Hazardous Materials: Revision of Requirements for Emergency Response Telephone Numbers, 53413-53423 [E9-24799]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53413-53423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24799]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 174

[RSPA Docket No. 2006-26322 (HM-206F)]
RIN 2137-AE21


Hazardous Materials: Revision of Requirements for Emergency 
Response Telephone Numbers

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations to clarify requirements governing emergency response 
information services provided by arrangement with hazardous materials 
offerors (shippers). In order to preserve the effectiveness of these 
arrangements for providing accurate and timely emergency response 
information, PHMSA is requiring basic identifying information (offeror 
name or contract number) to be included on shipping papers. This 
information will enable the emergency response information provider to 
identify the offeror on whose behalf it is accepting responsibility for 
providing emergency response information in the event of a hazardous 
materials incident and obtain additional information about the 
hazardous material as needed.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this final rule is 
November 18, 2009.
    Voluntary Compliance Date: PHMSA is authorizing immediate voluntary 
compliance beginning November 18, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan McIntyre, Office of Hazardous 
Materials

[[Page 53414]]

Standards, telephone (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On July 2, 2007, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM; 72 FR 35961) proposing to make a narrow, clarifying change to 
the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 
Parts 171-180) applicable to emergency response telephone numbers on 
shipping papers. With limited exceptions not applicable here (refer to 
Sec. Sec.  172.600(d) and 172.604(c)), the HMR require shipments of 
hazardous materials to be accompanied by shipping papers and other 
documentation designed to communicate to transport workers and 
emergency responders the hazards associated with a specific shipment. 
This information must include the immediate hazard to health; risks of 
fire or explosion; immediate precautions to be taken in the event of an 
accident; immediate methods for handling fires; initial methods for 
handling spills or leaks in the absence of fire; and preliminary first 
aid measures. The information must be in writing, in English, and 
presented on a shipping paper or related shipping document (see Sec.  
172.602).
    In addition to written emergency response information, Sec.  
172.604(a) of the HMR requires a person who offers (offeror) a 
hazardous material for transportation in commerce to list an emergency 
response telephone number on the shipping paper. The emergency response 
telephone number must connect a caller to the offeror or to a person 
capable of and accepting responsibility for providing detailed 
information about the hazardous materials shipment. The emergency 
response telephone number is used by emergency responders and transport 
workers to obtain detailed, product-specific information, including 
directions for remedial measures to be taken in the event of an 
incident during transportation.
    The telephone number must be answered by a person who is 
knowledgeable about the material being shipped and possesses 
comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation information 
for that material, or has immediate access to a person who possesses 
such knowledge. Under this standard, ``immediate access'' requires the 
emergency response information to be provided to the emergency 
responder or transportation worker promptly and with no undue delay. 
Additionally, the emergency response telephone number must be active, 
with no limitations, during the entire time a shipment is in 
transportation, including storage incidental to movement and intermodal 
shipments that are transferred from one carrier to another for 
continued transportation. Simply stated, the term ``storage incidental 
to movement'' means storage occurring between the time a hazardous 
material is offered for transportation and the time it is delivered to 
the consignee (see Sec.  171.8 for complete definition for ``storage 
incidental to movement'').
    As currently required in Sec.  172.604(b), if the offeror uses the 
services of an emergency response information provider (ERI provider), 
the offeror must ensure that the ERI provider has up-to-date 
information on the hazardous material and that the ERI provider is 
capable of and has accepted responsibility for providing detailed 
emergency response information applicable to the hazardous material.
    As discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, we have become aware of a 
number of problems associated with emergency response telephone numbers 
on shipping papers, specifically related to the increasing use by 
offerors of ERI providers to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
172.604. In such situations, the original offeror enters into a 
contract or agreement with an agency or organization (industry 
associations may offer this service to their members) accepting 
responsibility for providing detailed emergency response information in 
accordance with Sec.  172.604(b). The telephone number on the shipping 
paper is the telephone number of the ERI provider, but the original 
offeror is not required to include a notation to this effect on the 
shipping paper, nor is the name of the original offeror required to 
appear on the shipping paper. Thus, the identity of the person who 
arranged with the ERI provider is not readily available through 
shipping documentation.
    This problem is exacerbated because, under the HMR, a carrier or 
freight forwarder preparing a shipping paper for the continued movement 
of a hazardous material in commerce may rely on information provided by 
the original offeror for the preparation of the new shipping paper (for 
example, the classification of the material, the compatibility of the 
material with the packaging being used, or the emergency response 
telephone number), so long as the carrier or freight forwarder 
exercises due care. For example, a carrier or freight forwarder may 
rely on an emergency response telephone number provided by a preceding 
offeror unless it is aware (or should be aware) of facts indicating the 
emergency response telephone number is not operative (such as when the 
offeror has not contracted with the ERI provider) and does not meet the 
requirements of Sec.  172.604(b).
    The initial shipment of hazardous materials may be handled by 
several entities before reaching its final destination. For example, a 
motor carrier may accept a shipment from the originating offeror for 
transportation and deliver the material to a freight forwarder to 
arrange continued transportation. The freight forwarder may prepare 
shipping papers using the emergency response telephone number provided 
by the originating offeror. The freight forwarder may then arrange for 
continued shipment of the hazardous material by rail; a rail carrier 
may prepare shipping documentation using the information, including the 
emergency response telephone number, provided by the freight forwarder. 
The shipping documentation accompanying the shipment may or may not 
include the name of the originating offeror. In cases where the 
originating offeror arranges with an emergency response service to 
provide telephone service, the nexus between the offeror and ERI 
provider may be lost as new shipping papers are prepared at each stage 
of transportation. For example, when new shipping papers are prepared 
for continued transportation of the hazardous materials, the original 
offeror's name is typically removed and replaced with the subsequent 
offeror's name. When the initial offeror is also the ERI registrant, 
that information is no longer available when the emergency responder 
calls the ERI provider.
    Without the name of the offeror who arranged for an emergency 
response service, an ERI provider may not be able to communicate the 
product-specific information that was provided by the original offeror. 
This could result in a serious problem if transportation workers or 
emergency response personnel must use the telephone number to request 
assistance in handling an accident or emergency. Most ERI providers 
will attempt to provide assistance whether or not they can verify that 
an offeror arranged for emergency response service. However, without 
the identification of the particular offeror who has made arrangements 
with the service, it may not be possible for the emergency response 
service to quickly access information specific to the material involved 
in an incident, thereby defeating the purpose of the requirement in 
Sec.  172.604 to enable transport workers and emergency

