Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program, 70399-70410 [2013-28168]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
System. Different questions are
addressed to each of these two groups.
Interviews are semi-structured, with
follow-up questions asked as
appropriate depending on the
respondent’s initial answer.
The confidentiality of the interview
data is protected by the Privacy Act of
1974. FRA fully complies with all laws
pertaining to confidentiality, including
the Privacy Act. Thus, information
obtained by or acquired by FRA’s
contractor, the Volpe Center, from key
stakeholders and railroad employees
will be used strictly for evaluation
purposes. None of the information that
might be identifying will be
disseminated or disclosed in any way.
In addition, the participating railroad
sites involved will require Volpe to
establish a non-disclosure agreement
that prohibits disclosure of company
confidential information without the
carrier’s authorization. Also, the data
are protected under the Department of
Transportation regulation Title 49 CFR
part 9, which is in part concerned with
the Department involvement in
proceedings between private litigants.
According to this statute, if information
is subpoenaed, Volpe and Volpe
contractors cannot ‘‘provide testimony
or produce any material contained in
the files of the Department, or disclose
any information or produce any material
acquired as part of the performance of
that employee’s official duties or
because of that employee’s official duty
status’’ unless authorized by agency
counsel after determining that, in legal
proceedings between private litigants,
such testimony would be in the best
interests of the Department or that of the
United States Government if disclosed.
Finally, the name of those interviewed
will not be requested.
Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.126A;
FRA F 6180.126B.
Affected Public: Railroad Employees
and Key Non-railroad Stakeholders.
Annual Estimated Burden: 110 hours.
Addressee: Send comments regarding
these information collections to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; Attention: FRA
Desk Officer. Comments may also be
sent via email to OMB at the following
address: oira_submissions@
omb.eop.gov.
Comments are invited on the
following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of FRA, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the proposed information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
collections; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collections of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
20, 2013.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–28165 Filed 11–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0124 Notice No.
13–20]
Paperless Hazard Communications
Pilot Program
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
PHMSA invited comments on an
information collection under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control
No. 2137–0034 entitled, ‘‘Hazardous
Materials Shipping Papers and
Emergency Response Information,’’
pertaining to the Paperless Hazard
Communications Pilot Program. In the
precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No.
PHMSA–2013–0124, Notice No. 13–7,
Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR
Doc. 2013–17363, filed July 18, 2013),
PHMSA invited volunteers from
organizations representing fire and other
emergency responders, law
enforcement, and other regulated
entities (i.e., shippers and carriers who
transport hazardous materials (HM) by
air, highway, rail, and water) to
participate in a pilot program to
evaluate the effectiveness of paperless
hazard communications systems and to
comment on and participate in an
information collection activity
associated with the pilot program. This
30-Day Notice acknowledges comments
received regarding the 60-Day Notice
(Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0124, Notice
No. 13–7, Federal Register Vol. 78, No.
139, FR Doc. 2013–17363, filed July 18,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70399
2013) and provides details on the four
information collection efforts to be
conducted under the pilot program.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
December 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
DOT–PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, by fax, 202–
395–5806, or by email, OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov.
We invite commenters to address the
following issues: (1) Whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of PHMSA, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
PHMSA’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective
if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this notice at the beginning
of the comment. To avoid duplication,
please use only one of these three
methods.
Docket: For access to the dockets to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
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 (65 FR
19477) or you may visit https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/
pdf/00-8505.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Luciana DiGhionno, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Engineering and
Research Division (PHH–23), Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., East Building, 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20590–0001,
Telephone (202) 366–7611. Requests for
a copy of the information collection
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
70400
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
should be directed to T. Glenn Foster,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Standards and Rulemaking Division
(PHH–12), Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC. 20590–
0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. History of and Current Regulatory
Requirements for Shipping Papers
The Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) require a
person who offers HM for transportation
in commerce to describe the HM on a
shipping paper in the manner required
in 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart C. The
shipping paper requirements identify
key hazard communication information
(i.e., UN number, proper shipping name,
hazard class, packing group, type and
quantity of packaging, and emergency
response telephone number). Unless an
exception from the shipping paper
requirements is provided in the
regulations, a paper copy of the
shipping paper must accompany HM
during transportation. A shipping paper
includes ‘‘a shipping order, bill of
lading, manifest or other shipping
document serving a similar purpose and
containing the information required by
§§ 172.202, 172.203, and 172.204’’ (49
CFR 171.8, definition of ‘‘shipping
paper’’). A hazardous waste manifest
‘‘may be used as the shipping paper’’ if
it contains all the information required
by Part 172, Subpart C (49 CFR
172.205(h)). The rationale behind a
paper-based system is to convey the
necessary information in a consistent
manner that is widely understood and
accepted by all regulated entities, law
enforcement, and emergency
responders.
In 1994, Congress amended the
Federal HM transportation law to
require that, after a hazardous material
‘‘is no longer in transportation,’’ all
offerors and carriers of a hazardous
material must retain the shipping paper
‘‘or electronic image thereof for a period
of 1 year to be accessible through their
respective principal places of business’’
(49 U.S.C. 5110(e), added by Pub. L.
103–311, Title I, § 115, 108 Stat. 1678
(Aug. 26, 1994)). An electronic image
includes an image transmitted by a
facsimile (FAX) machine, an image on
the screen of a computer, or an image
generated by an optical imaging
machine. In 2002, the Research and
Special Programs Administration (the
predecessor to PHMSA) issued a final
rule further amending parts 172, 174,
175, and 176 of the HMR regarding the
retention and information requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
associated with shipping papers. The
2002 final rule required shippers and
carriers to retain a copy of each HM
shipping paper, or an electronic image
thereof, for a period of 375 days after the
date the HM is accepted by a carrier.
Consideration for allowing the use of
electronic communication while HM are
actually in transportation is the next
step in the evolution of hazard
communication.
2. Authority Granted Under MAP–21
Section 33005 of the ‘‘Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’
(MAP–21) authorizes PHMSA to
conduct a pilot program to evaluate the
feasibility and effectiveness of using
paperless hazard communications
systems. In accordance with MAP–21,
in conducting the pilot projects,
PHMSA may not waive the current
shipping paper requirements and must
include at least one rural area in the
pilot projects. Upon completion of the
pilot projects, PHMSA must prepare a
report to be delivered by the Secretary
to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the U.S.
Senate and to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the
U.S. House of Representatives by
October 1, 2014. The report must
provide: (1) A detailed description of
the pilot projects; (2) an evaluation of
each pilot project to include an
evaluation of the performance of the esystems; (3) an assessment of the safety
and security impacts of using electronic
HM (e-HM) communication systems (esystems) to include the impact on the
public, emergency responders, law
enforcement, and on conducting
inspections and investigations; (4) an
analysis of the associated benefits and
costs of using e-systems for each mode
of transportation; and (5) a
recommendation whether e-systems
should be permanently incorporated
into the Federal hazmat regulations.
3. Goal, Scope, and Intent of the Pilot
Program
Beginning in 2007, PHMSA initiated
actions to implement paperless hazard
communications. PHMSA strongly
believes, through its prior efforts and
activities, paperless hazard
communication is possible and that this
pilot program will demonstrate the
capabilities of e-systems. In the
precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No.
PHMSA–2013–0124, Notice No. 13–7,
Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR
Doc. 2013–17363, filed July 18, 2013),
PHMSA described a strategy for
conducting the pilot projects that will
enable PHMSA to evaluate paperless
hazard communication systems (e-
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
systems) capabilities from a real-world
perspective. Key aspects of this strategy
include the following:
• Determining if e-systems are a
feasible and effective means of
providing hazard communication by
evaluating their use while shipping HM
from point of origin to final destination
using different transportation
conveyances (i.e., trucks, railcars,
maritime vessels, and airplanes) and
during inspection and emergency
response simulations. (Note: For
purposes of the pilot tests conducted
under this project, ‘‘simulation’’ refers
to planned exercises designed solely to
test the feasibility and effectiveness of
using e-systems to communicate the
needed HM shipping paper information
during project-related HM inspections
and emergency response scenarios
among pilot test participants. The scope
of the simulations will be defined by
project data collection needs for testing
electronic communication of shipping
paper information. Emergency response
simulations will not entail mimicking a
full response to a HM incident, and as
such will not involve testing first
responder procedures, equipment, or
resources not related to the
communication of shipping paper
information.)
• Using the information gathered
during the pilot projects (tests) to assess
the level of safety and security, as well
as the associated benefits and costs, of
e-systems as compared to the current
HM shipping paper requirements.
• Conducting the tests without
disrupting the normal flow of
commerce.
• Allowing emergency response
providers and law enforcement officials
to continue to perform their duties and
respective roles during the simulations
according to existing emergency and
inspection requirements, procedures,
and policies.
• Abiding by current HMR hardcopy
shipping paper requirements while
simultaneously testing e-system hazard
communications capabilities.
In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA
explained its process and criteria for
evaluating all pilot test volunteers and
selecting those participants that satisfy
the pilot test qualification requirements,
meet the criteria specified in MAP–21,
and are best able to aid in testing a
variety of scenarios. PHMSA
encouraged shippers, carriers, law
enforcement, and emergency responders
interested in participating in the pilot
projects to provide statements of interest
via comments to the 60-Day Notice.
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
4. Pilot Test Volunteer Participants and
Comments to the Web Site
Announcement and 60-Day Notice
PHMSA indicated it was seeking
shippers, carriers, law enforcement
personnel, and emergency responders
who may be interested in volunteering
to participate in the pilot projects via an
April 2013 Web site announcement and
through the 60-Day Notice.
In reply to an April 2013
announcement posted on the HM–
ACCESS Web site entitled, ‘‘Defining
the HM ACCESS Pilot Test,’’ PHMSA
received 64 email responses
representing 60 companies/agencies/
organizations; of the 64, four (ID Nos. 2,
4, 26, and 27) were double responses
(i.e., two entities representing the same
agency/company/organization
response). Of the 60 responding
companies/agencies/organizations, 54
expressed interest in participating in the
pilot tests, four (ID Nos. 6, 24, 32, and
33) indicated they do not want to
actively participate, and two (ID Nos. 42
and 47) were unclear as to the purpose
of their responses.
A total of twenty-eight (28) comments
were posted to the 60-Day Notice, with
one (ID No. 67) responding twice with
the same message. Of the twenty-seven
(27) responding agencies/companies/
organizations, four (ID Nos. 61, 65, 70,
and 77) had previously expressed
interest in participating in the pilot tests
in their responses to the April 2013 Web
site announcement, and four (ID Nos.
59, 63, 75, and 81) indicated they do not
want to actively participate in the pilot
tests, but provided comments on key
aspects of the HM–ACCESS initiative.
70401
The data collected during the pilot
tests and information collection efforts
is intended to ensure that the evaluation
and feasibility report required under
MAP–21 focuses on results and includes
quantitative data on the
recommendation for possible
implementation of e-systems into the
Federal HM transportation safety
program. This data and information will
enable PHMSA to more accurately
assess the safety and security impacts of
using e-systems and to analyze the
associated benefits and cost of using the
e-systems.
The following table provides a list of
all respondents (Note: The ID Number
(No.), unique to each responding
agency/company/organization, was
assigned by PHMSA in the order
PHMSA reviewed the responses.):
Company name
Address associated with
comment
Offer to
volunteer
Michigan ..............................
Illinois ..................................
Utah .....................................
Pennsylvania and Texas .....
Mississippi ...........................
New Hampshire ...................
Virginia ................................
Arizona ................................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9 .............
10 ...........
11 ...........
12 ...........
Con-way Freight .........................................
United Air Lines ..........................................
Savage Services ........................................
PSC ............................................................
Tellus Operating Group, LLC .....................
DG Consulting International LLC ...............
Whitehurst Paving Company .....................
American President Lines, Limited (International-Americas Region).
Coastal Transport Company, Incorporated
Spill Center, Incorporated ..........................
Reactives Management Corporation .........
GBK Gefahrgut Buro Gmbh .......................
YES
YES
YES
YES
Web
Web
Web
Web
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
1
1
13 ...........
ICC Compliance Center .............................
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
1
1
1
1
Colorado ..............................
California .............................
Michigan ..............................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
1
1
1
Michigan ..............................
Texas ...................................
YES .........
NO ...........
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
1
2
District of Columbia .............
Texas ...................................
YES .........
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
1
1
District of Columbia .............
Washington .........................
Florida .................................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
1
1
1
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
HAZMATEAM, Incorporated ......................
Environmental Resource Center ................
Project Consulting Services, Incorporated
Walkerville Area Fire and Rescue .............
Hopkinsville Fire Department .....................
Florida Division of Emergency Management.
Grand Junction Fire Department ...............
San Diego Fire-Rescue Department ..........
Michigan Department of Community
Health.
Madonna University ...................................
Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center.
Federal Aviation Administration .................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Federal Railroad Administration .................
Port of Tacoma ..........................................
Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
New Mexico State Police ...........................
United States Coast Guard ........................
Unknown (Daniel Gregory) ........................
Unknown (Doug Shackelford) ....................
Bombardier .................................................
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC .........................
Huntsman ...................................................
Texas ...................................
Massachusetts ....................
Virginia ................................
Not Provided (International
headquarters in Germany).
Not Provided (offices in
Ohio, Texas, and New
York).
Not Provided .......................
North Carolina .....................
Texas ...................................
Michigan ..............................
Kentucky ..............................
Florida .................................
YES .........
