# Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** Not available
- **title:** Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1994-08-15
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-19490.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-19490.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-94-19490
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1994/08/15/94-19490/improvements-to-hazardous-materials-identification-systems
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994) [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 94-19490] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: August 15, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part III Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171, et al. Improvement to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177 [Docket No. HM-206; Notice No. 94-8] RIN 2137-AB75 Improvements to Hazardous Materials Identification Systems AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing changes to hazard communication requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The proposed changes are based on comments received in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and agency initiative. This action will improve the existing hazard communication system; better identification of hazardous materials in transportation will assist emergency response personnel in responding to and mitigating the effects of incidents and accidents involving hazardous materials. DATES: Written comments: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 1994. Public hearing: A public hearing will be held beginning at 9:00 a.m., October 18-19, 1994. ADDRESSES: Written comments: Address comments to the Dockets Unit (DHM- 30), Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the Docket (HM-206) and be submitted in five copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the docket number. The Dockets Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Public dockets may be viewed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Public hearing. The public hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the Federal Aviation Administration Building located at 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Persons desiring to make oral statements at the hearing should notify the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) Docket Clerk by telephone (202) 366-5046 or in writing by October 3, 1994. Mail written requests to: Docket Clerk, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 8421, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Each request must identify the speaker; organization represented, if any; daytime telephone number; and the anticipated length of the presentation, not to exceed 10 minutes. Written text of the oral statement should be presented to the hearing officer and reporter prior to the oral presentation. Hearings may conclude before 5:00 p.m. and the second day of the hearing (October 19, 1994) may be cancelled if all persons wishing to give oral comments have been heard. To confirm plans to attend, contact Ms. Helen Engrum at (202) 366-8553. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Engrum or John Potter, telephone (202) 366-4488, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Legislative Requirements A. Rulemaking On November 16, 1990, the President signed into law the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA; Pub. Law 101-615) which amended the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 App. U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et. seq. Section 25 of HMTUSA requires DOT to initiate a rulemaking to determine methods of improving the current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials and to determine methods for establishing and operating a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center that can provide information to facilitate responses to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials. It directs DOT to consider methods of improving the placarding system to include: (1) methods to make placards more visible; (2) methods to reduce the number of improper and missing placards; (3) alternative methods of marking vehicles for the purpose of identifying hazardous materials being transported; (4) methods of modifying the composition of placards to ensure their resistance to fire; (5) improving the coding system used with respect to such placards; (6) identification of appropriate emergency response procedures through symbols on placards; and (7) display of telephone numbers for continually-monitored emergency response telephone systems on vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Section 25 also requires DOT to evaluate in a rulemaking proceeding whether a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center should be operated by the Federal Government or a private entity, either on its own initiative or under contract with the United States. The evaluation must address: (1) the estimated annualized cost of establishing, operating and maintaining such a system and center and for carrier and shipper compliance with such a system; (2) methods for financing the cost of establishing, operating, and maintaining such a system and center; (3) the projected safety benefits of establishing, operating and maintaining such a system and center; (4) whether shippers, carriers and handlers of hazardous materials should have access to such a system; (5) methods for ensuring the security of the information and data stored in such a system; (6) types of hazardous materials and types of shipments