[[Page 53415]]

response personnel to expeditiously obtain detailed information about a 
hazardous materials shipment. A delay or improper response due to lack 
of accurate and timely emergency response information may place 
emergency response personnel, transportation workers, and the general 
public at increased risk. Expeditious identification of the hazards and 
direction for appropriate handling and clean up associated with 
specific hazardous materials is critical in mitigating the consequences 
of hazardous materials incidents.
    To remedy this problem, in the NRPM we proposed to require that 
when an ERI provider is used to comply with the requirements of Sec.  
172.604, the offeror must be identified on the originating shipping 
paper and any subsequent shipping papers that use the ERI provider's 
emergency response telephone number. Specifically, we proposed to:
    1. Require the offeror who made the arrangement with the ERI 
provider to be identified on the shipping paper. Any party preparing a 
shipping paper would be required to identify the original offeror, by 
name or contract number, with the emergency response telephone number 
indicated on the shipping paper, and clearly note the identification in 
association with the emergency response telephone number, or insert and 
identify its own emergency response telephone number conforming to the 
requirements in Subpart G of Part 172.
    2. Clarify that any person preparing a subsequent shipping paper 
for continued transport of hazardous materials must include the 
original offeror's name if that offeror is the registrant for the 
emergency response telephone service. Again, the name of the original 
offeror or its contract number with the ERI provider would be required 
to be included on the shipping paper, or the person preparing 
subsequent shipping papers must insert and identify by name its own 
valid emergency response number conforming to the requirements in 
Subpart G of Part 172.
    3. We also proposed the following clarifications:

--To clarify that international telephone numbers used to comply with 
the emergency response telephone number requirement must include the 
country code, and city code as appropriate.
--To clarify that the emergency response telephone number requirements 
do not apply to transport vehicles or freight containers containing 
lading that has been fumigated and displays the FUMIGANT marking, as 
required by Sec.  173.9 of the HMR, unless other hazardous materials 
are present in the cargo transport unit.

II. Comments to the NPRM

    A total of 23 persons submitted comments to the NPRM, representing 
industry associations, emergency responders, emergency response 
information services, offerors, carriers, and the general public. The 
comments may be accessed via https://www.regulations.gov and are as 
follows:
    1. Arkema, Inc.--PHMSA-2006-26322-02.
    2. The FPL Group--PHMSA-2006-26322-04.
    3. Jerry Shipman--PHMSA-2006-26322-06.
    4. Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)--PHMSA-2006-26322-07.
    5. International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association 
(VOHMA)--PHMSA-2006-26322-08 and 09.
    6. American Trucking Associations (ATA)--PHMSA-2006-26322-10.
    7. United Parcel Service (UPS)--PHMSA-2006-26322-11.
    8. Air Products and Chemicals (Air Products)--PHMSA-2006-26322-12.
    9. Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA)--PHMSA-2006-26322-13.
    10. Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. 
(CORAR)--
    PHMSA-2006-26322-14.
    11. Association of American Railroads (AAR)--PHMSA-2006-26322-15.
    12. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA)--
PHMSA-2006-26322-16.
    13. National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)--PHMSA-
2006-26322-17.
    14. Veolia ES Technical Solutions LLC (Veolia)--PHMSA-2006-26322-
18.
    15. The Chemical Emergency Transportation Center (CHEMTREC)--PHMSA-
2006-26322-19.
    16. Fed Ex Express (Fed Ex)--PHMSA-2006-26322-20.
    17. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA)--PHMSA-2006-26322-21.
    18. Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)--PHMSA-2006-26322-
22.
    19. International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)--PHMSA-2006-
26322-23.
    20. National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA)--PHMSA-2006-26322-
24.
    21. Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia)--PHMSA-2006-26322-25.
    22. Lighter Association, Inc.--PHMSA-2006-26322-26.
    23. Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC)--PHMSA-2006-26322-27.

III. Revisions to the HMR Adopted in This Final Rule

    In this rulemaking we are requiring the offeror who is registered 
with the ERI provider, as reflected by the provider's telephone number 
on shipping papers, to be identified on the shipping paper. 
Specifically, we are revising the HMR to:
    1. Require an offeror who has made an arrangement with an ERI 
provider to be identified on the shipping paper in clear association 
with the emergency response telephone number. In response to comments, 
we are clarifying that if the name of the offeror is prominently and 
clearly listed elsewhere on the shipping paper, it need not also be 
listed in association with the emergency response telephone number.
    2. Clarify that any person preparing a subsequent shipping paper 
for continued transport of a hazardous materials shipment must include 
the offeror's name (whether the original or subsequent offeror) that is 
the registrant for the ERI provider and that will be in use for the 
continued transportation of the shipment. The name of the original or 
subsequent offeror or its contract number with the ERI provider must be 
included on the shipping paper. If the original or subsequent offeror 
is not continuing as the registrant with the ERI provider, the person 
preparing subsequent shipping papers must insert and identify by name 
its own valid emergency response telephone number conforming to the 
requirements in Subpart G of Part 172.
    3. Clarify that the person answering the ERI provider's telephone 
number transmits all written information in English.
    4. Clarify that international telephone numbers used to meet the 
emergency response telephone number requirement must include the 
international access code or a ``+'' sign as a placeholder for the 
international access code, country code, and city code as appropriate.
    5. Clarify the term ``clear association'' with respect to the 
placement of the identity of the registrant of the ERI provider.
    6. Clarify the current requirement for the emergency response 
telephone number to be provided on the shipping paper in a ``clearly 
visible'' location.
    7. Clarify that the emergency response telephone number 
requirements do not apply to transport vehicles or freight containers 
containing lading that has been fumigated and displays the FUMIGANT 
marking, as required by