YES .........
NO ...........
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
Web
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
37 ...........
Interline Brands, Incorporated ....................
New Mexico .........................
California .............................
Not Provided .......................
Not Provided .......................
Illinois ..................................
New Jersey .........................
Not Provided (headquarters
in Texas).
Florida .................................
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
1
ID No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
20 ...........
21 ...........
22 ...........
23 ...........
24 ...........
25 ...........
26 ...........
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27 ...........
28 ...........
29 ...........
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Response venue
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
25NON1
Category
70402
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
ID No.
Company name
Address associated with
comment
Offer to
volunteer
Response venue
38 ...........
Citgo ...........................................................
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
1
39
40
41
42
...........
...........
...........
...........
Air Liquide America Specialty Gases ........
Fairchild Semiconductor .............................
Raytheon Company ...................................
Midstream Pipeline Safety/CenterPoint Energy.
Not Provided (headquarters
in Texas).
Colorado ..............................
Maine ...................................
Arizona ................................
Louisiana .............................
Web
Web
Web
Web
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
1
3
43 ...........
Kinder Morgan, Incorporated .....................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
Unknown
(reply is
ambiguous).
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
1
44 ...........
45 ...........
46 ...........
Hartman Brothers, Incorporated ................
Maine Drilling & Blasting ............................
Master Meter Program, Pipeline Safety,
State Board of Public Utilities.
Garner ........................................................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
1
1
1
Web Posting ........................
3
Web Posting ........................
1
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
Web Posting ........................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice and Web
Posting.
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice and Web
Posting.
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice and Web
Posting.
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
and Web
1
1
2
1
1
47 ...........
48 ...........
Not provided (headquarters
in Texas).
Colorado ..............................
New Hampshire ...................
New Jersey .........................
Texas ...................................
Texas ...................................
Unknown
(reply is
ambiguous).
YES .........
Colorado ..............................
Pennsylvania .......................
Not Provided .......................
Not Provided .......................
Not Provided .......................
Not Provided .......................
Wyoming .............................
Colorado ..............................
Arkansas .............................
Virginia ................................
Florida .................................
Missouri ...............................
Georgia ................................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
Posting
Posting
Posting
Posting
Category
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Combined Accident Reduction Efforts, Incorporated.
Blue Rock ...................................................
United Steel Workers .................................
Unknown (Michael Wagner) .......................
Unknown (Carl Zebrocki) ...........................
Unknown (Tom Wray) ................................
Unknown (Don Shafer) ..............................
AristaTek ....................................................
Intrado ........................................................
J.B. Hunt ....................................................
CHEMTREC ...............................................
Unknown (Edward Larkin) ..........................
EHSSE .......................................................
Norfolk Southern Corporation ....................
62
63
64
65
...........
...........
...........
...........
Nordstrom Direct ........................................
International Association of Fire Chiefs .....
Turnkey Technical Services .......................
HMF2, LLC .................................................
Iowa .....................................
Virginia ................................
Tennessee ...........................
California .............................
YES .........
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
66
67
68
69
70
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Tri-County Fire Department .......................
Qualified Carriers .......................................
Cherry Hill Fire District #13 ........................
Mid Columbia Fire and Rescue .................
Maryland Department of the Environment
Texas ...................................
New Jersey .........................
New Jersey .........................
Oregon ................................
Maryland ..............................
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
71 ...........
72 ...........
Seattle Fire Department .............................
Indiana State Police Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement Division.
Fire Department, City of New York ............
Unknown (Raymond Lewis) .......................
American Trucking Association ..................
Unknown (Daniel Collins) ...........................
AllTransPack, Incorporated (ATP) .............
Washington .........................
Indiana .................................
YES .........
YES .........
New York .............................
Ohio .....................................
Virginia ................................
Ohio .....................................
Virginia ................................
YES .........
YES .........
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
CSX Transportation ....................................
Union Pacific ..............................................
Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy Services.
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ..........
Labelmaster Services .................................
Quality Distribution Incorporated ................
Florida .................................
Nebraska .............................
Ohio .....................................
YES .........
YES .........
YES .........
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
Posting.
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
60-Day Notice
.....................
.....................
.....................
1
1
1
Maryland ..............................
Illinois ..................................
Florida .................................
NO ...........
YES .........
YES .........
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
60-Day Notice .....................
2
1
1
73
74
75
76
77
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
78 ...........
79 ...........
80 ...........
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
81 ...........
82 ...........
83 ...........
The comments posted in response to
both the Web site announcement and
the 60-Day Notice are organized into
three categories, based on the
information provided in the comments
and information publically available on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
agency/company/organization Web
sites. The three categories are as follows:
Category 1—88% of the entities, those
expressing interest in participating in
the pilot tests.
Category 2—10% of the entities, those
not wanting to participate in the pilot
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
tests but commenting on use of esystems; confirming the importance of
certain aspects of e-communication/
validating observations in stakeholder
information papers; and/or providing
comments outside of the defined data
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
collection and more pertinent to
anticipatory regulatory changes.
Category 3—2% of the entities, those
submitting only their contact
information, and entities posting
unclear comments regarding pilot test
participation.
No comments were posted to the 60Day Notice regarding the intended types
of data collection questions.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Category 1: Entities Expressing Interest
in Participating in the Pilot Tests
73 (88%) of the 83 total entities
expressed interest in participating in the
pilot tests. These 73 entities include ten
(10) emergency response organizations,
three (3) Federal government agencies,
three (3) state/local government
agencies, five (5) law enforcement
agencies (one Federal agency, three state
agencies, and one port authority), one
(1) university, thirteen (13) carriers, five
(5) shippers, nine (9) companies that are
both shippers and carriers, one (1)
association, one (1) union, eleven (11)
consultants, two (2) technology vendors,
five (5) companies that function as both
vendors and consultants, and four (4)
unknowns. These 73 entities are
primarily located in the eastern half of
the U.S. and in the South; a few entities
are located in the Southwest, Northwest,
and at international locations. Many of
the entities have locations in more than
one area of the U.S. ID No. 82, a
company that functions as both a
vendor and consultant, expressed
interest in participating in the pilot
projects as a consortium of parties to
demonstrate the capability of the
technological solution that it developed
in conjunction with these partners.
Category 2: Non-Participant Volunteer
Entities Confirming the Importance of
E-Communication Aspects/Validating
Stakeholder Information Paper
Observations
Eight (10%) of the 83 total entities
indicated they do not wish to actively
participate in the pilot tests.
Collectively, these entities posted
comments that indicated they (a) want
to continue to receive information on
the HM–ACCESS effort; (b) want to
participate in a different PHMSA
training event (i.e., submitted in error in
response to HM–ACCESS); (c) agree
with the importance of a particular
aspect of the HM–ACCESS initiative;
and/or (d) want to emphasize the
importance of particular observations
made to date regarding HM–ACCESS. In
some cases, the comments are not
directed to and are outside of the scope
of the defined data collection, and
instead are more pertinent to
anticipatory regulatory changes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
Comments from these eight entities
included the following:
• Two (ID Nos. 6 and 24) indicated
they wanted to receive update
information on the HM–ACCESS effort
as it becomes available. PHMSA will
keep these entities on the HM–ACCESS
information distribution email
notifications.
• One (ID No. 32) was submitted in
error; this entity wanted to register for
a pipeline hazard safety training event.
PHMSA will keep this entity on the
HM–ACCESS information distribution
email notifications.
• One (ID No. 33) originally wanted
to volunteer to participate in the pilot
tests, but later rescinded the request.
PHMSA will keep this entity on the
HM–ACCESS information distribution
email notifications.
• One (ID No. 59) indicated its
support of PHMSA’s method of allowing
stakeholders to assist in testing the
viability of using e-HM shipping papers
as an alternative to hardcopy HM
shipping papers rather than simply
issuing a regulatory change, and also
affirmed its support of changes that
reduce paperwork and clutter. PHMSA
recognizes these comments as being
consistent with the current HM–
ACCESS methodology and pilot test
approach.
• One (ID No. 63) emphasized the
importance of HM information fitting
the intended need and being uniform
and scalable while not including
extraneous information; being provided
in a standard format using cost-effective,
standardized tools and data; and being
accurate as well as immediately
available. As described in the 60-Day
Notice, the goal of the paperless hazard
communications pilot program is to
determine if e-systems are a feasible and
effective means of providing hazard
communication; the pilot projects will
evaluate the feasibility of using esystems to collect and convey the same
information that is currently required on
a paper copy of an HM shipping
document as described in 49 CFR 172,
Subpart C. Evaluation of shipping paper
information requirements (content,
format, etc.) is outside the scope of HM–
ACCESS. This entity also confirmed
PHMSA’s proceeding with a
performance-based regulatory approach
that provides for an equivalent or higher
level of safety, and commented that eshipping paper information used for
inspections should be instantaneously
viewable, thus reducing inspectors’ wait
time. PHMSA reiterates that the pilot
tests will study the performance, safety
and security impacts, and the associated
benefits and costs of using e-systems for
HM shipments, without disrupting the
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70403
normal flow of commerce, and that the
time needed to send and receive the einformation will be one of the data
fields evaluated during the tests. The
entity also commented on the need for
training on electronic tools used to
comply with e-shipping papers; the lack
of availability of devices for receiving eHM information in the emergency
response community; and allowing
shippers to have the capability for data
entry and error correction. Although not
pertinent to the data collection as
defined within the 60-Day Notice,
PHMSA recognizes the entity’s
equipment, training, and data entry
concerns. PHMSA encourages the entity
to participate in the impact analysis
data collection for inclusion in the
evaluation and feasibility report
required under MAP–21 and to make
recommendations for implementing esystems into the Federal HM
transportation safety program. The
entity emphasized e-shipping papers
should not result in the public safety
sector incurring additional equipment,
data access, connectivity, etc., costs, and
that the format and content of the
electronic HM data must meet the
various needs and levels of responder
operational knowledge and capabilities.
As described in the 60-Day Notice,
PHMSA seeks volunteer pilot test
participants who currently possess esystem(s) capable of managing and
communicating the HM shipping paper
information at their own expense, and
who possess their own equipment and
personnel and/or contractor resources
necessary to transport HM shipments.
PHMSA is not asking companies to
purchase additional equipment to
support the pilot tests.
• One (ID No. 75) commended
PHMSA on its implementation of the
HM–ACCESS pilot program consistent
with MAP–21 requirements. This entity
emphasized the importance of using eshipping papers to supplement, rather
than replace, hardcopy shipping papers
until the feasibility and effectiveness of
using e-shipping papers to communicate
with law enforcement and emergency
responders are proven. This commenter
also stressed the importance of allowing
carriers the choice to use hardcopy
shipping papers for the foreseeable
future, as long as the required
information is provided and safety is
maintained. PHMSA reiterates that one
strategic aspect of the pilot tests is to
abide by current HMR hardcopy
shipping paper requirements while
simultaneously testing e-system hazard
communications capabilities. Hardcopy
shipping papers will accompany HM
shipments during the pilot tests; the
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70404
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
only difference during the inspection
and emergency response simulations
will be that the shipping paper
information will be communicated
electronically. The inspectors and
emergency responders will conduct
each simulation following their
established inspection and response
protocols using their own existing
equipment and resources. This entity
also encouraged leveraging pre-existing
communications standards, such as the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration’s chosen one for
transmitting electronic driver logging
information in the highway mode, for
law enforcement and emergency
responders. PHMSA has been
communicating with its DOT modal
counterparts and other Federal agencies
to coordinate similar electronic HM data
collection efforts. The entity suggested
that PHMSA design the
communications standard so that any
device capable of receiving information
from an electronic logging device would
similarly be capable of receiving
information from any future paperless
hazard communications system, thereby
lowering technology costs and
facilitating acceptance by the HM
transportation industry. It is not
PHMSA’s intention at this time either to
develop an e-communications standard
or to test vendors of e-communications
technologies or products; rather,
PHMSA will conduct the pilot tests to
evaluate the feasibility of using esystems to convey the same HM
information that is contained on a paper
copy of a shipping document.
• One (ID No. 81) indicated its
support of PHMSA’s Paperless Hazard
Communications Pilot Program, and
recommended that PHMSA explore the
development and management of a
uniform e-system that improves HM
recognition and identification without
compromising the safety of law
enforcement and first responders. As
previously stated, the HM–ACCESS
effort will test and evaluate the
feasibility of using e-systems to convey
the same HM information that is
contained on a paper copy of a shipping
document. PHMSA is not looking to
develop a uniform e-system at this time;
such a substantial level of effort is
beyond the scope of the MAP–21
mandate, and would most likely require
that stakeholders purchase additional
equipment and resources to utilize the
uniform e-system. The entity also
commented that drivers must be
informed when HM are present and of
the method(s) for obtaining e-shipping
paper information for inspection and
emergency response purposes. Drivers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
are currently required to meet the
training requirements stipulated in 49
CFR 177, Subpart A; any future HM
transportation regulation amendments
allowing for the use of e-shipping paper
information would likely address the
methods drivers should use to obtain eshipping paper information. This entity
also emphasized (1) the importance that
devices communicating e-shipping
paper information have the capability of
providing inspectors and first
responders the shipping paper
information required by 49 CFR Part
172, Subpart C; (2) e-shipping papers
must be carried and be accessible in the
manner described in 49 CFR 177.817(e);
and (3) the e-shipping papers included
in the pilot tests should batch with the
corresponding paper copy. PHMSA
agrees with the importance of these eshipping paper aspects, and reaffirms
the goal of the paperless hazard
communications pilot program; namely,
to determine if e-systems are a feasible
and effective means of providing hazard
communication that provides an
equivalent level of safety and security as
compared to the current shipping paper
requirements. Finally, the entity
recognized the burden estimate PHMSA
calculated of up to one hour for each
inspector who participates in the pilot
tests to complete the inspection
simulation questions; commented that
the additional time spent completing
the questions would reduce the number
of commercial motor vehicle
inspections conducted by the inspection
agency; and recommended PHMSA find
funding for agencies participating in the
pilot tests to offset pilot test
participation costs. PHMSA
understands that this information
collection effort may impose a burden
on respondents; however, no funding is
available to reimburse participants who
participate in the HM–ACCESS pilot
test and data collection efforts. As
previously described, participation in
the pilot tests and information
collection efforts is strictly voluntary,
and PHMSA will develop the
information collection utilizing on-line
questions, with answers to questions
designed to be ‘‘yes,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or multiple
choice as much as possible. The
information obtained during the pilot
tests and information collection efforts
will assist PHMSA in improving safety,
hazard communication products, and/or
hazard communication materials, and in
potentially reducing current burden
hours for completing shipping papers.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Category 3: Entities Submitting Only
Their Contact Information or Unclear
Comments
Two (2%) of the 83 entities (ID Nos.