for which information and data should be stored in such a system; (7) the degree of liability of the operator of such a system and center for providing incorrect, false or misleading information; (8) deadlines by which shippers, carriers and handlers of hazardous materials should be required to submit information to the operator of such a system and center, and minimum standards relating to the form and content of such information; (9) measures for ensuring compliance with the deadlines and standards for operating such a system; and (10) methods for accessing such a system through mobile satellite service or other technologies having the capability to provide two-way voice, data, or facsimile service. Section 26 of the HMTUSA requires DOT to initiate a rulemaking on the feasibility, necessity, and safety benefits of requiring hazardous materials carriers (in addition to an existing requirement for shippers) to maintain continually-monitored telephone systems to provide emergency response information and assistance. DOT is required to determine which hazardous materials, if any, and which segments of industry (including persons who own and operate motor vehicles, trains, vessels, aircraft, and in-transit storage facilities) should be covered by such a requirement. On June 9, 1992, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register [Docket HM-206; 57 FR 24532] posing 63 primary questions, most with secondary questions, under three categories. The ANPRM solicited comments on methods of improving the current system of placarding vehicles transporting hazardous materials, methods to improve the system of identifying hazardous materials in transportation, and the feasibility and necessity of requiring carriers to maintain continually-monitored telephone contacts for emergency response information. B. NAS Study/DOT Report Section 25 of HMTUSA requires DOT to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study of the feasibility and necessity of establishing and operating a central reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center that would receive, store, and retrieve data on all daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes. DOT is to provide Congress a summary of the NAS report with DOT's recommendations concerning implementation of the NAS recommendations, giving substantial weight to recommendations on the feasibility and necessity of implementing a central reporting and computerized telecommunication data center. In May 1991, DOT entered into a contract with NAS to conduct the study. A 16-member committee was formed, representing industry, academia, and the emergency response and firefighting communities. The scope of the study was limited to matters that may affect the consequences of hazardous materials incidents after they occur, and not methods of preventing incidents. The committee focused on various potential applications of communications and information technology that would aid emergency responders in obtaining information at hazardous materials incidents and accidents and nontechnological options for improving information through better regulation, enforcement, or training. NAS made recommendations regarding the national central reporting system, a long-term approach to using technology in support of emergency response, and regulatory, enforcement, and training needs. The committee also reviewed DOT's existing hazard communication system with respect to regulatory, enforcement and training options in the context of not relying on the introduction of new information technologies. The NAS report was submitted to Congress and DOT on April 29, 1993. On February 15, 1994, the DOT submitted a report to Congress which included a summary of the NAS report and DOT's recommendations. A copy of DOT's report has been included in the Docket. II. Hazard Identification and Communication System Under the HMR Over the last 25 years, DOT has developed a comprehensive hazardous materials identification and communication system. The system is designed to provide fire and emergency response personnel with information in the event of a transportation incident or accident involving the release of hazardous materials. Hazard communication and emergency response information requirements are set forth in Subparts C through G of Part 172 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). The system involves communication of the following types of information: (1) hazardous materials descriptions, including specific or generic proper shipping names, chemical or technical names, hazard classes, identification numbers, and other special information, entered on shipping papers carried on the transport vehicle by the transporter; (2) hazardous materials proper shipping names and identification numbers, marked on non-bulk and bulk packages; (3) primary and subsidiary hazards, identified by labels affixed to packages; (4) primary hazards, identified by placards affixed to transport vehicles, freight containers and bulk packagings; and (5) emergency response information, entered on shipping papers or presented in separate documents. Emergency response information must be maintained on the transport vehicle, train, or vessel during transportation of the hazardous material in the same manner as is required for shipping papers. On aircraft, emergency response information must be maintained in the same manner as is required for the notification of the pilot-in-command. The information describes immediate hazards to health, risks of fire or explosion, precautions to be taken by responders first arriving at the scene of an