[[Page 53416]]

Sec.  173.9 of the HMR, unless other hazardous materials are present in 
the cargo transport unit.
    The amendments in this final rule are intended to fill a gap that 
was unforeseen when we initially adopted these requirements in 1989 
under Docket HM-126C (54 FR 27138, 06/27/89). The amendments in this 
final rule will help to ensure that transportation workers and 
emergency response personnel are provided with accurate and timely 
information about the hazardous materials involved in a transportation 
accident or other emergency. This final rule will also serve to 
eliminate delays in transportation due to lack of such information, and 
eliminate problems created when compliance personnel are not able to 
verify emergency response telephone numbers.

IV. Discussion of Comments

    As discussed in detail below, we received comments that are mostly 
supportive of our proposal to require basic identifying information to 
be included on shipping papers and some that are not supportive. 
However, some comments express concerns on certain provisions and 
request additional revisions. Some comments, such as defining the term 
``interlining carrier'' and adopting authorization to use electronic 
data information are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and, 
therefore, are not addressesd in this final rule.
    DGAC agrees that it is necessary to have a clear linkage between 
the offeror making arrangements with an ERI provider and the provider's 
emergency response telephone number, but recommends that we address 
this issue as part of our ongoing initiative to identify ways to 
promote faster, more efficient communication among shippers, carriers, 
and emergency responders through the use of electronic data exchange 
technologies. This initiative is a long-term project that may not be 
completed for several years. This final rule is intended to minimize 
delay or improper response resulting from a lack of accurate and timely 
emergency response information. Absent regulatory action, emergency 
response personnel, transportation workers, and the general public 
could be placed at increased risk. Thus, we do not believe delaying 
this rulemaking is justified.
    Of the commenters supporting the intent of this rulemaking, VOHMA 
comments that valuable time is lost when shipments are delayed while 
emergency responders or enforcement officers are attempting to obtain 
or verify emergency response information and their efforts are 
obstructed because the party who arranged with the ERI provider is not 
noted on the shipping papers. CHEMTREC, an ERI provider, comments that 
for the arrangement between the registrant and CHEMTREC to work 
effectively, the registrant must be identified on the shipping paper. 
The IAFC comments that first responders can prevent or reduce the 
amount of damage or injury at the scene if they have specific 
information on the hazardous materials and also states that the safety 
of the public and emergency responders, and the impact on business 
operations can depend on quickly obtaining comprehensive and correct 
information.
    A detailed discussion of comments to the NPRM follows.

A. Reliance on Original Information

    Several commenters, including Fed Ex and UPS, ask us to restate the 
clarification that was published under Docket HM-223A (70 FR 43638) and 
reiterated in the HM-206F NPRM. The clarification addressed a carrier 
relying on information provided by the original or previous offeror of 
the hazardous material.
    As stated in the NPRM's preamble (72 FR 25962), the definition of a 
``person who offers or offeror'' includes ``any person who performs, or 
is responsible for performing, any pre-transportation function required 
under this subchapter for transportation of the hazardous material in 
commerce.'' The definition further provides that a carrier is not an 
offeror when it performs a function as a condition of accepting a 
hazardous material shipment for continued transportation without 
performing a pre-transportation function (see definition for ``pre-
transportation function'' in Sec.  171.8). In accordance with Sec.  
171.2(f), an offeror and carrier may rely on information provided by a 
previous offeror or carrier unless it knows or a reasonable person 
acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would know, 
that the information provided is incorrect. Under Sec.  5123(a)(1) of 
the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law, 
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), a person acts knowingly when the person has 
actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation; or a 
reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable 
care would have that knowledge.
    An offeror or an interconnecting carrier who knowingly or willfully 
provides incorrect information to a subsequent carrier, or a subsequent 
carrier who knowingly accepts and continues to use inaccurate 
information, is in violation of the HMR. A civil or criminal penalty 
(see Sec. Sec.  107.329 and 107.333) may be assessed against any person 
subject to the HMR who knowingly or willfully offers for transportation 
or transports a hazardous material in a manner not complying with the 
HMR.
    To reiterate, a carrier, freight forwarder, or other entity may 
rely on the previous information unless the entity has knowledge that 
the information is incorrect. Ensuring correct information is the 
responsibility of the person preparing shipping papers, and any person 
with knowledge of incorrect information may not continue to use that 
information. Communication between the original and subsequent offeror 
before the shipment reaches the subsequent offeror may be warranted in 
cases when confusion exists on whether the original offeror's ERI 
provider will continue to be used.

