABLE SOLID. Dangerous.

Division 4.2.............. Placarded SPONTANEOUSLY Dangerous.

COMBUSTIBLE.

Division 4.3.............. Placarded DANGEROUS WHEN Dangerous.

WET.

Division 5.1.............. Placarded OXIDIZER........ Dangerous.

Division 5.2.............. Placarded ORGANIC PEROXIDE Dangerous.

Division 6.1 PG I Zone Placarded POISON Poison PG I Zone

A\2\. INHALATION HAZARD\1\. A.

Division 6.1 PG I Zone Placarded POISON Poison PG I Zone

B\2\. INHALATION HAZARD. B.

Division 6.1 PG I and II Placarded POISON.......... Dangerous.

(other than PG 1 Zone A

and B).

6.1 (PG III).............. Placarded KEEP AWAY FROM (None).

FOOD.

Class 7................... Placarded RADIOACTIVE..... Radioactive

material.

Class 8................... Placarded CORROSIVE....... Dangerous.

Class 9................... Placarded CLASS 9......... (None).

ORM-D..................... (None).................... (None).

Mixed loads of hazardous Placarded DANGEROUS....... Dangerous.

materials placarded

DANGEROUS.

Tank cars which contain a See Sec. 174.25(c)........ Dangerous.

residue of a hazardous

mateial other than a

combustible liquid.

Tank cars which contain a See Sec. 174.25(c)........ (None).

residue of a combustible

liquid, a residue of a

6.1 PG III material, or a

residue of a Class 9

material.

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

\1\Use of square background required (See Sec. 172.510(a) of this

subchapter).

\2\Identified as required in Sec. 172.203(m)(3) of this subchapter.

* * * * *

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

Sec. 174.26 Notice to train crews of placarded cars.

(a) At each terminal or other place where trains are made up or

switched by crews other than train crews accompanying the outbound

movement of cars, the carrier shall execute consecutively numbered

notices showing the location in each train of each rail car placarded

EXPLOSIVES 1.1 or 1.2 (EXPLOSIVES A), POISON GAS (Division 2.3, Hazard

Zone A only) or POISON INHALATION HAZARD (Division 6.1, PG I, Hazard

Zone A only) on a square background. A copy of each notice must be

delivered to the train and engine crew concerned, and a copy thereof

showing delivery to the train and engine crew must be kept on file by

the carrier at each point where the notice is given. At points where

train or engine crews are changed, the notice must be transferred from

crew to crew. See paragraph (b) of this section for other placarded

cars.

(b) The train crew must have a document that reflects the current

position in the train of each rail car containing a hazardous material.

An updated train consist may be used to meet this requirement.

(c) A member of the train crew of a train transporting a hazardous

material shall possess a copy of the shipping papers for the shipment

of hazardous materials being transported showing the information

required by Secs. 172.202 and 172.203 and Sec. 172.602 of this

subchapter. The shipping paper information must be made readily

available to authorities, including emergency response personnel, in

the event of an accident, incident involving the hazardous materials,

or inspection.

30. In Sec. 174.680, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as

follows:

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

(a) A carrier may not transport any package bearing a POISON or

POISON INHALATION HAZARD label in the same car with any material marked

as or known to be a foodstuff, feed, or any other edible material

intended for consumption by humans or animals.

* * * * *

PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT

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

follows:

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

32. In Sec. 175.33, the first sentence of paragraph (b) would be

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 175.33 Notification of pilot-in-command.

* * * * *

(b) A copy of the written notification of pilot-in-command shall be

readily available to the pilot-in-command during flight and a copy must

be made readily available to authorities, including emergency response

personnel, in the event of an accident, incident involving the

hazardous material, or inspection. * * *

33. Section 175.630 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 175.630 Special requirements for Division 6.1 (poisonous)

material and Division 6.2 (infectious substance) material.

(a) A hazardous material bearing a POISON, POISON INHALATION

HAZARD, KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD, or INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE label may not be

carried in the same compartment of an aircraft with material which is

marked as or known to be a foodstuff, feed, or any other edible

material intended for consumption by humans or animals unless either

the Division 6.1 (poisonous) material or material in Division 6.2

(infectious substance) and the foodstuff, feed, or other edible

material are loaded in separate unit load devices which, when stowed on

the aircraft, are not adjacent to each other, or the Division 6.1

(poisonous) material or material in Division 6.2 (infectious substance)

are loaded in one closed unit load device and the foodstuff, feed or

other material is loaded in another closed unit load device.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has been used to

transport any package bearing a POISON or POISON INHALATION HAZARD

label unless, upon removal of such package, the area in the aircraft in

which it was carried is visually inspected for evidence of leakage,

spillage, or other contamination. All contamination discovered must be

either isolated or removed from the aircraft. The operation of an

aircraft contaminated with such Division 6.1 (poisonous) materials is

considered to be the carriage of poisonous materials under paragraph

(a) of this section.

PART 176--CARRIAGE BY VESSEL

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

follows:

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

1.53. App. A to Part 1.

35. In Sec. 176.30, the third sentence of paragraph (a)

introductory text would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 176.30 Dangerous cargo manifest.

(a) * * * This document must be kept in a designated holder on or

near the vessel's bridge and must be made readily available to

authorities, including emergency response personnel, in the event of an

accident, incident involving materials listed on the manifest, or

inspection. * * *

* * * * *

36. In Sec. 176.600, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 176.600 General stowage requirement.

(a) Each package required to have a POISON GAS, POISON INHALATION

HAZARD, or POISON label thereon being transported on a vessel must be

stowed clear of living quarters and any ventilation ducts serving

living quarters and separate from foodstuffs.

* * * * *

PART 177--CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC HIGHWAY

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

follows:

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

Sec. 177.817 [Amended]

38. In the introductory text of paragraph (e) of Sec. 177.817, the

phrase ``authorities in the event of accident or inspection.'' would be

replaced with the phrase ``authorities, including emergency response

personnel, in the event of accident, incident involving a hazardous

material, or inspection.''.

39. In Sec. 177.841, paragraph (e) introductory text would be

republished and paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) would be revised to read

as follows:

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

materials.

* * * * *

(e) A motor carrier may not transport a package:

(1) Bearing a POISON or POISON INHALATION HAZARD label in the same

motor vehicle with material that is marked as or known to be a

foodstuff, feed or edible material intended for consumption by humans

or animals unless the inside package is overpacked in a liquid-tight

and dust proof container identified as package 4000 in the National

Motor Freight Classification 100-1 or is overpacked in a metal drum as

specified in Sec. 173.25(c) of this subchapter;

(2) Bearing or required to bear a POISON, POISON GAS or POISON

INHALATION HAZARD label in the driver's compartment (including a

sleeper berth) of a motor vehicle; or

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC on August 4, 1994, under authority

delegated in 49 CFR Part 106, Appendix A.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 94-19490 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P