42 and 47) responded to the April 2013
Web site announcement that they were
interested in the ‘‘hazard
communication system’’ or in
‘‘paperless updates.’’ These entities did
not state they wanted to participate in
the pilot projects. PHMSA will keep
these entities on the HM–ACCESS
information distribution email
notifications.
5. Criteria Used for Selecting Pilot
Project Participants
PHMSA will evaluate the entities
volunteering to participate in the pilot
tests and select those that best satisfy
the pilot project and MAP–21
qualification criteria and possess the
capability and capacity to aid in testing
a variety of scenarios.
PHMSA intends that any pilot
conducted under the authority granted
by MAP–21 will study the performance,
safety and security impacts, and
associated benefits and costs of using esystems for HM shipments, without
disrupting the normal flow of
commerce. Further, hardcopy shipping
documents will still be required to
accompany each shipment during the
pilot projects, in accordance with the
HMR.
PHMSA will conduct pilot tests in
three, and potentially four, regions of
the U.S.: the Northeast, Southeast,
Northwest, and Southwest, with at least
one pilot test conducted in a rural area
within one or more of the regions, as
prescribed by MAP–21. PHMSA will
focus the pilot tests in geographical
regions possessing high concentrations
of HM registrants and presenting
historically high numbers of HM
incidents resulting in deaths and
injuries.
Law Enforcement and Emergency
Response Volunteers
Desired law enforcement and
emergency responder pilot test
participants are those willing to assist in
the collection of information during the
inspection and emergency response
simulations and who operate within the
regions of the pilot tests where the
participating shippers and carriers
operate.
Shipper and Carrier Volunteers
Desired shipper and carrier pilot test
participants are those who offer HM for
transportation and/or transport HM by a
variety of modes and interact with other
intermodal carriers for HM transfers. It
is not PHMSA’s intention to test
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
vendors of electronic communication
technologies or products. To volunteer
and be selected as a volunteer,
interested shipper and carrier
participants will need to ship and/or
transport HM within areas of high
concentrations of HM registrants and
HM incidents. In addition to the regions
and modal criteria, potential
participants must, at a minimum, satisfy
the following requirements:
• Possess e-system(s) capable of
managing and communicating the HM
shipping paper information at their own
expense,
• Possess their own equipment and
personnel and/or contractor resources
necessary to transport HM shipments,
• Be willing to allow, and participate
in, inspections and emergency response
simulations during the pilot tests,
• Be willing to provide feedback on
experiences regarding e-HM
communication during the pilot tests,
including providing actual e-HM
communications data from the pilot
tests,
• Be willing to provide information
on the basic function and capabilities of
their e-system(s),
• Be willing to provide information
on administrative, business, training,
equipment, and operational-related
benefits and costs associated with
implementing e-system(s),
• Transport HM within the targeted
test regions of the U.S., and
• Be in good standing with all levels
of government and demonstrate
compliance with all applicable
regulations governing the safe and
secure transportation of HM.
As part of PHMSA’s participant
evaluation and selection process, each
shipper and carrier submitting a
statement of interest will need to answer
on-line the following list of 34 questions
to verify its qualifications and
capabilities (Note: The majority of these
questions require only a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’
response.):
Shipper and Carrier Participant
Questions
1. Name of company/organization.
2. Point(s) of contact (POC(s))
information.
3. Is your company/organization a
shipper, a carrier, or both?
4. Is your company/organization
willing to participate in the pilot tests
for a period of 8 to 12 weeks in 2014
(specific period to be determined)?
5. Does your company/organization
understand that answering these
selection questions does not guarantee
your company/organization will be
selected for participation in the pilot
tests (volunteers will be selected based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
on meeting qualifications specified in
MAP–21 and the ability to aid in testing
a variety of test scenarios and criteria)?
6. Is your company/organization able
to identify a single POC for coordinating
your company’s/organization’s
participation in the pilot tests?
7. Is your company/organization
willing to provide a coordinating
representative to participate in a prepilot coordination and training meeting
in Washington DC prior to
implementation of the pilot tests?
8. Is your company/organization
willing to provide a coordinating
representative to participate in a oneday debriefing meeting in Washington
DC in 2014 following the conclusion of
the pilot tests (actual date to be
determined)?
9. Does your company/organization
have videoconference capability?
10. Is your company/organization
willing to allow, and participate in,
inspections and emergency response
simulations during the pilot tests?
11. Is your company/organization
willing to provide feedback on its
experiences regarding paperless
hazardous materials (e-HM)
communication during the pilot tests,
including actual e-HM communications
data from your company’s/
organization’s participation in the pilot
tests and information on administrative,
business, training, equipment, and
operational-related costs and benefits
associated with implementing e-HM
systems?
12. Do you understand that PHMSA
will use the information you provide in
this questionnaire as part of PHMSA’s
public report to Congress, Federal
agencies, and other stakeholders, in
support of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–
21)? (Note: Although your company/
organization will be referenced by a
unique ID No. in the report, PHMSA
cannot guarantee that the name of your
company/organization will be kept
confidential.)
13. For which U.S. geographic pilot
test area(s) is your company/
organization volunteering to participate?
14. Do any of your company’s/
organization’s HM shipments that could
be included in the pilot tests cross
international borders during transport
(U.S. and Canadian border, U.S. and
Mexican border, travel via plane or ship
to other international locations)?
15. Please describe the transport
route(s), from origin to final destination,
for the HM your company/organization
will include in the pilot tests. Include
city and state information, along with
the general location(s) of any planned
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70405
stops/layovers, including transfer
points.
16. Does your company/organization
utilize an outside company to assist
with HM information and emergency
response communication?
17. Does your company/organization
currently have a paperless HM
communications system (e-system)
capable of managing and
communicating the HM shipping paper
information?
18. How many different e-systems is
your company/organization capable of
utilizing for communicating HM
shipping paper information?
19. What electronic and wireless
technology(ies) are used by your esystem?
20. What type of electronic data
exchange format is used by your esystem?
21. In what format(s) can your e-HM
shipping paper information be
exported?
22. Is your company’s/organization’s
e-system scalable (i.e., able to expand if
the amount of information increases)?
23. Does the e-system have built-in
security protocols for data protection?
24. Has your company/organization
established administrative rights for the
e-system?
25. Does the e-system have system
redundancy or backup systems?
26. Has your company/organization
ever used wireless or electronic
communication to provide law
enforcement or emergency response
personnel with HM information for an
HM shipment involved in an inspection
or incident?
27. Can e-HM shipping information be
accessed during transport (in the field)
in real-time?
28. What class(es) of HM would your
company/organization ship during the
pilot tests?
29. Is your company/organization
willing to include multiple shipments
in the pilot tests?
30. By what mode would your
company/organization transport HM
during the pilot tests?
31. Does your company/organization
interact with other intermodal carriers
for HM transfers?
32. Is your company/organization
capable of testing less than truckload
(LTL) HM shipments during the pilot
tests?
33. Does your company/organization
transport HM shipments utilizing your
own equipment and personnel, or
contractor resources?
34. Does your company/organization
interact with freight forwarders and/or
brokers as part of your normal business
of transporting HM shipments?
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
70406
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6. Request for Information (Following
Selection of Pilot Test Participants)
PHMSA is seeking to collect: (1)
Information and data as part of the pilot
tests to support evaluation of the use of
e-shipping papers; and (2) data and
information outside of the pilot tests for
analyzing potential impacts (safety,
security, benefits, and costs) of using esystems.
PHMSA understands that this
information collection effort may
impose a burden on respondents. The
information obtained will:
• Assist the agency in improving
safety, hazard communication products,
and/or hazard communication
materials, and in potentially reducing
current burden hours for completing
shipping papers;
• Be provided strictly on a voluntary
basis; and
• Be collected primarily utilizing online questions with answers to most
questions designed to be ‘‘yes,’’ ‘‘no,’’ or
multiple choice.
Volunteer modal inspectors and
emergency responders will be
responsible for conducting inspection
and emergency response simulations
and the majority of the data collection
during the pilot tests. This approach
limits the information collection burden
on regulated entities while minimizing
information bias. Modal inspectors
(typically law enforcement) will test the
feasibility and effectiveness of e-systems
by performing simulated modal
inspections of regulated entities
(shippers and carriers) participating in
the pilot tests utilizing e-HM shipping
papers. The inspectors will conduct
each simulation following their
established inspection protocols using
their own existing equipment and
resources. The only difference during
the simulations will be that the shipping
paper information will be
communicated electronically. Following
each inspection simulation, the
participating inspector will answer a list
of on-line questions related to the
simulation and submit to PHMSA a
copy of the e-HM shipping paper
received. Emergency responders will
follow a similar process to test the
feasibility and effectiveness of e-systems
during a simulated incident response
involving HM shipments using e-HM
shipping papers. PHMSA will use the
answers to the on-line questions and the
e-HM shipping papers provided by the
inspectors and emergency responders to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness
of the e-system involved in the
information transfer.
Outside of the pilot tests, information
will be collected from shippers, carriers,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
law enforcement, and emergency
responders to aid in the assessment of
potential impacts associated with using
e-systems for each mode of
transportation, as required under MAP–
21. Potential impacts to be assessed
include benefits, costs, safety, and
security impacts on the public,
emergency responders, and law
enforcement. The impact analysis
questions will not be limited to pilot
test participants but will be available to
all HM stakeholders to voluntarily
answer.
The following sections summarize the
types of information that will be
requested as part of the pilot program to
ensure that the evaluation and
feasibility report focuses on results and
includes quantitative data on the
recommendation and possible
implementation of e-systems into the
Federal HM transportation safety
program. This information and data will
enable PHMSA to more accurately
assess the safety and security impacts of
using e-systems and to analyze the
associated benefits and costs of using esystems for HM communication.
Shipper and Carrier Information
Shippers and carriers will not be
required to answer the list of on-line
inspection and emergency response
simulation questions described in the
next section as part of the pilot project.
However, PHMSA does anticipate that
the information provided by modal
inspectors and emergency responders in
conducting the simulations may
necessitate follow-up discussions with
the shippers and/or carriers involved.
Limited information may need to be
collected from shippers and carriers as
a result of these follow-up discussions,
potentially including obtaining copies
of the e-HM shipping papers used
during the simulations.
Inspection Simulation Questions
For each HM inspection simulation,
inspectors (law enforcement and/or
Federal and state modal inspectors)
involved in the simulation will be
requested to answer the following list of
44 online inspection simulation
questions and to provide an electronic
copy of the HM shipping paper they
received during the simulation.
Analysis of the e-HM shipping papers
for required hazard communication
information will enable PHMSA to
verify the integrity of the data transfer.
1. Name of inspection agency/
organization you are representing.
2. Main location of inspection agency/
organization.
3. Affiliation of your inspection
agency/organization.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4. Point of Contact (POC) information
for the inspector conducting the
inspection simulation.
5. POC information for your
inspection agency’s/organization’s
paperless hazardous materials (e-HM)
communication system (e-system).
6. Describe the size and geographic
parameters of your agency’s/
organization’s jurisdiction.
7. Which transportation mode(s) does
your agency/organization inspect?
8. How often are inspections
conducted?
9. In general, what percentage of
inspections is pre-planned (e.g., at a
checkpoint, waystation, etc.), and what
percentage is impromptu (e.g., based on
potential safety risk posed by an
observed transportation conveyance)?
10. Approximately how many
conveyance inspections does your
agency/organization perform annually?
11. Name and USDOT Number of
shipper and/or carrier inspected.
12. POC information for the driver/
pilot/captain/conductor involved in the
inspection simulation.
13. POC information for the shipper’s
and/or carrier’s e-system.
14. Location of inspection simulation.
15. Date and time of inspection
simulation.
16. Was the inspection pre-scheduled
or unannounced (with respect to
notifying the HM shipper/carrier)?
17. What type(s) of transportation
conveyances were inspected during the
simulation?
18. Did the inspector have any
interaction with other regulatory
inspection entities (e.g., U.S. Coast
Guard, Customs and Border Protection,
etc.) during HM inspection simulation
activities?