B. Use of Emergency Response Number by Subsequent Offerors

    Some commenters read the NPRM as proposing to require the original 
offeror to maintain its emergency response information telephone number 
for subsequent offerors when no agreement has been authorized by the 
original offeror. For example, IME requests that we correct or confirm 
its understanding that the ``option'' to use the originating offeror's 
emergency response number applies only to that offeror's shipment. The 
commenters state that they support the intent of the rule, but that we 
appear to be expanding the requirement for originating offerors to 
provide and monitor emergency response information telephone numbers 
beyond the delivery of the shipment to the destination on the original 
offeror's shipping papers.
    The commenters have misread the NPRM. We did not propose to require 
the original offeror to maintain an emergency response telephone number 
throughout subsequent offerors' movements of hazardous materials. We 
proposed only that the existing requirement for the notation of an 
emergency response telephone number be augmented by the inclusion of 
the registrant's name or contract number with the ERI provider. This 
rulemaking was prompted, in part, because some subsequent carriers when 
preparing new shipping papers were omitting the initial registrant's 
name, inserting their own name, but retaining the initial offeror's ERI 
provider for which the initial offeror was the registrant. Whether in 
cases where the previous offeror's ERI provider was intended to end 
upon acceptance of the shipment by

[[Page 53417]]

the subsequent offeror or was intended to be active for the subsequent 
offeror, the identifying link to the ERI provider was lost and the 
telephone number was no longer operative for the shipment.
    Whether the original or previous offeror's ERI provider's telephone 
number remains active for a subsequent offeror is a matter of agreement 
between the two parties. A subsequent offeror may not assume that it 
has authorization to use the original or previous offeror's emergency 
response telephone number.

C. Use of the Terms ``Emergency Response Service Provider'' and 
``Emergency Response Information Provider''

    DGAC and CHEMTREC comment that our use of the term ``emergency 
response service provider'' connotes a range of emergency services 
beyond that required by the emergency response telephone number and may 
lead to confusion. The commenters suggested the use of the term 
``emergency response information provider.'' We agree the term provides 
clarity and have made the revision.
    Veolia states that the term ``emergency response information'' is 
defined in Sec.  172.602(a) as the minimum information that must be 
made available, but that in Sec.  172.604(a)(2), when describing the 
information that must be maintained by the emergency response 
information provider, we use the phrase ``comprehensive emergency 
response and incident mitigation information.'' Veolia requests that we 
remove the latter phrase in Sec.  172.604 and replace it with 
``emergency response information.'' We note concerning this comment 
that the two sections are intended for two different purposes. Section 
172.602 refers to the emergency response information that must be 
printed on or attached to the shipping paper, while Sec.  172.604 is 
specific to the emergency response telephone number. The person manning 
the emergency response information telephone number must be able to 
provide specific and detailed information about the hazardous material 
(for example, characteristics of the material and comprehensive 
emergency response information) to supplement and expand on the written 
emergency response information provided with the shipping paper, such 
as the Emergency Response Guide (ERG), including comprehensive 
emergency response and incident mitigation information. The person 
should have the capability of contacting the shipper for additional 
information and/or have immediate access to such information. For this 
reason, we are not making the requested change.

D. Comprehensive Knowledge of the Shipment and Needs of Emergency 
Response Personnel

    Some commenters express concern about obtaining the most 
comprehensive knowledge regarding the specific hazardous materials 
being shipped, stating that the only way to do this is through direct 
access to the offeror. ATA states that the NPRM does not directly 
address the problem of ensuring that emergency responders will have 
direct access to the offeror. Air Products suggests that if a 
subsequent carrier or freight forwarder prepares its own subsequent 
shipping papers and uses an ``outside'' ERI provider, the subsequent 
offeror and provider may not have the necessary information to properly 
advise emergency responders on the scene. APA states that the emergency 
response telephone number, hazardous materials description and 
manifests should carry over throughout an intermodal shipment from the 
initial offeror to the final consignee. (As a note: APA contracts with 
a third party emergency response provider who provides detailed 
emergency response information conforming to Sec.  172.604. APA members 
may participate in the service and register through APA, and APA 
submits the participant list to the ERI provider; thus, each member is 
individually registered.) IAFC states that general reference materials 
are not substitutes for direct contact with the offeror who has the 
most knowledge of the product.
    We agree with the commenters that the offeror will have the most 
comprehensive knowledge about a specific hazardous material. That is 
why the HMR requirement for the emergency response telephone number 
allows for and, indeed, anticipates that the number provided by the 
original offeror will often be utilized throughout transportation from 
the original offeror to the consignee. We remind offerors and ERI 
providers that Sec.  172.604(a)(2) requires the telephone number to be 
that of a person who is either knowledgeable of the hazardous material 
being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response and incident 
mitigation information for that material, or has immediate access to a 
person who possesses such knowledge and information. We agree with 
IAFC's point that knowledgeable contacts require more than a rote 
reading from general reference materials, such as the ERG. Offerors 
must meet the existing comprehensive emergency response requirement by 
supplying the ERI provider and subsequent offerors, as applicable, with 
complete and detailed information relevant to the hazardous material, 
and subsequent offerors must also supply any ERI provider that they 
engage for themselves with the additional information supplied to them 
by the original or previous offeror. We remind the reader that Sec.  
172.604(b) currently requires the ERI provider to have detailed 
information concerning the hazardous material and specifies that ``the 
person offering a hazardous material for transportation who lists the 
telephone number of an agency or organization shall ensure that the 
agency or organization has received current information on the material 
as required by paragraph (a)(2),'' which specifies comprehensive and 
incident mitigation information for the material. Again, a rote reading 
alone is not sufficient.
    COSTHA contends that the existing emergency response telephone 
number requirement fully meets the needs of emergency response 
personnel and that we should only clarify the existing requirement that 
all hazardous materials shipping documentation must include an 
emergency response contact number representing the number supplied by 
the offeror. The Lighter Association also questions the advantage of 
the identification of the party who is registered with the provider, 
stating that products such as lighters go through many hands (sales 
agents, distributors, retailers and other third parties) and that often 
the identity of the party registered with the provider is not known. 
The Lighter Association asserts that identification of the material by 
hazard class on the shipping paper and the marking and placarding 
requirements are sufficient and states that the registrant most likely 
is ``not going to be readily available.''
    These commenters appear to have misread the NPRM. The purpose of 
the NPRM proposals is to enable emergency responders and transportation 
workers to readily obtain information from a third-party provider, not 
for them to obtain the information from the registrant. When the 
provider is called and the registrant cannot be matched with the 
product, the provider attempts (with no obligation when an offeror is 
not registered) to respond with general information applicable to the 
shipping description, but the product specific information cannot be 
obtained because the identity of the registrant is not known. Providing 
comprehensive information for any hazardous material is critical to 
ensure that emergency response personnel and transportation workers are 
equipped with the means to