incident, initial methods for handling spills and leaks in the absence of fire, and preliminary first aid measures to be taken. This information may be entered on shipping papers, or be presented on appropriate guide pages in DOT's ``Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG),'' on material safety data sheets, or on other appropriate emergency response guidance documents. A shipper who offers hazardous materials for transportation must also enter an emergency response telephone number on a shipping paper. The number must be monitored at all times while a shipment is in transportation, including storage incidental to transportation. A first responder using that number must be able to contact, in one phone call, a person who is either knowledgeable about the material and has comprehensive response and mitigation information, or has immediate access to such a person. Firefighters and emergency response personnel have been trained to use hazard communication and emergency response information in responding to incidents. Shipping names and identification numbers are cross-referenced to emergency response guides in DOT's ERG. The ERG provides guidance for initial actions to be taken in response to hazardous materials incidents. Since 1980, RSPA has distributed more than 3.5 million copies of the ERG to emergency response entities without charge. The current hazard communication system is recognized worldwide. DOT has aligned U.S. hazard communication requirements with international standards by adoption of shipping descriptions, labels and placards conforming to United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations). Hazard communication requirements currently in effect have been successfully used in identifying the hazards of materials involved in releases during transportation. Over the past five years, DOT has substantially amended the U.S. hazard communication requirements. On December 21, 1990, a final rule was published [Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402 and final rule revisions on 12/21/91; 56 FR 66124] which comprehensively revised the HMR with respect to hazard communication, classification, and packaging requirements. This action simplified and reduced the volume of the HMR, enhanced safety through improved classification and packaging, promoted flexibility, and facilitated international commerce through harmonization with international transport standards. Further, changes to labeling requirements for Division 6.1 Packing Group (PG) III materials, requiring a KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD label, are addressed in an ANPRM recently published in the Federal Register [Docket HM-217; 58 FR 59224; 11/8/93]. The issues addressed in Docket HM-217 are not otherwise addressed in this document. III. NAS Findings and Recommendations The central recommendation contained in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report is that the Federal Government should not attempt to implement the national central reporting system as originally proposed for consideration. NAS said: There is no sound basis for defining performance criteria for information to be provided and threshold reliability needed in such a system. There would be no opportunity to allow on-going evaluation to guide implementation, as a phased implementation would allow; and the system would not be designed to make maximum use of existing shipper, carrier, and responder capabilities. NAS found that the original national central reporting system proposal ``is not aimed at the most serious failures of the existing system,'' such as incidents ``in which [shipping] papers or placards are inaccessible because of a crash or fire.'' NAS concluded that, ``because of these shortcomings, the originally proposed system would be unlikely to function as intended or to produce benefits sufficient to justify its costs.'' Although NAS recommended that the Government ``should not attempt to implement such a system as the originally proposed national central reporting system,'' it did recommend DOT participation in the evaluation of new information technologies. NAS stated that DOT should, on an ongoing basis, and in conjunction with the shipper and carrier industries and emergency responders, systematically investigate opportunities for application of information technologies to aid emergency responders and reduce the costs of hazardous materials incidents. Specifically, NAS called for pilot programs comprising ``controlled experiments with independent, rigorously designed evaluation protocols.'' NAS found that, in most instances, the existing hazardous materials communication system is effective and that information available at hazardous materials transportation incident sites meets critical information needs of emergency responders. Based on case studies of 125 incidents, NAS identified six kinds of potential information problems encountered by responders: (1) required sources of information were missing or inaccurate; (2) information sources were obscured, destroyed, or inaccessible because of fire, wreckage, or other barriers; (3) information sources were available and in compliance with the regulations, but failed to fully or efficiently convey essential information; (4) essential information was not provided because the shipment was not subject to the HMR; (5) vehicle operator did not assist emergency responders in obtaining essential information; and (6) responders did not properly use available information. Based on this finding, NAS made the following recommendation: DOT, together with the other responsible federal