19. What types of HM information
was shared with these regulatory
entities?
20. Was an attempt made to
communicate any of this information
electronically?
21. Describe the simulated pilot test
HM conveyance inspection:
a. What was reason for the simulated
inspection?
b. What HM information did the
inspector look for or request?
c. Did the inspection include
interviews?
d. What conveyance documentation
did the inspector review?
22. What types of HM containers were
included in the shipment?
23. What class(es) of HM did the
shipment being inspected include?
24. Had the shipment undergone any
intramodal transfers (i.e., transfers
between conveyances within a single
transportation mode) prior to the
simulation?
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
25. If the shipment had undergone
intramodal transfers:
a. What HM information was shared?
b. By what mechanism was such
information communicated:
26. Had the shipment undergone any
intermodal transfers (i.e., transfers
between transportation modes) prior to
the simulation?
27. If the shipment had undergone
intermodal transfers:
a. What HM information was shared?
b. By what mechanism was such
information communicated:
28. Was the shipment involved in the
simulation a less than truckload (LTL)
type HM shipment?
29. What device(s), electronic data
exchange language, communication
mechanism(s), and data format did
inspectors use when conducting the
simulated inspection?
30. What device(s) and electronic data
exchange language did the shipper/
carrier use to transmit the electronic
shipping papers during the simulated
inspection?
31. Was the inspection simulation
information collected electronically?
32. How long did it take for the
inspector to receive the electronic
information from when it was
requested?
33. Did the inspector review the HM
data received during the simulation for
accuracy and completeness?
34. Did the electronic information
match that recorded on the hardcopy
shipping paper?
35. Did the HM information
accurately reflect the details of the HM
being transported?
36. Did your agency/organization
identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the simulation?
37. Did your agency/organization
identify any benefits related to the
following e-system components during
the simulation?
38. Was the information included
within the electronic transmittal
sufficient to determine a failed or
passed inspection?
39. How do you feel the e-information
satisfied the required HM paper
documentation (e.g., shipping paper,
transportation of dangerous goods
manifest, bill of lading, notification to
pilot in command, etc.)?
40. What training, if any, is needed to
conduct electronic transfers of
information for inspections?
41. What additional equipment, if
any, is needed to conduct electronic
transfers of information for inspections?
42. Do you have any lessons learned
that should be considered for
improvement of e-commerce?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
43. What benefits do you think an esystem would offer over a paper-based
system for your agency/organization?
44. How do you believe e-systems will
affect the time to conduct an inspection?
Emergency Response Simulation
Questions
For each HM emergency response
simulation, emergency response
providers and/or investigators involved
in the simulation will be requested to
answer the following list of 42 online
emergency response simulation
questions and provide an electronic
copy of the HM shipping paper as
received during the simulation.
Analysis of the e-HM shipping papers
for required hazard communication
information will enable PHMSA to
verify the integrity of the data transfer.
1. Name of emergency response
agency/organization you are
representing.
2. Location of emergency response
agency/organization.
3. Point of Contact (POC) information
for the responder conducting the
emergency response simulation.
4. POC information for your
emergency response agency’s/
organization’s paperless hazardous
materials (e-HM) communication system
(e-system).
5. Describe the size and geographic
parameters of your agency’s/
organization’s jurisdiction.
6. How often does your agency/
organization respond to HM incidents?
7. Approximately how many
transportation HM incidents does your
agency/organization respond to
annually?
8. Which transportation mode(s) has
your agency/organization responded to
for an HM incident in the past year?
9. Does your agency/organization
utilize an outside company to assist
with HM information and emergency
response communication?
10. What is the name of the Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) which
has jurisdiction for the location of the
emergency response simulation?
11. Location of responsible PSAP.
12. POC information for the
responsible PSAP.
13. Name of shipper and/or carrier
involved in the emergency response
simulation.
14. POC information for the driver/
pilot/captain/conductor involved in the
emergency response simulation.
15. POC information for the shipper’s
and/or carrier’s e-system.
16. Location of emergency response
simulation.
17. Date and time of emergency
response simulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70407
18. What type(s) of transportation
conveyances were involved in the
emergency response simulation?
19. What emergency response entities
participated in the emergency response
simulation?
20. Describe the HM pilot test
simulation:
a. What was the simulated event?
b. Which emergency response entity
was contacted first, and by whom?
c. Which first responder agency/
organization arrived on the scene first?
d. Did a dispatcher perform any
follow-up activities (e.g., obtaining
additional information from a shipper
regarding an HM that may be involved
in the simulation) to the initial call?
21. What class(es) of HM were
transported during the simulation?
22. Was the shipment involved in the
simulation a less than truckload (LTL)
type HM shipment?
23. Describe the electronic data
exchange that occurred with the PSAP
dispatcher as part of the HM pilot test
simulation:
a. What HM information did the PSAP
dispatcher immediately request?
b. Was information transmitted
electronically to the PSAP dispatcher?
24. What device(s) and electronic data
exchange language were used to
transmit the information to the PSAP
dispatcher during the HM simulation?
25. What device(s), electronic data
exchange language, communication
mechanism(s), and data format were
used by the PSAP dispatcher to receive
the information during the HM
simulation?
26. Describe the electronic data
exchange that occurred with the
emergency responders prior to their
arrival at the scene as part of the HM
pilot test simulation:
a. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the
scene by the driver/pilot/captain/
conductor?
b. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the
scene by the PSAP dispatcher?
c. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the
scene by the shipper?
d. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the
scene by the carrier?
e. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the
scene by a source other than the driver/
pilot/captain/conductor, PSAP
dispatcher, shipper, or carrier?
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70408
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
27. Describe the electronic data
exchange that occurred with the
emergency responders at the scene as
part of the HM pilot test simulation:
a. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the driver/
pilot/captain/conductor?
b. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the PSAP
dispatcher?
c. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the shipper?
d. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the carrier?
e. Was HM information provided
electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by a source
other than the driver/pilot/captain/
conductor, PSAP dispatcher, shipper, or
carrier?
28. Was the information collected
electronically by the emergency
responders during the HM simulation?
29. If electronic information was
provided to the PSAP dispatcher during
the HM simulation, how long did it take
for the PSAP dispatcher to receive the
information from the time it was first
requested?
30. If electronic information was
provided to emergency responders
during the HM simulation, how long did
it take for the emergency responders to
receive the electronic information from
the time it was first requested?
31. Did the emergency responders
review the HM data received during the
simulation for accuracy and
completeness?
32. Did the electronic information
match that recorded on the hardcopy
shipping paper?
33. Did the HM information
accurately reflect the details of the HM
being transported?
34. Did your agency/organization
identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the HM simulation?
35. Did your agency/organization
identify any benefits related to the
following e-system components during
the HM simulation?
36. Was the information included
within the electronic transmittal
sufficient, and equivalent to the
hardcopy shipping paper, to identify the
hazards and properly respond to the HM
simulation?
37. How do you feel the e-information
satisfied the required HM paper
documentation (e.g., shipping paper,
transportation of dangerous goods
manifest, bill of lading, notification to
pilot in command, etc.)?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
38. What training, if any, is needed to
conduct electronic transfers of
information for responders?
39. What additional equipment, if
any, is needed to conduct electronic
transfers of information for emergency
response?
40. Do you have any lessons learned
that should be considered for
improvement of the use of e-shipping
papers in HM commerce?
41. What benefits do you think an esystem would offer over a paper-based
system for your agency/organization?
42. How do you believe e-systems will
impact the time to respond to an HM
incident?
Impact Analysis Questions
PHMSA is seeking to collect
information and data from shippers,
carriers, law enforcement, and
emergency responders to aid in the
assessment of potential impacts
associated with using e-systems for each
mode of transportation, as required
under MAP–21. Potential impacts to be
assessed include benefits, costs, safety,
and security impacts on the public,
emergency responders, and law
enforcement. Similar to the pilot test
simulation questions, PHMSA has
developed the following list of 60
impact analysis questions to be
administered on-line. PHMSA
anticipates the list of impact analysis
questions will not be limited to pilot
test participants but will be available to
all HM stakeholders to voluntarily
answer.
1. Name of the agency/company/
organization you are representing.
2. Location of the agency/company/
organization.
3. Point of Contact (POC) information
for the person completing this
questionnaire.
4. POC information for your agency’s/
company’s/organization’s paperless
hazardous materials (e-HM)
communication system (e-system).
5. Which category describes your
agency/company/organization?
6. With what mode(s) of
transportation does your agency/
company/organization interact?
7. Describe the size (small, medium,
large) of your agency/company/
organization.
8. Does your agency/company/
organization perform domestic (i.e.,
within the U.S.) commerce?
9. Does your agency/company/
organization perform international
commerce?
10. Does your agency/company/
organization belong to any chemical
and/or transportation industry
associations?
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11. Are personnel at your agency/
company/organization familiar with the
look and content of an HM shipping
paper?
12. Do you understand that PHMSA
will use the information you provide in
this questionnaire as part of PHMSA’s
public report to Congress, Federal
agencies, and other stakeholders, in
support of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–
21)? (Note: Although your agency/
company/organization will be
referenced by a unique ID No. in the
report, PHMSA cannot guarantee that
the name of your agency/company/
organization will be kept confidential.)
13. What class(es) of HM does your
company ship?
14. By what mode(s) does your
company transport HM?
15. Does your company interact with
other intermodal carriers for HM
transfers?
16. For each mode used to transport
HM shipments, does your company
utilize your own equipment and
personnel, or contractor resources?
17. Does your company transport less
than truckload (LTL) HM shipments?
18. How are your HM shipments
packaged?
19. Approximately how much HM
does your company ship annually?
20. Does your agency/company/
organization utilize an outside company
to assist with HM information and
emergency response communication?
21. What HM information is essential
for emergency responders to receive to
assess the hazards and to properly
respond to an HM incident after arriving
at the emergency site?
22. What HM information is essential
for HM inspectors to receive to properly
conduct an HM inspection?
23. Does your agency/company/
organization currently have an e-system
capable of managing and
communicating HM shipping paper
information?
24. Does the e-system use or contain
any proprietary data or have any special
licensing requirements governing its
use?
25. Is the e-system custom-made or
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)?
26. What electronic and wireless
technologies are used by your e-system?
27. Does your agency/company/
organization currently have electronic
access to conveyance HM data satisfying
the DOT shipping paper requirements?
28. What type of electronic data
exchange language is used?
29. What format can be used to view
and share the data?
30. Is your agency’s/company’s/
organization’s e-system scalable (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
able to expand if the amount of
information increases)?
31. If your agency’s/company’s/
organization’s e-system fails during an
inspection or emergency, is a backup
system/procedures available to ensure
continuity of information?
32. Who enters HM information into
your agency’s/company’s/organization’s
e-system?
33. How long is the HM information
stored in your agency’s/company’s/
organization’s e-system after its initial
generation?
34. When can the HM information in
your agency’s/company’s/organization’s
e-system be accessed?
35. Who can access the HM
information in your agency’s/
company’s/organization’s e-system?
36. Has your company ever used
wireless or electronic communication to
provide law enforcement or emergency
response personnel with HM
information for an HM shipment
involved in an inspection or incident?
37. On average, how long does it take
to complete a hardcopy HM shipping
paper?
38. On average, how long does it take
to complete an e-shipping paper?
39. Do you use HM shipping papers
for purposes other than regulatory?
40. Has your agency/organization ever
received wireless or electronic
communication of HM information for
an HM shipment involved in an
inspection or incident?
41. What technology readiness level
from the following list best describes the
technology used to operate your e-HM
system?
a. Level 5: technology product fully
operational in real-world environment
b. Level 4: technology product
operational in limited real-world
environment
c. Level 3: prototype demonstrated in
laboratory environment
d. Level 2: equipment and process
concept formulated
e. Level 1: basic technology principles
observed
42. Can your agency/company/
organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs to develop,
implement, operate, and maintain the esystem?
43. Do your agency’s/company’s/
organization’s employees receive
training on the e-system?
44. How long does the training
generally take to complete?
45. Is refresher training provided?
46. How long does refresher training
typically take to complete?
47. Are all/most employees who
receive initial e-system training
provided with refresher training?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
48. Can your agency/company/
organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs for training
personnel on the e-system?
49. Did your agency/company/
organization incorporate a customer
outreach/education program as part of
implementation of your e-system?
50. Can your agency/company/
organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs to conduct
customer outreach/education on your esystem?
51. What types of security is in place
to prevent unauthorized e-system
access?
52. Which of the following entities
outside your agency/company/
organization directly utilize your esystem?
53. What type of involvement and
input did these stakeholders have in the
design and development of your esystem?
54. If your agency/company/
organization has an e-system:
a. What constraints did the e-system
have to overcome to be successfully
used by your agency/company/
organization?
b. What benefits does the e-system
offer over a paper-based system?
c. What benefits resulted from your
agency’s/company’s/organization’s
customer outreach/education efforts
regarding your e-system?
d. What constraints did your agency/
company/organization need to
overcome during customer outreach/
education regarding your e-system?
55. If your agency/company/
organization does not have an e-system:
a. What constraints would an esystem have to overcome to be
successfully used by your agency/
company/organization?
b. What benefits would an e-system
offer over a paper-based system?
56. Has your agency/company/
organization performed any studies/
analyses on the effectiveness of your esystem, including the e-system’s
impacts on your agency/company/
organization?
57. What can improve your e-system’s
capability?