[[Page 53418]]

respond appropriately and as swiftly as possible to a hazardous 
material situation. Such information is particularly important if the 
hazardous material is shipped under a generic shipping name (e.g., 
flammable liquid n.o.s.) where complete emergency response information 
may depend on an in-depth knowledge of the hazardous constituents of 
the material. If the emergency response information provider cannot 
identify the registrant, then the complete and product specific 
information about the hazardous material cannot be provided to the 
emergency responders.
    We cannot emphasize enough that lack of complete information 
applicable to the hazardous material being transported impacts the 
ability of emergency response personnel to properly, safely and 
expeditiously take action when an incident occurs. Crucial delays can 
occur with the response and clean up process when the identity of the 
offeror registered with the ERI provider is not reflected on the 
shipping paper. The delays may result in serious risks to people and 
the environment, and may also disrupt the continued transportation of 
shipments when emergency responders and transportation workers are 
pressed to take valuable time on the scene of an incident to obtain 
emergency response information. CHEMTREC asks us to inform the 
regulated community that it makes it known to each person registering 
with CHEMTREC that either the previous offeror should be indicated on 
the shipping paper (if continuing to maintain an emergency response 
telephone number), or the party that has taken on the offeror function 
should itself be registered.

E. Format on Shipping Papers

    Several commenters request that we provide a specific format for 
the identification of the registrant of the ERI provider, stating that, 
as proposed, it may not always be clear who is registered with the ERI 
provider. For example, COSTHA notes that shipments being consolidated 
into one freight container may contain materials from more than one 
offeror, with each providing a separate emergency response telephone 
number and that many less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers create 
manifests or delivery receipt documents that provide the original 
offeror's name and emergency response contact information. COSTHA 
states that to create shipping documents to include the offerors' name 
or contract number registered with the ERI provider would be confusing 
to emergency personnel and create more errors.
    With respect to multiple shipments being consolidated into one 
freight container, currently, when more than one emergency response 
telephone number is needed for consolidated hazardous materials, the 
various emergency response telephone numbers are required to be noted 
following the applicable shipping descriptions. We do not agree that 
the addition of registrant information in association with the 
applicable telephone number will create confusion.
    Veolia is supportive of the rulemaking, but requests that when the 
offeror noted on the shipping paper is the registrant of the ERI 
provider, no need exists to reenter the offeror's name near the 
emergency response telephone number. Similarly, DGAC states its 
assumption that the offeror's identity is not required to be repeated 
if the identification is noted ``elsewhere'' on the shipping document, 
particularly with international shipments.
    We continue to be concerned that if the registrant with an ERI 
provider is not clearly identified, the nexus between the registrant 
and the provider will be lost. However, we agree with the commenters 
that if the registrant is prominently, clearly and readily identified 
elsewhere on the shipping paper--e.g., the offeror listed on the 
shipping paper is also the registrant and clearly identified--then the 
registrant need not also be listed in association with the emergency 
response telephone number. Subsequent entities in the transportation 
chain (carriers, freight forwarders, etc.) that prepare new shipping 
papers must ensure that the name or the contract number of the original 
offeror, if that offeror's ERI telephone number remains in effect, is 
provided in association with the emergency response telephone number, 
unless prominently identified elsewhere.
    CHEMTREC states that precious time is lost when the caller on the 
scene of an incident is having trouble identifying the registered 
offeror because of the lack of uniformity of the information on 
shipping papers. CHEMTREC also comments (and we agree) about the 
necessity of taking care when preparing new shipping papers with regard 
to ensuring that the name or contract number is not inadvertently 
altered, which can create problems and delays in correctly identifying 
the registered offeror. We received complaints that the telephone 
number is also difficult to quickly identify when its positioning on 
the shipping paper is located near other text in a manner that blends 
the telephone number with other text (such as when using small, 
difficult-to-read font size), thereby rendering the number difficult to 
locate and/or to read.
    Based on the comments received concerning the necessity of a 
standard format for the registrant information, we are revising the 
regulatory text to read that the identification of the registrant of 
the emergency response telephone number provider must be placed 
immediately before, after, above or below the telephone number, unless 
the registrant is prominently, clearly and readily identified elsewhere 
on the shipping paper as discussed earlier in this preamble. This 
should provide sufficient flexibility for the creation of a shipping 
paper while ensuring that the registrant is clearly identified. In 
addition, considering the exception being incorporated in this final 
rule and based on the comments specific to being unable to quickly 
identify the registered offeror as well as identify and easily read the 
telephone number itself, we are revising the regulatory text by 
clarifying the meaning of ``clearly visible'' and ``prominently, 
clearly and readily identifiable'' in Sec.  172.604(a)(3)(ii) and 
(b)(2), respectively. We are making this clarification so that there is 
no question as to the intent of the requirement, including that it 
encompasses the readability of the information (registered offeror and 
telephone number), as well as the location.