agencies, should form a plan of action to alleviate each of the six categories of information failures identified in this study through changes in regulations, more effective enforcement, and support for improved training of emergency responders and inspectors. NAS made a number of additional recommendations to improve identification of hazardous materials to minimize the dangers and costs of accidents and enhance emergency response efforts. They are as follows: The government should not attempt to implement a system such as the originally proposed national central reporting system, that is, one entailing immediate and universal application of a requirement for shipper or carrier real-time filing of vehicle contents information in a central data base. Improvements to the existing system for providing information to emergency responders at hazardous materials incidents are necessary. Therefore, Congress, DOT, and other responsible federal agencies should plan and carry out a program to improve the system. This program should include appropriate measures to apply technology; reforms in regulations, enforcement, and training; and evaluation of the existing system so that efforts can be directed at the most pressing problems. DOT should immediately undertake one or more limited start-ups of automated information systems. DOT should, on an ongoing basis and in conjunction with the shipper and carrier industries and emergency responders, systematically investigate opportunities for application of information technology to aid emergency responders and reduce the costs of hazardous materials incidents. The U.S. Fire Administration, DOT, and the other federal, state, and local agencies that maintain data bases of hazardous materials incidents should formally coordinate to ensure that data are defined and collected uniformly, duplicate reporting is avoided, and data collection is designed to serve essential program evaluation and research needs. DOT should establish a monitoring capability that allows it to determine whether its regulations intended to provide emergency responders with information at hazardous materials transportation incidents are working adequately. DOT and the U.S. Fire Administration should jointly conduct a study of costs and means of organizing and delivering training to hazardous materials emergency responders and enforcement officers. IV. Regulatory Issues A. Summary Over 230 comments were submitted in response to the ANPRM. Commenters included shippers, carriers, firefighter and police departments and associations, farmers, Federal and State governments, trade associations, emergency response telephone services organizations, and private individuals. Based on the comments to the ANPRM, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations in its report, and RSPA's initiative, several improvements to the existing hazard communications system have been identified as needed and are proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). RSPA is proposing to: (1) require identification number markings on transport vehicles and freight containers to improve identification of hazardous materials poisonous by inhalation offered in amounts of more than 400 kilograms (kg) (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight; 2) require identification number marking displays on truckload and carload shipments of non-bulk packages of hazardous materials having a single identification number; 3) require unique labels and placards for both liquids and gases that are poisonous by inhalation; 4) lower the placarding exception in Sec. 172.504(c) from 454 kg (1,000 pounds) to 400 kg (882 pounds) aggregate gross weight of hazardous materials; 5) revise the requirements for use of a FUMIGANT marking; 6) lower from 2,268 kg (5,000 pounds) to 1,000 kg (2,205 pounds) the quantity for specific hazard class placarding when one category of material is loaded on a transport vehicle at one loading facility; 7) prohibit display on transport units of slogans, such as ``Drive Safely,'' which could be confused with placards; 8) require motor carriers to instruct operators of transport vehicles in methods to contact the motor carrier; and 9) require placarding for any quantity of ``Organic peroxides, Type B, controlled temperature'' materials. Also, included in this proposal are editorial corrections that clarify certain other requirements under the HMR. A number of changes considered in the ANPRM are not being proposed. Based on the comments and its own analysis, RSPA is not proposing to: 1) eliminate the DANGEROUS placard; 2) require added emergency response information to be displayed on placards or vehicles; 3) revise placard visibility, size and location, information display and format, or construction and attachment methods; 4) change existing color tolerance requirements; or 5) establish a centralized reporting system and computerized telecommunication data center. Proposals and the decision not to undertake further rulemaking action for certain issues are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. The complexity of the issues raised and the manner in which commenters responded make it appropriate to synopsize comments addressed to groups of questions pertaining to the same issue. B. Improvements to placarding identification system Placard visibility, size and location 1. Would increasing the size of placards, incorporating larger identification numbers and hazard class symbols, improve hazard recognition? What size would be most effective? Are there any specific incidents in which the use of larger placards would have improved emergency response? The HMR specify a minimum size of 273 millimeters (mm) on edge for domestic placards and 250 mm for those conforming to international standards. 