58. With respect to real-work
application, has your agency/company/
organization observed any positive or
negative interactions between your esystem technology and other e-system
technologies?
59. Has your agency/company/
organization identified any e-system
impediments/limitations?
60. Do you have any lessons learned
that should be considered for
improvement of e-commerce?
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70409
7. Total Information Collection Burden
The total information collection
burden for the Paperless Hazard
Communication Pilot Program is as
follows:
Shipper and Carrier Participant
Questions: 55 Respondents × 0.5 Hr. =
27.5 Hours
73 entities responded with their
interest to participate in the pilot tests.
Of these 73, 52 appear to be shippers,
carriers, universities, associations,
unions, consultants, technology
vendors, and unknowns; i.e., all
respondents who could potentially act
in a shipper and/or carrier capacity. The
other 21 entities expressing interest in
participating in the pilot appear to be
law enforcement and emergency
responders. PHMSA is estimating a
maximum of 55 participants (52
previously indicated plus three
additional, to account for any other
respondents who may act in a shipper/
carrier capacity) will complete the pilot
test participant questions. The 55
respondent estimate has been increased
by 25 from the original 30 estimate
posted in the 60-Day Notice based on
the number of entities who commented
to the 60-Day Notice and indicated they
wish to participate in the pilot tests.
PHMSA does not anticipate that
completing the pilot test participant
questions will impose a significant
burden on shipper and carrier
respondents. PHMSA estimates it will
take each respondent approximately 30
minutes to answer the list of participant
questions, based on the type of
questions identified in the following
table:
Type of question
Number
Yes/No ..........................................
Yes/No + text ................................
Multiple choice ..............................
Multiple choice + text ...................
Select all that apply ......................
Select all that apply + text ............
Text ...............................................
20
1
2
1
4
3
3
Total number of pilot test participant questions ......................
34
The resulting estimated total burden
is 27.5 hours (55 respondents × 0.5 hour
per respondent = 27.5 hours) for the
shipper and carrier participant question
data collection.
Shipper and Carrier Information: 40
Respondents × 4.0 Hr. = 160 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that
follow-up discussions with shippers
and carriers and the associated
information collection will impose a
significant burden on respondents. In
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
70410
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2013 / Notices
the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA anticipated
a total of 30 shippers and carriers
(assuming 10 respondents for each of
three test regions) and a burden of no
more than four hours per shipper and
carrier for the entirety of the test period;
however, based on the number of
entities who commented to the 60-Day
Notice and indicated they wish to
participate in the pilot tests, PHMSA
has increased its estimate to 40 shippers
and carriers for this information
collection activity. The resulting
estimated total burden is 160 hours (40
respondents x 4.0 hour per respondent
= 160 hours) for follow-up discussions
and associated information collection
with shippers and carriers.
Inspection Simulation Questions: 260
Respondents × 1.0 Hr. = 260 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that
answering the list of inspection
simulation questions will impose a
significant burden on inspectors.
PHMSA anticipates no more than 260
inspection simulations will be
conducted utilizing non-federal
resources (encompassing all pilot tests,
all participants, and each test region
throughout the entirety of the test
period), resulting in a total of 260
respondents. The 260 respondent
estimate has been increased by 20 from
the original 240 estimate posted in the
60-Day Notice based on the number of
inspectors who commented to the 60Day Notice and indicated they wish to
participate in the pilot tests. PHMSA
estimates it will take each inspector
approximately 60 minutes to answer the
list of inspection simulation questions,
based on the type of questions identified
in the following table, and to submit a
copy of the e-HM shipping paper to
PHMSA.
Type of question
Number
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Yes/No ..........................................
Yes/No + text ................................
Multiple choice ..............................
Multiple choice + yes/no ...............
Multiple choice + text ...................
Select all that apply ......................
Select all that apply + text ............
Text ...............................................
1
7
5
1
8
2
8
12
Total number of inspection simulation questions ...................
Emergency Response Simulation
Questions: 24 Respondents × 1.0 Hr. =
24 Hours
Type of question
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Nov 22, 2013
Jkt 232001
Number
Yes/No ..........................................
Yes/No + text ................................
Multiple choice ..............................
Multiple choice + text ...................
Select all that apply ......................
Select all that apply + text ............
Text ...............................................
1
5
4
5
2
10
15
Total number of emergency response simulation questions
42
The resulting estimated total burden
is 24 hours (24 respondents × 1.0 hour
per respondent = 24 hours) for the
emergency response simulation
question data collection.
Impact Analysis Questions: 250
Respondents x 1.5 Hr. = 375 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that
answering the list of impact analysis
questions will impose a significant
burden on respondents (shippers,
carriers, law enforcement, and
emergency responders). PHMSA
increased its original estimate posted in
the 60-Day Notice from 200 to 250
respondents based on the number of
entities who provided comments to the
60-Day Notice. PHMSA estimates no
more than 250 respondents will
complete the impact analysis questions,
and that it will take each respondent
approximately 90 minutes to answer the
questions.
Type of question
Yes/No ..........................................
Multiple choice ..............................
Multiple choice + text (+ yes/no) ..
Select all that apply ......................
Select all that apply + text (+ yes/
no) .............................................
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Number
Text ...............................................
PHMSA does not anticipate that
answering the list of emergency
response simulation questions will
impose a significant burden on
investigators and emergency responders.
PHMSA anticipates no more than 12
emergency response simulations will be
conducted utilizing non-Federal
resources, resulting in a total of no more
than 24 respondents allowing for up to
two respondents per simulation (12
emergency response providers and 12
investigators). PHMSA estimates it will
take each respondent approximately 60
minutes to answer the list of emergency
response simulation questions, based on
the type of questions identified in the
following table, and to submit a copy of
the electronic shipping paper to
PHMSA.
44
The resulting estimated total burden
is 260 hours (260 respondents x 1.0
hour per respondent = 260 hours) for
the inspection simulation question data
collection.
Type of question
7
Total number of impact analysis
questions ...............................
60
The resulting estimated total burden
is 375 hours (250 respondents x 1.5
hours per respondent = 375 hours) for
the impact analysis question data
collection.
Total Information Collection Burden:
629 Respondents 846.5 Hours
Title: Paperless Hazard
Communications Pilot Program.
Type of Request: Request for
Comments to Information Collection
Burden for Paperless Hazard
Communications Pilot Program.
Abstract: PHMSA is submitting an
information collection to OMB in
support of a paperless hazard
communications pilot program under
Title III, Section 33005 of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Safety
Improvement Act of 2012 (MAP–21).
Affected Public: Carriers, Shippers,
Emergency Response Providers, and
Law Enforcement Personnel
Estimated Number of Respondents:
629.
Estimated Number of Responses: 629.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
846.5.
Estimated Annual Burden Costs:
$28,500.
Frequency of collection: Single
occasion.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013–28168 Filed 11–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35759]
John D. Nielsen—Control Exemption—
Nebkota Railway, Inc.
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
ACTION:
Notice of Exemption.
The Board is granting an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from
the prior approval requirements of 49
U.S.C. 11323–25 for John D. Nielsen
Number
(Nielsen), a noncarrier individual who
controls Class III rail carrier Nebraska
1
16 Northwestern Railroad, Inc. (NNW), to
16 acquire control of Nebkota Railway, Inc.
5 (NRI), another Class III rail carrier,
which connects with NNW at Chadron,
15 Neb.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM
25NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70399-70410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28168]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124 Notice No. 13-20]
Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invited comments on an information collection under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0034 entitled, ``Hazardous
Materials Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information,''
pertaining to the Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program. In the
precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No. 13-7,
Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July 18,
2013), PHMSA invited volunteers from organizations representing fire
and other emergency responders, law enforcement, and other regulated
entities (i.e., shippers and carriers who transport hazardous materials
(HM) by air, highway, rail, and water) to participate in a pilot
program to evaluate the effectiveness of paperless hazard
communications systems and to comment on and participate in an
information collection activity associated with the pilot program. This
30-Day Notice acknowledges comments received regarding the 60-Day
Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No. 13-7, Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July 18, 2013) and provides
details on the four information collection efforts to be conducted
under the pilot program.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 26, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for DOT-PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, by
fax, 202-395-5806, or by email, OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
We invite commenters to address the following issues: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of PHMSA, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of PHMSA's
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of these three methods.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
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 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luciana DiGhionno, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Engineering and Research Division (PHH-23), Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone
(202) 366-7611. Requests for a copy of the information collection
[[Page 70400]]
should be directed to T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH-12), Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC. 20590-0001, Telephone
(202) 366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. History of and Current Regulatory Requirements for Shipping Papers
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180)
require a person who offers HM for transportation in commerce to
describe the HM on a shipping paper in the manner required in 49 CFR
Part 172, Subpart C. The shipping paper requirements identify key
hazard communication information (i.e., UN number, proper shipping
name, hazard class, packing group, type and quantity of packaging, and
emergency response telephone number). Unless an exception from the
shipping paper requirements is provided in the regulations, a paper
copy of the shipping paper must accompany HM during transportation. A
shipping paper includes ``a shipping order, bill of lading, manifest or
other shipping document serving a similar purpose and containing the
information required by Sec. Sec. 172.202, 172.203, and 172.204'' (49
CFR 171.8, definition of ``shipping paper''). A hazardous waste
manifest ``may be used as the shipping paper'' if it contains all the
information required by Part 172, Subpart C (49 CFR 172.205(h)). The
rationale behind a paper-based system is to convey the necessary
information in a consistent manner that is widely understood and
accepted by all regulated entities, law enforcement, and emergency
responders.
In 1994, Congress amended the Federal HM transportation law to
require that, after a hazardous material ``is no longer in
transportation,'' all offerors and carriers of a hazardous material
must retain the shipping paper ``or electronic image thereof for a
period of 1 year to be accessible through their respective principal
places of business'' (49 U.S.C. 5110(e), added by Pub. L. 103-311,
Title I, Sec. 115, 108 Stat. 1678 (Aug. 26, 1994)). An electronic
image includes an image transmitted by a facsimile (FAX) machine, an
image on the screen of a computer, or an image generated by an optical
imaging machine. In 2002, the Research and Special Programs
Administration (the predecessor to PHMSA) issued a final rule further
amending parts 172, 174, 175, and 176 of the HMR regarding the
retention and information requirements associated with shipping papers.
The 2002 final rule required shippers and carriers to retain a copy of
each HM shipping paper, or an electronic image thereof, for a period of
375 days after the date the HM is accepted by a carrier. Consideration
for allowing the use of electronic communication while HM are actually
in transportation is the next step in the evolution of hazard
communication.
2. Authority Granted Under MAP-21
Section 33005 of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act'' (MAP-21) authorizes PHMSA to conduct a pilot program to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using paperless hazard
communications systems. In accordance with MAP-21, in conducting the
pilot projects, PHMSA may not waive the current shipping paper
requirements and must include at least one rural area in the pilot
projects. Upon completion of the pilot projects, PHMSA must prepare a
report to be delivered by the Secretary to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the U.S. Senate and to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives
by October 1, 2014. The report must provide: (1) A detailed description
of the pilot projects; (2) an evaluation of each pilot project to
include an evaluation of the performance of the e-systems; (3) an
assessment of the safety and security impacts of using electronic HM
(e-HM) communication systems (e-systems) to include the impact on the
public, emergency responders, law enforcement, and on conducting
inspections and investigations; (4) an analysis of the associated
benefits and costs of using e-systems for each mode of transportation;
and (5) a recommendation whether e-systems should be permanently
incorporated into the Federal hazmat regulations.
3. Goal, Scope, and Intent of the Pilot Program
Beginning in 2007, PHMSA initiated actions to implement paperless
hazard communications. PHMSA strongly believes, through its prior
efforts and activities, paperless hazard communication is possible and
that this pilot program will demonstrate the capabilities of e-systems.
In the precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No.
13-7, Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July
18, 2013), PHMSA described a strategy for conducting the pilot projects
that will enable PHMSA to evaluate paperless hazard communication
systems (e-systems) capabilities from a real-world perspective. Key
aspects of this strategy include the following:
Determining if e-systems are a feasible and effective
means of providing hazard communication by evaluating their use while
shipping HM from point of origin to final destination using different
transportation conveyances (i.e., trucks, railcars, maritime vessels,
and airplanes) and during inspection and emergency response
simulations. (Note: For purposes of the pilot tests conducted under
this project, ``simulation'' refers to planned exercises designed
solely to test the feasibility and effectiveness of using e-systems to
communicate the needed HM shipping paper information during project-
related HM inspections and emergency response scenarios among pilot
test participants. The scope of the simulations will be defined by
project data collection needs for testing electronic communication of
shipping paper information. Emergency response simulations will not
entail mimicking a full response to a HM incident, and as such will not
involve testing first responder procedures, equipment, or resources not
related to the communication of shipping paper information.)
Using the information gathered during the pilot projects
(tests) to assess the level of safety and security, as well as the
associated benefits and costs, of e-systems as compared to the current
HM shipping paper requirements.
Conducting the tests without disrupting the normal flow of
commerce.
Allowing emergency response providers and law enforcement
officials to continue to perform their duties and respective roles
during the simulations according to existing emergency and inspection
requirements, procedures, and policies.
Abiding by current HMR hardcopy shipping paper
requirements while simultaneously testing e-system hazard
communications capabilities.