F. International Access Codes

    Several commenters request clarification in the regulatory text 
regarding the use of international emergency response telephone 
numbers. DGAC suggests an expansion of the text to make clear that the 
international access code, country code and city code must be included 
when the emergency response telephone number is an international call. 
We agree and in this final rule have revised the regulatory text in 
Sec.  172.604(a) accordingly. Additionally, we are adding the use of 
the ``+'' (plus) sign, which we understand is already commonly used in 
international commerce, as an option to noting the specific 
international access code. Each country has an international access 
code used to dial out of the country and a country calling code used to 
dial into a country. Generally, the international access code is 
replaced with a ``+'' (plus) sign for telephone numbers published for 
international calling. The plus sign is a universal prefix and means 
that the caller must use the specific prefix assigned to his or her 
country. Many telephones allow the plus sign to be entered, although 
the method may vary. For example, most GSM (global system for mobile 
communications) mobile

[[Page 53419]]

phones allow the plus sign to be entered by either holding the ``0'' 
(zero) key or striking the ``*'' (asterisk) key twice; the plus sign is 
automatically converted to the correct international access code.
    UPS asks whether requiring country and city codes prohibits the use 
of a toll-free telephone number. This requirement does not prevent the 
use of a toll-free telephone number, provided an emergency responder 
can dial the number as it appears on the shipping paper without 
stopping to look up international access, country and city codes, and 
provided the toll-free telephone number meets the requirements in 
Subpart G of Part 172, including the current requirement in Sec.  
172.604(a)(2) that specifies a telephone number may not entail a call 
back (such as an answering service, answering machine, or beeper 
device) and identity provision adopted in this final rule.

G. Notification of the Pilot-in-Command

    UPS is concerned that the requirements for the Notification of 
Pilot-in-Command (NOTOC) contains ``extraneous'' information and cites 
a petition for rulemaking (P-1487) in which UPS requests a thorough 
review of the NOTOC requirements. We will address the UPS petition in a 
future rulemaking.

H. Costs and Time Needed To Implement

    Some commenters believe that the provision in this final rule will 
impose significant costs and be difficult and time consuming to 
implement for carriers and offerors. UPS states that the requirement 
will impact: (1) The design of shipping papers by impinging on scarce 
available space, (2) the programming of computer systems by requiring 
reprogramming of countless systems used to print the information, (3) 
communication protocols between UPS's customers and UPS's internal 
systems, and (4) enforcement protocols used by inspectors. UPS 
estimates its costs will be between $1 million to $1.5 million and 
entail 40--60 weeks of work to make the change. UPS states that 
programming resources will need to be allocated and system changes will 
need to be tested. COSTHA requests a review of expenses associated with 
adopting the requirement and an extension of the compliance date if we 
proceed with the final rule.
    We disagree with the commenters who state that the adoption of the 
revision to the HMR would be too costly and time consuming to 
implement. The emergency response telephone number is currently 
required on shipping papers. Adding a notation to identify the person 
who contracted with the ERI provider and reprogramming the shipping 
papers should not add the significant time and cost to the degree these 
commenters suggest. Also, it is our understanding that the notation for 
the identity of the person registered with an ERI provider is currently 
relatively common industry practice. The costs associated with this 
rulemaking are considerably outweighed by the safety benefits resulting 
from faster and more efficient responses to accidents and emergencies. 
Moreover, the final rule will reduce transportation delays incurred 
when emergency responders must spend time to obtain product specific 
information.
    UPS and Fed Ex request a two-year extended compliance date. We 
believe the revision in this rulemaking addresses a critical safety 
issue and that a two-year extended compliance date is an excessive 
amount of time to implement the notation on shipping papers. However, 
to minimize costs associated with reprogramming computer systems and 
implementing the notation, we agree to provide an extended compliance 
date until October 1, 2010 to minimize the costs for those businesses 
that have not already incorporated the identity of the emergency 
response telephone number provider's registrant into their shipping 
paper format. A one-year extended compliance date will also allow 
sufficient time to include this revision into training programs, 
complete changes to systems supporting shipping papers, and deplete 
current stocks of shipping papers if necessary.
    UPS asked that the revisions in this final rule be made effective 
at the same time as the next publication of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe 
Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). 
We plan to submit the revision for US Variation 12 (emergency response 
telephone number) to ICAO before its next publication, which is 
scheduled to be effective on January 1, 2010.

I. Editorial Correction and Additional Revisions

    UPS asked us to explain our reason for deleting the word ``or'' in 
Sec.  172.604(a)(3)(i). The proposed deletion was an error and has been 
corrected in this final rule.
    ASA and UPS state that the wording in Sec.  172.201(d) is not 
consistent with the ``fuller requirement'' in Sec.  172.604(b) and 
request that we repeat the Sec.  172.604(b) text in Sec.  172.201(d). 
UPS' objection is that in the NPRM, Sec.  172.201(d) referred to 
identification of the ``person'' and did not reference ``or contract 
number.'' The proposed Sec.  172.201(d) clearly stated: ``* * * a 
shipping paper must contain an emergency response telephone number and, 
if utilizing an emergency response information telephone number service 
provider, identify the person who has a contractual agreement with the 
service provider, as prescribed in subpart G of this part.'' 
Identifying the person in accordance with Subpart G is a clear 
statement and consistent with the treatment of references throughout 
the HMR. Repeating the particulars is redundant, but in this final rule 
we are adding a parenthetical ``(by name or contract number)'' 
following the word ``person.''
    VOHMA requests that we revise Sec.  174.26 to clarify that the 
requirement to include the identifying information adopted in this 
final rule applies. We have made the clarification.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is a non-
significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the 
Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].
    The amendments in this final rule should not result in significant 
costs to add the required information to shipping papers. The emergency 
response telephone number is currently required on the shipping paper. 
Adding a notation to identify the person who arranged with an ERI 
provider should not add any significant time to the process of 
completing a shipping paper or to the cost of providing it. Moreover, 
the notation on a shipping paper of the identity of the person who made 
arrangements with an emergency response information telephone service 
is currently common industry practice for the initial offeror. 
Additionally, we are providing an exception from the requirement where 
the name of the initial offeror is prominently and clearly shown 
elsewhere on the shipping paper.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, UPS estimates that it will 
incur costs between $1 million to $1.5 million and entail 40-60 weeks 
of work to make the change. UPS asserts that programming resources will 
need to be allocated and the system changes will need to be tested. We 
recognize that the provisions of this final rule will result in 
additional