2. Is the existing square-on-point configuration too restrictive for adding emergency response guidance and hazard identification information? What changes, if any, should be made? And if so, what would be the costs and benefits? 3. To improve placard visibility, should RSPA require placards to be affixed on a vehicle in a manner so that, in the event of an accident, they can be observed regardless of orientation of the vehicle? For example, should placards be located on the tops and bottoms (in addition to each side and end) of transport vehicles to ensure placard visibility in the event of rollover incidents? This was suggested by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendation I-90-11 addressing a November 30, 1988 incident involving an overturned motor vehicle. NTSB pointed out that ``front placards on the trailer have often been obscured by the tractor, and rear placards attached to removable gates have been thrown from the vehicle during an accident sequence.'' Section 172.504(a) prescribes the location of placards on transport vehicles. 4. Should the three-inch (76 mm) separation distance between placards and other information displayed on transport vehicles specified in Sec. 172.516(c)(4) be increased to improve the presentation of placards? If so, please specify what distance or height would be effective to ensure that placards are readily identifiable by emergency responders. 5. RSPA is aware of comments that claim that slogans or advertisements displayed on configurations similar to placards can confuse emergency responders. Should RSPA prohibit display of advertisements and such slogans as ``Drive Safely'' or other information configured in shapes similar to DOT placards? 6. As an alternative to placarding, are there other methods of marking a transport vehicle to improve hazard communication including visibility and durability? For example, would a color banding scheme for marking transport units, as allowed under Canadian Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations, be a workable alternative to placarding? 7. To improve hazard identification and communication during emergencies, should RSPA consider an additional placarding system to include a national motor vehicle numbering system similar to the Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system now used to identify all rail cars in North America? 8. Domestically, use of reflective placards are permitted but not required under the HMR. However, placards constructed of reflective styrene material have been required under Part 5.27 of the Canadian TDG regulations for explosives and certain bulk shipments since January 1986. We estimate the cost per reflective placard as ranging between $6.85 and $15.85 depending on the quantity of placards ordered and information contained. Should reflective placards be required? If so, for what class of hazardous materials? What would be the cost of replacing existing placards with reflective placards? 9. Should RSPA require placards to be displayed at places where hazardous materials are stored incidental to transportation? If so, under what circumstances and in what manner? Generally, most commenters saw no need to modify DOT's existing system of placard and identification number display. Since the square- on-point configuration of placards is internationally recognized, they believed this standard configuration must be maintained. Most commenters opposed any increase in placard size or change in the square-on-point configuration to accommodate additional emergency response information. Some commenters indicated that an alternative hazard warning system, such as vehicle color banding, which would force some carriers to operate dedicated vehicles, should not replace the existing placarding system. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) estimated that ``for one mid-size regional carrier alone, the cost to retrofit its fleet of 1000 vehicles [with revised or additional placarding] would be $540,000 using the costs of existing products.'' Several commenters indicated that panels on roll-up doors of trailers and other box-type freight containers are sized to accept the present placard holders and that companies using permanent flip-type placards would be forced to utilize a split design (half-on one panel and half on another) or replace all roll-up doors to accommodate an increase in size. They said the costs to replace doors would be enormous. Most commenters supported prohibiting display of extraneous information in placard holders. These commenters perceived that safety slogans or signs, such as ``Drive Safely,'' displayed in a diamond- shaped format can be confusing to emergency responders when placed in placard holders or on placard-type displays and, therefore, should be prohibited. Some commenters indicated that increasing the three-inch separation distance between placards and other information would not improve the recognition of placards because placards are readily identifiable by their shape and color. Most commenters asserted that, because of the numbers of vehicles, a national motor vehicle numbering system would prove to be too complex and ineffective. Several commenters stated that the Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) system is designed for fixed route transportation systems, such as rail transportation. Many commenters questioned the extent to which transport vehicles must be placarded in