In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA explained its process and criteria for
evaluating all pilot test volunteers and selecting those participants
that satisfy the pilot test qualification requirements, meet the
criteria specified in MAP-21, and are best able to aid in testing a
variety of scenarios. PHMSA encouraged shippers, carriers, law
enforcement, and emergency responders interested in participating in
the pilot projects to provide statements of interest via comments to
the 60-Day Notice.
[[Page 70401]]
4. Pilot Test Volunteer Participants and Comments to the Web Site
Announcement and 60-Day Notice
PHMSA indicated it was seeking shippers, carriers, law enforcement
personnel, and emergency responders who may be interested in
volunteering to participate in the pilot projects via an April 2013 Web
site announcement and through the 60-Day Notice.
In reply to an April 2013 announcement posted on the HM-ACCESS Web
site entitled, ``Defining the HM ACCESS Pilot Test,'' PHMSA received 64
email responses representing 60 companies/agencies/organizations; of
the 64, four (ID Nos. 2, 4, 26, and 27) were double responses (i.e.,
two entities representing the same agency/company/organization
response). Of the 60 responding companies/agencies/organizations, 54
expressed interest in participating in the pilot tests, four (ID Nos.
6, 24, 32, and 33) indicated they do not want to actively participate,
and two (ID Nos. 42 and 47) were unclear as to the purpose of their
responses.
A total of twenty-eight (28) comments were posted to the 60-Day
Notice, with one (ID No. 67) responding twice with the same message. Of
the twenty-seven (27) responding agencies/companies/organizations, four
(ID Nos. 61, 65, 70, and 77) had previously expressed interest in
participating in the pilot tests in their responses to the April 2013
Web site announcement, and four (ID Nos. 59, 63, 75, and 81) indicated
they do not want to actively participate in the pilot tests, but
provided comments on key aspects of the HM-ACCESS initiative.
The data collected during the pilot tests and information
collection efforts is intended to ensure that the evaluation and
feasibility report required under MAP-21 focuses on results and
includes quantitative data on the recommendation for possible
implementation of e-systems into the Federal HM transportation safety
program. This data and information will enable PHMSA to more accurately
assess the safety and security impacts of using e-systems and to
analyze the associated benefits and cost of using the e-systems.
The following table provides a list of all respondents (Note: The
ID Number (No.), unique to each responding agency/company/organization,
was assigned by PHMSA in the order PHMSA reviewed the responses.):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address associated Offer to
ID No. Company name with comment volunteer Response venue Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... Con-way Freight..... Michigan........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
2............... United Air Lines.... Illinois........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
3............... Savage Services..... Utah............... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
4............... PSC................. Pennsylvania and YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Texas.
5............... Tellus Operating Mississippi........ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Group, LLC.
6............... DG Consulting New Hampshire...... NO............... Web Posting........ 2
International LLC.
7............... Whitehurst Paving Virginia........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Company.
8............... American President Arizona............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Lines, Limited
(International-
Americas Region).
9............... Coastal Transport Texas.............. YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Company,
Incorporated.
10.............. Spill Center, Massachusetts...... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Incorporated.
11.............. Reactives Management Virginia........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Corporation.
12.............. GBK Gefahrgut Buro Not Provided YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Gmbh. (International
headquarters in
Germany).
13.............. ICC Compliance Not Provided YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Center. (offices in Ohio,
Texas, and New
York).
14.............. HAZMATEAM, Not Provided....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Incorporated.
15.............. Environmental North Carolina..... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Resource Center.
16.............. Project Consulting Texas.............. YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Services,
Incorporated.
17.............. Walkerville Area Michigan........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Fire and Rescue.
18.............. Hopkinsville Fire Kentucky........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Department.
19.............. Florida Division of Florida............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Emergency
Management.
20.............. Grand Junction Fire Colorado........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Department.
21.............. San Diego Fire- California......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Rescue Department.
22.............. Michigan Department Michigan........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
of Community Health.
23.............. Madonna University.. Michigan........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
24.............. Texas Tech Texas.............. NO............... Web Posting........ 2
University Health
Sciences Center.
25.............. Federal Aviation District of YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Administration. Columbia.
26.............. Federal Motor Texas.............. YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Carrier Safety
Administration.
27.............. Federal Railroad District of YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Administration. Columbia.
28.............. Port of Tacoma...... Washington......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
29.............. Florida Highway Florida............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Patrol, Florida
Department of
Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles.
30.............. New Mexico State New Mexico......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Police.
31.............. United States Coast California......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Guard.
32.............. Unknown (Daniel Not Provided....... NO............... Web Posting........ 2
Gregory).
33.............. Unknown (Doug Not Provided....... NO............... Web Posting........ 2
Shackelford).
34.............. Bombardier.......... Illinois........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
35.............. Mercedes-Benz USA, New Jersey......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
LLC.
36.............. Huntsman............ Not Provided YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
(headquarters in
Texas).
37.............. Interline Brands, Florida............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Incorporated.
[[Page 70402]]
38.............. Citgo............... Not Provided YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
(headquarters in
Texas).
39.............. Air Liquide America Colorado........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Specialty Gases.
40.............. Fairchild Maine.............. YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Semiconductor.
41.............. Raytheon Company.... Arizona............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
42.............. Midstream Pipeline Louisiana.......... Unknown (reply is Web Posting........ 3
Safety/CenterPoint ambiguous).
Energy.
43.............. Kinder Morgan, Not provided YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Incorporated. (headquarters in
Texas).
44.............. Hartman Brothers, Colorado........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Incorporated.
45.............. Maine Drilling & New Hampshire...... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Blasting.
46.............. Master Meter New Jersey......... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Program, Pipeline
Safety, State Board
of Public Utilities.
47.............. Garner.............. Texas.............. Unknown (reply is Web Posting........ 3
ambiguous).
48.............. Combined Accident Texas.............. YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Reduction Efforts,
Incorporated.
49.............. Blue Rock........... Colorado........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
50.............. United Steel Workers Pennsylvania....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
51.............. Unknown (Michael Not Provided....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Wagner).
52.............. Unknown (Carl Not Provided....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
Zebrocki).
53.............. Unknown (Tom Wray).. Not Provided....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
54.............. Unknown (Don Shafer) Not Provided....... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
55.............. AristaTek........... Wyoming............ YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
56.............. Intrado............. Colorado........... YES.............. Web Posting........ 1
57.............. J.B. Hunt........... Arkansas........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
58.............. CHEMTREC............ Virginia........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
59.............. Unknown (Edward Florida............ NO............... 60-Day Notice...... 2
Larkin).
60.............. EHSSE............... Missouri........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
61.............. Norfolk Southern Georgia............ YES.............. 60-Day Notice and 1
Corporation. Web Posting.
62.............. Nordstrom Direct.... Iowa............... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
63.............. International Virginia........... NO............... 60-Day Notice...... 2
Association of Fire
Chiefs.
64.............. Turnkey Technical Tennessee.......... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Services.
65.............. HMF2, LLC........... California......... YES.............. 60-Day Notice and 1
Web Posting.
66.............. Tri-County Fire Texas.............. YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Department.
67.............. Qualified Carriers.. New Jersey......... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
68.............. Cherry Hill Fire New Jersey......... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
District 13.
69.............. Mid Columbia Fire Oregon............. YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
and Rescue.
70.............. Maryland Department Maryland........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice and 1
of the Environment. Web Posting.
71.............. Seattle Fire Washington......... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Department.
72.............. Indiana State Police Indiana............ YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement
Division.
73.............. Fire Department, New York........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
City of New York.
74.............. Unknown (Raymond Ohio............... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Lewis).
75.............. American Trucking Virginia........... NO............... 60-Day Notice...... 2
Association.
76.............. Unknown (Daniel Ohio............... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Collins).
77.............. AllTransPack, Virginia........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice and 1
Incorporated (ATP). Web Posting.
78.............. CSX Transportation.. Florida............ YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
79.............. Union Pacific....... Nebraska........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
80.............. Cardinal Health Ohio............... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Nuclear Pharmacy
Services.
81.............. Commercial Vehicle Maryland........... NO............... 60-Day Notice...... 2
Safety Alliance.
82.............. Labelmaster Services Illinois........... YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
83.............. Quality Distribution Florida............ YES.............. 60-Day Notice...... 1
Incorporated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments posted in response to both the Web site announcement
and the 60-Day Notice are organized into three categories, based on the
information provided in the comments and information publically
available on agency/company/organization Web sites. The three
categories are as follows:
Category 1--88% of the entities, those expressing interest in
participating in the pilot tests.
Category 2--10% of the entities, those not wanting to participate
in the pilot tests but commenting on use of e-systems; confirming the
importance of certain aspects of e-communication/validating
observations in stakeholder information papers; and/or providing
comments outside of the defined data
[[Page 70403]]
collection and more pertinent to anticipatory regulatory changes.
Category 3--2% of the entities, those submitting only their contact
information, and entities posting unclear comments regarding pilot test
participation.
No comments were posted to the 60-Day Notice regarding the intended
types of data collection questions.
Category 1: Entities Expressing Interest in Participating in the Pilot
Tests
73 (88%) of the 83 total entities expressed interest in
participating in the pilot tests. These 73 entities include ten (10)
emergency response organizations, three (3) Federal government
agencies, three (3) state/local government agencies, five (5) law
enforcement agencies (one Federal agency, three state agencies, and one
port authority), one (1) university, thirteen (13) carriers, five (5)
shippers, nine (9) companies that are both shippers and carriers, one
(1) association, one (1) union, eleven (11) consultants, two (2)
technology vendors, five (5) companies that function as both vendors
and consultants, and four (4) unknowns. These 73 entities are primarily
located in the eastern half of the U.S. and in the South; a few
entities are located in the Southwest, Northwest, and at international
locations. Many of the entities have locations in more than one area of
the U.S. ID No. 82, a company that functions as both a vendor and
consultant, expressed interest in participating in the pilot projects
as a consortium of parties to demonstrate the capability of the
technological solution that it developed in conjunction with these
partners.
Category 2: Non-Participant Volunteer Entities Confirming the
Importance of E-Communication Aspects/Validating Stakeholder
Information Paper Observations
Eight (10%) of the 83 total entities indicated they do not wish to
actively participate in the pilot tests. Collectively, these entities
posted comments that indicated they (a) want to continue to receive
information on the HM-ACCESS effort; (b) want to participate in a
different PHMSA training event (i.e., submitted in error in response to
HM-ACCESS); (c) agree with the importance of a particular aspect of the
HM-ACCESS initiative; and/or (d) want to emphasize the importance of
particular observations made to date regarding HM-ACCESS. In some
cases, the comments are not directed to and are outside of the scope of
the defined data collection, and instead are more pertinent to
anticipatory regulatory changes. Comments from these eight entities
included the following:
Two (ID Nos. 6 and 24) indicated they wanted to receive
update information on the HM-ACCESS effort as it becomes available.
PHMSA will keep these entities on the HM-ACCESS information
distribution email notifications.
One (ID No. 32) was submitted in error; this entity wanted
to register for a pipeline hazard safety training event. PHMSA will
keep this entity on the HM-ACCESS information distribution email
notifications.
One (ID No. 33) originally wanted to volunteer to
participate in the pilot tests, but later rescinded the request. PHMSA
will keep this entity on the HM-ACCESS information distribution email
notifications.
One (ID No. 59) indicated its support of PHMSA's method of
allowing stakeholders to assist in testing the viability of using e-HM
shipping papers as an alternative to hardcopy HM shipping papers rather
than simply issuing a regulatory change, and also affirmed its support
of changes that reduce paperwork and clutter. PHMSA recognizes these
comments as being consistent with the current HM-ACCESS methodology and
pilot test approach.
One (ID No. 63) emphasized the importance of HM
information fitting the intended need and being uniform and scalable
while not including extraneous information; being provided in a
standard format using cost-effective, standardized tools and data; and
being accurate as well as immediately available. As described in the
60-Day Notice, the goal of the paperless hazard communications pilot
program is to determine if e-systems are a feasible and effective means
of providing hazard communication; the pilot projects will evaluate the
feasibility of using e-systems to collect and convey the same
information that is currently required on a paper copy of an HM
shipping document as described in 49 CFR 172, Subpart C. Evaluation of
shipping paper information requirements (content, format, etc.) is
outside the scope of HM-ACCESS. This entity also confirmed PHMSA's
proceeding with a performance-based regulatory approach that provides
for an equivalent or higher level of safety, and commented that e-
shipping paper information used for inspections should be
instantaneously viewable, thus reducing inspectors' wait time. PHMSA
reiterates that the pilot tests will study the performance, safety and
security impacts, and the associated benefits and costs of using e-
systems for HM shipments, without disrupting the normal flow of
commerce, and that the time needed to send and receive the e-
information will be one of the data fields evaluated during the tests.
The entity also commented on the need for training on electronic tools
used to comply with e-shipping papers; the lack of availability of
devices for receiving e-HM information in the emergency response
community; and allowing shippers to have the capability for data entry
and error correction. Although not pertinent to the data collection as
defined within the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA recognizes the entity's
equipment, training, and data entry concerns. PHMSA encourages the
entity to participate in the impact analysis data collection for
inclusion in the evaluation and feasibility report required under MAP-
21 and to make recommendations for implementing e-systems into the
Federal HM transportation safety program. The entity emphasized e-
shipping papers should not result in the public safety sector incurring
additional equipment, data access, connectivity, etc., costs, and that
the format and content of the electronic HM data must meet the various
needs and levels of responder operational knowledge and capabilities.