[[Page 53420]]

compliance costs. Therefore, we are adopting a one-year transition 
period for offerors and carriers to implement the changes adopted in 
this final rule. This extended transition period will help to offset 
costs by providing ample time for offerors and carriers to modify 
systems and otherwise adapt their processes by implementing the changes 
during a phase-in mode. Such a phase-in implementation method will 
afford offerors and carriers the opportunity to incorporate the 
revision into training programs and complete changes to systems 
supporting shipping papers (and deplete current stocks of shipping 
papers if necessary) during a period of time that may coincide with 
scheduled training programs and routine or upcoming upgrades and 
revisions to computer systems.
    As a further note, considering that the notation is already 
relatively common industry practice for the initial offeror, and 
considering that we are also providing an exception from the 
requirement (which was not included in the NPRM), the implementation of 
the revision will not be applicable to the greater numbers of 
responsible parties as presented in the NPRM.
    Given the importance of complete and detailed information to swift 
and effective response to hazardous materials incidents and mitigation 
of the potentially harmful consequences of those incidents, we believe 
the benefits of the provisions of this final rule will substantially 
outweigh the costs that may result. The benefits include saving lives, 
preventing injuries, avoiding damage to property and the environment, 
averting costly cleanup, evacuations, closures (such as roads and 
businesses) and damage mitigation, and reducing associated 
transportation delays. The availability of accurate, complete and 
quickly obtained information significantly improves response efforts 
during transportation incidents and emergencies, and benefits offerors, 
carriers, emergency personnel and the public.

B. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
final rule will preempt State, local and Indian Tribe requirements but 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    The Federal hazmat law contains an express preemption provision (49 
U.S.C. 5125(b)), preempting State, local, and Indian Tribe requirements 
on covered subjects, as follows:
    (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous 
materials;
    (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and 
placarding of hazardous materials;
    (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents 
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, 
contents, and placement of those documents;
    (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the 
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or
    (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, 
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container 
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
transporting hazardous material.
    This final rule addresses covered subject item (3) above and would 
preempt State, local, and Indian Tribe requirements not meeting the 
``substantively the same'' standard. Federal hazmat law provides at 
section 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of 
the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal 
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date 
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of 
a final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. 
The effective date of Federal preemption for this rule is 90 days from 
the publication date of this final rule.

C. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule 
does not have Tribal implications, and does not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of 
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines the rule is not expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this 
case, although the requirements of this final rule will apply to a 
substantial number of small entities, none would sustain significant 
economic impact as a result of the rule.
    Identification of potentially affected small entities. Businesses 
likely to be affected by this final rule are persons who offer for 
transportation or transport hazardous materials in commerce, including 
hazardous materials manufacturers and distributors; freight forwarders, 
transportation companies, including air, highway, rail, and vessel 
carriers and hazardous waste generators.
    Unless alternative definitions have been established by the agency 
in consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA), the 
definition of ``small business'' has the same meaning as under the 
Small Business Act. Since no such special definition has been 
established, we employ the thresholds published by SBA for 
establishments that will be subject to the proposed amendments if 
adopted. Based on data for 2002 compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, 
more than 95 percent of persons that would be affected by this rule are 
small businesses.
    Related Federal rules and regulations. There are no related Federal 
rules or regulations governing the transportation of hazardous 
materials in domestic or international commerce.
    Consideration of alternate proposals for small businesses. The 
Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and 
differing compliance standards for small businesses, where it is 
possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable 
regulatory statutes. In the case of hazardous materials transportation, 
it is not possible to establish exceptions or differing standards and 
still accomplish our safety objectives.
    Conclusion. While the amendments in this final rule would apply to 
a substantial number of small entities, there will not be a significant 
impact on those entities. This final rule revises the HMR's emergency 
response telephone requirements to enable ERI providers and others 
providing such service to supply the required HMR emergency response 
information to first responders. The impact of this new requirement is 
not expected to be significant; the indication of the emergency 
response telephone number on shipping papers is a current requirement 
and the notation of the identity of the emergency response information 
telephone provider's registrant is currently common industry practice 
for the initial offeror. We are providing an exception that will 
include a number of offerors, and we are providing a one-year delayed 
compliance date. The problem, as discussed in the preamble of this

[[Page 53421]]

rulemaking, primarily arises from subsequent carriers omitting the 
registrant's name when preparing new shipping papers for a shipment 
continuing on to its final destination. Our amendment to add the 
identification of the telephone number's registrant to shipping papers 
will eliminate an obstruction that could interfere with the 
transmission of crucial emergency response information to first 
responders on the scene of an incident. Additionally, the amendment 
will serve to eliminate delays in transportation due to lack of 
information, and eliminate enforcement problems stemming from possible 
invalid emergency response telephone number violations.
    This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive 
Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of 
draft rules on small entities are properly considered.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    By requiring that additional information be included on certain 
shipping papers, this final rule may result in an increase in annual 
paperwork burden and costs under OMB Control No. 2137-0034. PHMSA 
currently has an approved information collection under OMB Control 
Number 2137-0034, ``Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers and Emergency 
Response Information'' expiring on May 31, 2011.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to 
respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB 
and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, 
Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested 
members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment 
on information and recordkeeping requests.
    This notice identifies a revised information collection request 
that PHMSA submitted to OMB for approval based on the requirements in 
this final rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect 
changes in this final rule. PHMSA estimates that the total information 
collection and recordkeeping burden, including the revisions resulting 
from this final rule, would be as follows:
OMB Control No. 2137-0034
    Annual Number of Respondents: 250,000.
    Annual Responses: 260,000,000.
    Annual Burden Hours: 6,609,167.
    Annual Costs: $6,675,258.67.
    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be 
directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards (PHH-10), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, 
PHH-10, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of 
$120.7 million or more to either State, local or Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

G. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Sec. Sec.  4321-4375, 
requires Federal agencies to analyze proposed actions to determine 
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human 
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 
order Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering 
(1) the need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed 
action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the 
consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b).
    Purpose and Need. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we have 
become aware of a number of problems associated with emergency response 
telephone numbers on shipping papers, specifically related to the 
increasing use by offerors of ERI providers to comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  172.604. In such situations, the original offeror 
enters into a contract or agreement with an agency or organization 
(industry associations may offer this service to their members) 
accepting responsibility for providing detailed emergency response 
information in accordance with Sec.  172.604(b). The telephone number 
on the shipping paper is the telephone number of the ERI provider, but 
the original offeror is not required to include a notation to this 
effect on the shipping paper, nor is the name of the original offeror 
required to appear on the shipping paper. Thus, the identity of the 
person who arranged with the ERI provider is not readily available 
through shipping documentation. Without the name of the offeror who 
arranged for an emergency response service, an ERI provider may not be 
able to communicate the product-specific information that was provided 
by the original offeror. This could result in a serious problem if 
transportation workers or emergency response personnel must use the 
telephone number to request assistance in handling an accident or 
emergency. Most ERI providers will attempt to provide assistance 
whether or not they can verify that an offeror arranged for emergency 
response service. However, without the identification of the particular 
offeror who has made arrangements with the service, it may not be 
possible for the emergency response service to quickly access 
information specific to the material involved in an incident, thereby 
defeating the purpose of the requirement in Sec.  172.604 to enable 
transport workers and emergency response personnel to expeditiously 
obtain detailed information about a hazardous materials shipment. A 
delay or improper response due to lack of accurate and timely emergency 
response information may place emergency response personnel, 
transportation workers, and the general public at increased risk. 
Expeditious identification of the hazards and direction for appropriate 
clean up associated with specific hazardous materials is critical in 
mitigating the consequences of hazardous materials incidents.
    Alternatives. PHMSA considered the following alternatives:
    No action--Under this alternative, we would continue to permit 
shippers to provide an emergency response telephone number for an ERI 
provider with no indication of the entity that arranged for the ERI 
provider's services. This alternative does not address the identify 
safety problem. Thus, it was not selected.
    Require the shipping paper to include the name or contract number 
of the person arranging for the ERI provider's services--Under this 
alternative, we would require a shipper who utilizes an ERI provider to 
comply with the provisions of Sec.  172.604 to include his name or 
contract number so that the ERI provider can readily retrieve and 
provide shipment-specific information in the event of an accident or 
emergency. This will allow for faster, more efficient emergency 
response to incidents. This is the selected alternative.
    Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Hazardous materials are 
substances that may pose a threat to public safety or the environment 
during transportation

[[Page 53422]]

because of their physical, chemical, or nuclear properties. The 
hazardous material regulatory system is a risk management system that 
is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying a safety hazard and 
reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous material release. 
Hazardous materials are categorized by hazard analysis and experience 
into hazard classes and packing groups. The regulations require each 
shipper to classify a material in accordance with these hazard classes 
and packing groups; the process of classifying a hazardous material is 
itself a form of hazard analysis. Further, the regulations require the 
shipper to communicate the material's hazards through use of the hazard 
class, packing group, and proper shipping name on the shipping paper 
and the use of labels on packages and placards on transport vehicles. 
Thus the shipping paper, labels, and placards communicate the most 
significant findings of the shipper's hazard analysis. A hazardous 
material is assigned to one of three packing groups based upon its 
degree of hazard--from a high hazard Packing Group I to a low hazard 
Packing Group III material. The quality, damage resistance, and 
performance standards of the packaging in each packing group are 
appropriate for the hazards of the material transported.
    Releases of hazardous materials, whether caused by accident or 
deliberate sabotage, can result in explosions or fires. Radioactive, 
toxic, infectious, or corrosive hazardous materials can have short- or 
long-term exposure effects on humans or the environment. Generally, 
however, the hazard class definitions are focused on the potential 
safety hazards associated with a given material or type of material 
rather than the environmental hazards of such materials.
    Under the HMR, hazardous materials may be transported by aircraft, 
vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or 
contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved 
in accidents or en route incidents resulting from cargo shifts, valve 
failures, package failures, loading, unloading, collisions, handling 
problems, or deliberate sabotage. The release of hazardous materials 
can cause the loss of ecological resources and the contamination of 
air, aquatic environments, and soil. Contamination of soil can lead to 
the contamination of ground water. For the most part, the adverse 
environmental impacts associated with releases of most hazardous 
materials are short-term impacts that can be reduced or eliminated 
through prompt clean-up/decontamination of the accident scene.
    The amendments in this final rule will improve the effectiveness of 
the HMR by enabling emergency responders on the scene of a hazardous 
materials incident to quickly and efficiently identify hazards and 
mitigate potential risks to the environment. There are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with amendments in this final rule.
    Consultation and Public Comment. As discussed above, PHMSA 
published an NPRM to solicit public comments on our proposal. A total 
of 23 persons submitted comments, including industry associations, 
shippers, carriers, ERI providers, emergency responders, and private 
citizens.

H. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written 
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the 
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the 
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor 
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 
Pages 19477-78), which may also be found at https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 172

    Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, 
Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 174

    Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Rail 
carriers, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consi