situations considered to be ``incidental to transportation.'' For example, they asked if placards are required to be maintained on transport vehicles not on public roads until hazardous materials are unloaded, such as when a vehicle remains loaded for an indefinite period in a consignee's fixed facility. As long as a hazardous material is in transportation, it is subject to the HMR, including any requirements for placarding of the vehicle which contains it. ``Incidental to transportation'' includes hazardous materials being loaded, unloaded or stored during transportation (e.g., at a trucking company terminal or in a railroad switching yard). RSPA notes that on July 19, 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a Final Rule [Docket No. H-022l; 59 FR 36695] in the Federal Register requiring employers to maintain package marking, labeling and transport vehicle placarding prescribed under the HMR until hazardous materials are removed. As proposed, OSHA's regulation would require that placards be maintained on a transport vehicle containing hazardous materials even when that vehicle is no longer subject to regulation under the HMR. A number of commenters supported an increase in the size of placards and identification number displays to make them more visible to improve hazard recognition by responders. However, most commenters indicated that the costs of any major changes to the existing system would be prohibitive, the benefits would be minimal and the current placarding system should be maintained. Based on information available, including estimation of costs, RSPA believes that revising placard size, orientation or separation distance requirements, requiring color banding, or implementing a national motor vehicle numbering system would result in substantial cost increases without significant improvement in emergency responder abilities to readily identify hazardous materials in transportation. Therefore, RSPA is not proposing any changes to the HMR concerning placard size, visibility or location. Most commenters believed that retro-reflective placards would only minimally improve safety and stated that the use of such placards should remain optional because of their high cost. RSPA believes that requiring retro-reflective placards would not provide benefits that are even a small fraction of potential costs, which may be approximately eight times greater than for current placards. Therefore, RSPA is not proposing to require retro-reflective placards. Placard Information and Format 10. Should placards display information identifying appropriate emergency response procedures related to the hazardous materials being transported? Should placards display appropriate DOT Emergency Response Guidebook guide numbers referencing potential hazards and corresponding emergency actions? 11. Should there be changes in basic placard format? What specific incidents, if any, demonstrate the need for such changes? Do existing hazard class symbols on placards, like the burning ``O'' on the OXYGEN placard, adequately convey hazard information to emergency responders? Are there other symbols that could be used to more effectively display hazard warnings? 12. Should RSPA require an additional rectangular placard for information that cannot effectively be contained in the square-on- point configuration? For example, the square-on-point placard could be used as an immediate indicator to responders that hazardous materials are present in the transport vehicle. Responders could then refer to the rectangular placard for essential response and hazard identification information. 13. Should the display of hazardous materials (UN, NA) identification numbers be more extensively used to convey emergency response information? Section 13.7.5 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (7th Edition) recommends that a fully-loaded truckload of a packaged commodity be identified with the UN identification number for that commodity. 14. Would the display of the CLASS 9 or KEEP AWAY FROM FOOD placards provide emergency responders with needed information in the event of an incident or accident? Should a CLASS 9 placard be required for Elevated Temperature Materials? 15. Should DOT develop a new ``Poison Inhalation Hazard'' placard to more specifically identify liquids and gases that are poisonous by inhalation? If so, what should the placard design be? Under Sec. 172.505 in Docket HM-181, any quantity of a poisonous material subject to the ``Poison-Inhalation Hazard'' shipping description in Sec. 172.203(m)(3) must be placarded with either a ``POISON'' or a ``POISON GAS'' placard. 16. Under Sec. 172.510, if Division 2.3 Zone A gases and Division 6.1 Packing Group I Hazard Zone A liquids poisonous by inhalation are shipped by rail, the ``POISON'' and ``POISON GAS'' placards must be placed within a white square background. Should this requirement be extended to other modes? Should other hazard classes be included in such a requirement? 