As described in the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA seeks volunteer pilot test
participants who currently possess e-system(s) capable of managing and
communicating the HM shipping paper information at their own expense,
and who possess their own equipment and personnel and/or contractor
resources necessary to transport HM shipments. PHMSA is not asking
companies to purchase additional equipment to support the pilot tests.
One (ID No. 75) commended PHMSA on its implementation of
the HM-ACCESS pilot program consistent with MAP-21 requirements. This
entity emphasized the importance of using e-shipping papers to
supplement, rather than replace, hardcopy shipping papers until the
feasibility and effectiveness of using e-shipping papers to communicate
with law enforcement and emergency responders are proven. This
commenter also stressed the importance of allowing carriers the choice
to use hardcopy shipping papers for the foreseeable future, as long as
the required information is provided and safety is maintained. PHMSA
reiterates that one strategic aspect of the pilot tests is to abide by
current HMR hardcopy shipping paper requirements while simultaneously
testing e-system hazard communications capabilities. Hardcopy shipping
papers will accompany HM shipments during the pilot tests; the
[[Page 70404]]
only difference during the inspection and emergency response
simulations will be that the shipping paper information will be
communicated electronically. The inspectors and emergency responders
will conduct each simulation following their established inspection and
response protocols using their own existing equipment and resources.
This entity also encouraged leveraging pre-existing communications
standards, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
chosen one for transmitting electronic driver logging information in
the highway mode, for law enforcement and emergency responders. PHMSA
has been communicating with its DOT modal counterparts and other
Federal agencies to coordinate similar electronic HM data collection
efforts. The entity suggested that PHMSA design the communications
standard so that any device capable of receiving information from an
electronic logging device would similarly be capable of receiving
information from any future paperless hazard communications system,
thereby lowering technology costs and facilitating acceptance by the HM
transportation industry. It is not PHMSA's intention at this time
either to develop an e-communications standard or to test vendors of e-
communications technologies or products; rather, PHMSA will conduct the
pilot tests to evaluate the feasibility of using e-systems to convey
the same HM information that is contained on a paper copy of a shipping
document.
One (ID No. 81) indicated its support of PHMSA's Paperless
Hazard Communications Pilot Program, and recommended that PHMSA explore
the development and management of a uniform e-system that improves HM
recognition and identification without compromising the safety of law
enforcement and first responders. As previously stated, the HM-ACCESS
effort will test and evaluate the feasibility of using e-systems to
convey the same HM information that is contained on a paper copy of a
shipping document. PHMSA is not looking to develop a uniform e-system
at this time; such a substantial level of effort is beyond the scope of
the MAP-21 mandate, and would most likely require that stakeholders
purchase additional equipment and resources to utilize the uniform e-
system. The entity also commented that drivers must be informed when HM
are present and of the method(s) for obtaining e-shipping paper
information for inspection and emergency response purposes. Drivers are
currently required to meet the training requirements stipulated in 49
CFR 177, Subpart A; any future HM transportation regulation amendments
allowing for the use of e-shipping paper information would likely
address the methods drivers should use to obtain e-shipping paper
information. This entity also emphasized (1) the importance that
devices communicating e-shipping paper information have the capability
of providing inspectors and first responders the shipping paper
information required by 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart C; (2) e-shipping
papers must be carried and be accessible in the manner described in 49
CFR 177.817(e); and (3) the e-shipping papers included in the pilot
tests should batch with the corresponding paper copy. PHMSA agrees with
the importance of these e-shipping paper aspects, and reaffirms the
goal of the paperless hazard communications pilot program; namely, to
determine if e-systems are a feasible and effective means of providing
hazard communication that provides an equivalent level of safety and
security as compared to the current shipping paper requirements.
Finally, the entity recognized the burden estimate PHMSA calculated of
up to one hour for each inspector who participates in the pilot tests
to complete the inspection simulation questions; commented that the
additional time spent completing the questions would reduce the number
of commercial motor vehicle inspections conducted by the inspection
agency; and recommended PHMSA find funding for agencies participating
in the pilot tests to offset pilot test participation costs. PHMSA
understands that this information collection effort may impose a burden
on respondents; however, no funding is available to reimburse
participants who participate in the HM-ACCESS pilot test and data
collection efforts. As previously described, participation in the pilot
tests and information collection efforts is strictly voluntary, and
PHMSA will develop the information collection utilizing on-line
questions, with answers to questions designed to be ``yes,'' ``no,'' or
multiple choice as much as possible. The information obtained during
the pilot tests and information collection efforts will assist PHMSA in
improving safety, hazard communication products, and/or hazard
communication materials, and in potentially reducing current burden
hours for completing shipping papers.
Category 3: Entities Submitting Only Their Contact Information or
Unclear Comments
Two (2%) of the 83 entities (ID Nos. 42 and 47) responded to the
April 2013 Web site announcement that they were interested in the
``hazard communication system'' or in ``paperless updates.'' These
entities did not state they wanted to participate in the pilot
projects. PHMSA will keep these entities on the HM-ACCESS information
distribution email notifications.
5. Criteria Used for Selecting Pilot Project Participants
PHMSA will evaluate the entities volunteering to participate in the
pilot tests and select those that best satisfy the pilot project and
MAP-21 qualification criteria and possess the capability and capacity
to aid in testing a variety of scenarios.
PHMSA intends that any pilot conducted under the authority granted
by MAP-21 will study the performance, safety and security impacts, and
associated benefits and costs of using e-systems for HM shipments,
without disrupting the normal flow of commerce. Further, hardcopy
shipping documents will still be required to accompany each shipment
during the pilot projects, in accordance with the HMR.
PHMSA will conduct pilot tests in three, and potentially four,
regions of the U.S.: the Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and
Southwest, with at least one pilot test conducted in a rural area
within one or more of the regions, as prescribed by MAP-21. PHMSA will
focus the pilot tests in geographical regions possessing high
concentrations of HM registrants and presenting historically high
numbers of HM incidents resulting in deaths and injuries.
Law Enforcement and Emergency Response Volunteers
Desired law enforcement and emergency responder pilot test
participants are those willing to assist in the collection of
information during the inspection and emergency response simulations
and who operate within the regions of the pilot tests where the
participating shippers and carriers operate.
Shipper and Carrier Volunteers
Desired shipper and carrier pilot test participants are those who
offer HM for transportation and/or transport HM by a variety of modes
and interact with other intermodal carriers for HM transfers. It is not
PHMSA's intention to test
[[Page 70405]]
vendors of electronic communication technologies or products. To
volunteer and be selected as a volunteer, interested shipper and
carrier participants will need to ship and/or transport HM within areas
of high concentrations of HM registrants and HM incidents. In addition
to the regions and modal criteria, potential participants must, at a
minimum, satisfy the following requirements:
Possess e-system(s) capable of managing and communicating
the HM shipping paper information at their own expense,
Possess their own equipment and personnel and/or
contractor resources necessary to transport HM shipments,
Be willing to allow, and participate in, inspections and
emergency response simulations during the pilot tests,
Be willing to provide feedback on experiences regarding e-
HM communication during the pilot tests, including providing actual e-
HM communications data from the pilot tests,
Be willing to provide information on the basic function
and capabilities of their e-system(s),
Be willing to provide information on administrative,
business, training, equipment, and operational-related benefits and
costs associated with implementing e-system(s),
Transport HM within the targeted test regions of the U.S.,
and
Be in good standing with all levels of government and
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations governing the
safe and secure transportation of HM.
As part of PHMSA's participant evaluation and selection process,
each shipper and carrier submitting a statement of interest will need
to answer on-line the following list of 34 questions to verify its
qualifications and capabilities (Note: The majority of these questions
require only a ``yes'' or ``no'' response.):
Shipper and Carrier Participant Questions
1. Name of company/organization.
2. Point(s) of contact (POC(s)) information.
3. Is your company/organization a shipper, a carrier, or both?
4. Is your company/organization willing to participate in the pilot
tests for a period of 8 to 12 weeks in 2014 (specific period to be
determined)?
5. Does your company/organization understand that answering these
selection questions does not guarantee your company/organization will
be selected for participation in the pilot tests (volunteers will be
selected based on meeting qualifications specified in MAP-21 and the
ability to aid in testing a variety of test scenarios and criteria)?
6. Is your company/organization able to identify a single POC for
coordinating your company's/organization's participation in the pilot
tests?
7. Is your company/organization willing to provide a coordinating
representative to participate in a pre-pilot coordination and training
meeting in Washington DC prior to implementation of the pilot tests?
8. Is your company/organization willing to provide a coordinating
representative to participate in a one-day debriefing meeting in
Washington DC in 2014 following the conclusion of the pilot tests
(actual date to be determined)?
9. Does your company/organization have videoconference capability?
10. Is your company/organization willing to allow, and participate
in, inspections and emergency response simulations during the pilot
tests?
11. Is your company/organization willing to provide feedback on its
experiences regarding paperless hazardous materials (e-HM)
communication during the pilot tests, including actual e-HM
communications data from your company's/organization's participation in
the pilot tests and information on administrative, business, training,
equipment, and operational-related costs and benefits associated with
implementing e-HM systems?
12. Do you understand that PHMSA will use the information you
provide in this questionnaire as part of PHMSA's public report to
Congress, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders, in support of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)? (Note:
Although your company/organization will be referenced by a unique ID
No. in the report, PHMSA cannot guarantee that the name of your
company/organization will be kept confidential.)
13. For which U.S. geographic pilot test area(s) is your company/
organization volunteering to participate?
14. Do any of your company's/organization's HM shipments that could
be included in the pilot tests cross international borders during
transport (U.S. and Canadian border, U.S. and Mexican border, travel
via plane or ship to other international locations)?
15. Please describe the transport route(s), from origin to final
destination, for the HM your company/organization will include in the
pilot tests. Include city and state information, along with the general
location(s) of any planned stops/layovers, including transfer points.
16. Does your company/organization utilize an outside company to
assist with HM information and emergency response communication?
17. Does your company/organization currently have a paperless HM
communications system (e-system) capable of managing and communicating
the HM shipping paper information?
18. How many different e-systems is your company/organization
capable of utilizing for communicating HM shipping paper information?
19. What electronic and wireless technology(ies) are used by your
e-system?
20. What type of electronic data exchange format is used by your e-
system?
21. In what format(s) can your e-HM shipping paper information be
exported?
22. Is your company's/organization's e-system scalable (i.e., able
to expand if the amount of information increases)?
23. Does the e-system have built-in security protocols for data
protection?
24. Has your company/organization established administrative rights
for the e-system?
25. Does the e-system have system redundancy or backup systems?
26. Has your company/organization ever used wireless or electronic
communication to provide law enforcement or emergency response
personnel with HM information for an HM shipment involved in an
inspection or incident?
27. Can e-HM shipping information be accessed during transport (in
the field) in real-time?
28. What class(es) of HM would your company/organization ship
during the pilot tests?
29. Is your company/organization willing to include multiple
shipments in the pilot tests?
30. By what mode would your company/organization transport HM
during the pilot tests?
31. Does your company/organization interact with other intermodal
carriers for HM transfers?
32. Is your company/organization capable of testing less than
truckload (LTL) HM shipments during the pilot tests?
33. Does your company/organization transport HM shipments utilizing
your own equipment and personnel, or contractor resources?
34. Does your company/organization interact with freight forwarders
and/or brokers as part of your normal business of transporting HM
shipments?
[[Page 70406]]
6. Request for Information (Following Selection of Pilot Test
Participants)
PHMSA is seeking to collect: (1) Information and data as part of
the pilot tests to support evaluation of the use of e-shipping papers;
and (2) data and information outside of the pilot tests for analyzing
potential impacts (safety, security, benefits, and costs) of using e-
systems.
PHMSA understands that this information collection effort may
impose a burden on respondents. The information obtained will:
Assist the agency in improving safety, hazard
communication products, and/or hazard communication materials, and in
potentially reducing current burden hours for completing shipping
papers;
Be provided strictly on a voluntary basis; and
Be collected primarily utilizing on-line questions with
answers to most questions designed to be ``yes,'' ``no,'' or multiple
choice.
Volunteer modal inspectors and emergency responders will be
responsible for conducting inspection and emergency response
simulations and the majority of the data collection during the pilot
tests. This approach limits the information collection burden on
regulated entities while minimizing information bias. Modal inspectors
(typically law enforcement) will test the feasibility and effectiveness
of e-systems by performing simulated modal inspections of regulated
entities (shippers and carriers) participating in the pilot tests
utilizing e-HM shipping papers. The inspectors will conduct each
simulation following their established inspection protocols using their
own existing equipment and resources. The only difference during the
simulations will be that the shipping paper information will be
communicated electronically. Following each inspection simulation, the
participating inspector will answer a list of on-line questions related
to the simulation and submit to PHMSA a copy of the e-HM shipping paper
received. Emergency responders will follow a similar process to test
the feasibility and effectiveness of e-systems during a simulated
incident response involving HM shipments using e-HM shipping papers.
PHMSA will use the answers to the on-line questions and the e-HM
shipping papers provided by the inspectors and emergency responders to
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the e-system involved in
the information transfer.
Outside of the pilot tests, information will be collected from
shippers, carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders to aid in
the assessment of potential impacts associated with using e-systems for
each mode of transportation, as required under MAP-21. Potential
impacts to be assessed include benefits, costs, safety, and security
impacts on the public, emergency responders, and law enforcement. The
impact analysis questions will not be limited to pilot test
participants but will be available to all HM stakeholders to
voluntarily answer.