17. Technical specifications for color tolerance charts for determining the acceptability of colors used on labels and placards are set forth in Appendix A to Part 172. Are color tolerance charts meeting these or other specifications (e.g., the Pantone Color Code System which is used in Canada) available from commercial sources? Are there color standards available which could be incorporated by reference into the HMR? What would be the cost of these standards to users? Generally, commenters believed that RSPA's regulations provide for an appropriate amount of information through placarding and identification number markings, and that further changes were not needed. Most commenters on this issue did not support addition of emergency response procedural information, such as ERG guide numbers, on placards. They believed that no changes should be made to basic placard format. Most commenters were opposed to requiring an additional placard for other information which they said would complicate compliance, cause confusion and lead to delays in response. They believed that these changes are not justified, would be inconsistent with international hazard communication standards and would add confusion with no added safety. Commenters were divided on whether identification numbers should be used more extensively. For example, the Chlorine Institute and other commenters supported use of placards with identification numbers on all full load shipments of packaged hazardous materials. Others said requiring further display of identification numbers would not enhance safety, that no change is necessary, and that display of identification numbers on less-than-truckloads (LTL) could result in information overload. Emergency responders have for over a decade been trained in the use of the existing hazard communication system. There is little evidence to show that additional information, such as the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) guide numbers on existing placards or a requirement for a new rectangular placard containing response information would result in any significant improvement to safety. Therefore, RSPA is not proposing to require either additional information or an additional rectangular placard for the display of emergency response information. There was no consensus on whether a new POISON-INHALATION HAZARD (PIH) placard is needed to more specifically identify materials which are poisonous by inhalation. The Chlorine Institute was not sure a more specific display of PIH information on a placard is warranted, and believed that such a change should be approved by the UN before being considered domestically. Others asserted that a new placard to specifically identify PIH materials would improve response. Most commenters contend that the current requirement for rail transportation of PIH materials, specifying a square white background for POISON and POISON GAS placards, should not be extended to all modes. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) stated that a square white background aids visibility of the placard and should be used whenever a background color causes the placard to be less visible. However, other commenters recommended eliminating the square white background requirement altogether. One commenter said that use of the square white background is not necessary for PIH materials since the words ``Inhalation Hazard'' are already stenciled as a PIH identification. RSPA is proposing new labels and placards for materials poisonous by inhalation, i.e., Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Zones A and B, liquids and gases in Division 2.3, Zones A, B, C and D. For poisonous gases, new graphics for the existing POISON GAS label and placard are proposed. For liquids, a new POISON INHALATION HAZARD label and placard is proposed. For both liquids and gases, labels and placards would display a white skull and crossbones on a diamond-shaped black background placed at the top point/corner of the placard. This proposal is responsive to a petition (P-1021) submitted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and recognizes one of NAS's principal recommendations to add greater specificity in the communication of hazardous materials. RSPA believes the effort to clearly identify the hazards of these volatile inhalation poisons, already addressed in shipping paper descriptions and package markings, would be further enhanced by adding a unique label and placard. Michael Hagen of the City of Los Angeles Police Department submitted the graphic design which is proposed in this NPRM. Several commenters suggested that DOT should require a consistent color scheme such as the Pantone (TM) color code for labels and placards. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) said the existing color tolerance system is obsolete and that a range of color tolerance should be acceptable. Others did not support a change in color tolerances, saying that colors already used seem to be adequate. Color tolerance specifications are necessary to ensure color uniformity of placards and labels. The present label and placard color code system, in Appendix A of Part 172 of the HMR, refers to the Munsell Notation Color Specifications. Some commenters believed that the Munsell Notation Color Specifications are antiquated. The Pantone (TM) system was recommended by several commenters. Canada, Great Britain and European countries use colors based on Pantone. It is RSPA's understanding that the Pantone system uses specific colors and does not provide for deviations as does Munsell. At this time, RSPA believes there is insufficient cost and safety information to justify adopting a new color system. Therefore, no changes to the present label and placard color code system are proposed in this notice. However, RSPA requests comments concerning color code systems which allow for a range of color, and estimates of the costs and benefits of adopting a new color tolerance system. RSPA also requests that commenters provide information regarding specific Pantone (TM) colors that, in their view, constitute compliance with the label and placard color specifications, including tolerances, currently referen
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 143201