The following sections summarize the types of information that will
be requested as part of the pilot program to ensure that the evaluation
and feasibility report focuses on results and includes quantitative
data on the recommendation and possible implementation of e-systems
into the Federal HM transportation safety program. This information and
data will enable PHMSA to more accurately assess the safety and
security impacts of using e-systems and to analyze the associated
benefits and costs of using e-systems for HM communication.
Shipper and Carrier Information
Shippers and carriers will not be required to answer the list of
on-line inspection and emergency response simulation questions
described in the next section as part of the pilot project. However,
PHMSA does anticipate that the information provided by modal inspectors
and emergency responders in conducting the simulations may necessitate
follow-up discussions with the shippers and/or carriers involved.
Limited information may need to be collected from shippers and carriers
as a result of these follow-up discussions, potentially including
obtaining copies of the e-HM shipping papers used during the
simulations.
Inspection Simulation Questions
For each HM inspection simulation, inspectors (law enforcement and/
or Federal and state modal inspectors) involved in the simulation will
be requested to answer the following list of 44 online inspection
simulation questions and to provide an electronic copy of the HM
shipping paper they received during the simulation. Analysis of the e-
HM shipping papers for required hazard communication information will
enable PHMSA to verify the integrity of the data transfer.
1. Name of inspection agency/organization you are representing.
2. Main location of inspection agency/organization.
3. Affiliation of your inspection agency/organization.
4. Point of Contact (POC) information for the inspector conducting
the inspection simulation.
5. POC information for your inspection agency's/organization's
paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication system (e-system).
6. Describe the size and geographic parameters of your agency's/
organization's jurisdiction.
7. Which transportation mode(s) does your agency/organization
inspect?
8. How often are inspections conducted?
9. In general, what percentage of inspections is pre-planned (e.g.,
at a checkpoint, waystation, etc.), and what percentage is impromptu
(e.g., based on potential safety risk posed by an observed
transportation conveyance)?
10. Approximately how many conveyance inspections does your agency/
organization perform annually?
11. Name and USDOT Number of shipper and/or carrier inspected.
12. POC information for the driver/pilot/captain/conductor involved
in the inspection simulation.
13. POC information for the shipper's and/or carrier's e-system.
14. Location of inspection simulation.
15. Date and time of inspection simulation.
16. Was the inspection pre-scheduled or unannounced (with respect
to notifying the HM shipper/carrier)?
17. What type(s) of transportation conveyances were inspected
during the simulation?
18. Did the inspector have any interaction with other regulatory
inspection entities (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border
Protection, etc.) during HM inspection simulation activities?
19. What types of HM information was shared with these regulatory
entities?
20. Was an attempt made to communicate any of this information
electronically?
21. Describe the simulated pilot test HM conveyance inspection:
a. What was reason for the simulated inspection?
b. What HM information did the inspector look for or request?
c. Did the inspection include interviews?
d. What conveyance documentation did the inspector review?
22. What types of HM containers were included in the shipment?
23. What class(es) of HM did the shipment being inspected include?
24. Had the shipment undergone any intramodal transfers (i.e.,
transfers between conveyances within a single transportation mode)
prior to the simulation?
[[Page 70407]]
25. If the shipment had undergone intramodal transfers:
a. What HM information was shared?
b. By what mechanism was such information communicated:
26. Had the shipment undergone any intermodal transfers (i.e.,
transfers between transportation modes) prior to the simulation?
27. If the shipment had undergone intermodal transfers:
a. What HM information was shared?
b. By what mechanism was such information communicated:
28. Was the shipment involved in the simulation a less than
truckload (LTL) type HM shipment?
29. What device(s), electronic data exchange language,
communication mechanism(s), and data format did inspectors use when
conducting the simulated inspection?
30. What device(s) and electronic data exchange language did the
shipper/carrier use to transmit the electronic shipping papers during
the simulated inspection?
31. Was the inspection simulation information collected
electronically?
32. How long did it take for the inspector to receive the
electronic information from when it was requested?
33. Did the inspector review the HM data received during the
simulation for accuracy and completeness?
34. Did the electronic information match that recorded on the
hardcopy shipping paper?
35. Did the HM information accurately reflect the details of the HM
being transported?
36. Did your agency/organization identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the simulation?
37. Did your agency/organization identify any benefits related to
the following e-system components during the simulation?
38. Was the information included within the electronic transmittal
sufficient to determine a failed or passed inspection?
39. How do you feel the e-information satisfied the required HM
paper documentation (e.g., shipping paper, transportation of dangerous
goods manifest, bill of lading, notification to pilot in command,
etc.)?
40. What training, if any, is needed to conduct electronic
transfers of information for inspections?
41. What additional equipment, if any, is needed to conduct
electronic transfers of information for inspections?
42. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for
improvement of e-commerce?
43. What benefits do you think an e-system would offer over a
paper-based system for your agency/organization?
44. How do you believe e-systems will affect the time to conduct an
inspection?
Emergency Response Simulation Questions
For each HM emergency response simulation, emergency response
providers and/or investigators involved in the simulation will be
requested to answer the following list of 42 online emergency response
simulation questions and provide an electronic copy of the HM shipping
paper as received during the simulation. Analysis of the e-HM shipping
papers for required hazard communication information will enable PHMSA
to verify the integrity of the data transfer.
1. Name of emergency response agency/organization you are
representing.
2. Location of emergency response agency/organization.
3. Point of Contact (POC) information for the responder conducting
the emergency response simulation.
4. POC information for your emergency response agency's/
organization's paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication
system (e-system).
5. Describe the size and geographic parameters of your agency's/
organization's jurisdiction.
6. How often does your agency/organization respond to HM incidents?
7. Approximately how many transportation HM incidents does your
agency/organization respond to annually?
8. Which transportation mode(s) has your agency/organization
responded to for an HM incident in the past year?
9. Does your agency/organization utilize an outside company to
assist with HM information and emergency response communication?
10. What is the name of the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
which has jurisdiction for the location of the emergency response
simulation?
11. Location of responsible PSAP.
12. POC information for the responsible PSAP.
13. Name of shipper and/or carrier involved in the emergency
response simulation.
14. POC information for the driver/pilot/captain/conductor involved
in the emergency response simulation.
15. POC information for the shipper's and/or carrier's e-system.
16. Location of emergency response simulation.
17. Date and time of emergency response simulation.
18. What type(s) of transportation conveyances were involved in the
emergency response simulation?
19. What emergency response entities participated in the emergency
response simulation?
20. Describe the HM pilot test simulation:
a. What was the simulated event?
b. Which emergency response entity was contacted first, and by
whom?
c. Which first responder agency/organization arrived on the scene
first?
d. Did a dispatcher perform any follow-up activities (e.g.,
obtaining additional information from a shipper regarding an HM that
may be involved in the simulation) to the initial call?
21. What class(es) of HM were transported during the simulation?
22. Was the shipment involved in the simulation a less than
truckload (LTL) type HM shipment?
23. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the
PSAP dispatcher as part of the HM pilot test simulation:
a. What HM information did the PSAP dispatcher immediately request?
b. Was information transmitted electronically to the PSAP
dispatcher?
24. What device(s) and electronic data exchange language were used
to transmit the information to the PSAP dispatcher during the HM
simulation?
25. What device(s), electronic data exchange language,
communication mechanism(s), and data format were used by the PSAP
dispatcher to receive the information during the HM simulation?
26. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the
emergency responders prior to their arrival at the scene as part of the
HM pilot test simulation:
a. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the driver/pilot/
captain/conductor?
b. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the PSAP dispatcher?
c. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the shipper?
d. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the carrier?
e. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by a source other than
the driver/pilot/captain/conductor, PSAP dispatcher, shipper, or
carrier?
[[Page 70408]]
27. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the
emergency responders at the scene as part of the HM pilot test
simulation:
a. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the driver/pilot/captain/conductor?
b. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the PSAP dispatcher?
c. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the shipper?
d. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by the carrier?
e. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency
responders at the scene by a source other than the driver/pilot/
captain/conductor, PSAP dispatcher, shipper, or carrier?
28. Was the information collected electronically by the emergency
responders during the HM simulation?
29. If electronic information was provided to the PSAP dispatcher
during the HM simulation, how long did it take for the PSAP dispatcher
to receive the information from the time it was first requested?
30. If electronic information was provided to emergency responders
during the HM simulation, how long did it take for the emergency
responders to receive the electronic information from the time it was
first requested?
31. Did the emergency responders review the HM data received during
the simulation for accuracy and completeness?
32. Did the electronic information match that recorded on the
hardcopy shipping paper?
33. Did the HM information accurately reflect the details of the HM
being transported?
34. Did your agency/organization identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the HM simulation?
35. Did your agency/organization identify any benefits related to
the following e-system components during the HM simulation?
36. Was the information included within the electronic transmittal
sufficient, and equivalent to the hardcopy shipping paper, to identify
the hazards and properly respond to the HM simulation?
37. How do you feel the e-information satisfied the required HM
paper documentation (e.g., shipping paper, transportation of dangerous
goods manifest, bill of lading, notification to pilot in command,
etc.)?
38. What training, if any, is needed to conduct electronic
transfers of information for responders?
39. What additional equipment, if any, is needed to conduct
electronic transfers of information for emergency response?
40. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for
improvement of the use of e-shipping papers in HM commerce?
41. What benefits do you think an e-system would offer over a
paper-based system for your agency/organization?
42. How do you believe e-systems will impact the time to respond to
an HM incident?
Impact Analysis Questions
PHMSA is seeking to collect information and data from shippers,
carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders to aid in the
assessment of potential impacts associated with using e-systems for
each mode of transportation, as required under MAP-21. Potential
impacts to be assessed include benefits, costs, safety, and security
impacts on the public, emergency responders, and law enforcement.
Similar to the pilot test simulation questions, PHMSA has developed the
following list of 60 impact analysis questions to be administered on-
line. PHMSA anticipates the list of impact analysis questions will not
be limited to pilot test participants but will be available to all HM
stakeholders to voluntarily answer.
1. Name of the agency/company/organization you are representing.
2. Location of the agency/company/organization.
3. Point of Contact (POC) information for the person completing
this questionnaire.
4. POC information for your agency's/company's/organization's
paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication system (e-system).
5. Which category describes your agency/company/organization?
6. With what mode(s) of transportation does your agency/company/
organization interact?
7. Describe the size (small, medium, large) of your agency/company/
organization.
8. Does your agency/company/organization perform domestic (i.e.,
within the U.S.) commerce?
9. Does your agency/company/organization perform international
commerce?
10. Does your agency/company/organization belong to any chemical
and/or transportation industry associations?
11. Are personnel at your agency/company/organization familiar with
the look and content of an HM shipping paper?
12. Do you understand that PHMSA will use the information you
provide in this questionnaire as part of PHMSA's public report to
Congress, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders, in support of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)? (Note:
Although your agency/company/organization will be referenced by a
unique ID No. in the report, PHMSA cannot guarantee that the name of
your agency/company/organization will be kept confidential.)
13. What class(es) of HM does your company ship?
14. By what mode(s) does your company transport HM?
15. Does your company interact with other intermodal carriers for
HM transfers?
16. For each mode used to transport HM shipments, does your company
utilize your own equipment and personnel, or contractor resources?
17. Does your company transport less than truckload (LTL) HM
shipments?
18. How are your HM shipments packaged?
19. Approximately how much HM does your company ship annually?
20. Does your agency/company/organization utilize an outside
company to assist with HM information and emergency response
communication?
21. What HM information is essential for emergency responders to
receive to assess the hazards and to properly respond to an HM incident
after arriving at the emergency site?
22. What HM information is essential for HM inspectors to receive
to properly conduct an HM inspection?
23. Does your agency/company/organization currently have an e-
system capable of managing and communicating HM shipping paper
information?
24. Does the e-system use or contain any proprietary data or have
any special licensing requirements governing its use?
25. Is the e-system custom-made or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)?
26. What electronic and wireless technologies are used by your e-
system?
27. Does your agency/company/organization currently have electronic
access to conveyance HM data satisfying the DOT shipping paper
requirements?
28. What type of electronic data exchange language is used?
29. What format can be used to view and share the data?
30. Is your agency's/company's/organization's e-system scalable
(i.e.,
[[Page 70409]]
able to expand if the amount of information increases)?
31. If your agency's/company's/organization's e-system fails during
an inspection or emergency, is a backup system/procedures available to
ensure continuity of information?
32. Who enters HM information into your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system?
33. How long is the HM information stored in your agency's/
company's/organization's e-system after its initial generation?
34. When can the HM information in your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system be accessed?
35. Who can access the HM information in your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system?
36. Has your company ever used wireless or electronic communication
to provide law enforcement or emergency response personnel with HM
information for an HM shipment involved in an inspection or incident?
37. On average, how long does it take to complete a hardcopy HM
shipping paper?
38. On average, how long does it take to complete an e-shipping
paper?
39. Do you use HM shipping papers for purposes other than
regulatory?
40. Has your agency/organization ever received wireless or
electronic communication of HM information for an HM shipment involved
in an inspection or incident?
41. What technology readiness level from the following list best
describes the technology used to operate your e-HM system?
a. Level 5: technology product fully operational in real-world
environment
b. Level 4: technology product operational in limited real-world
environment
c. Level 3: prototype demonstrated in laboratory environment
d. Level 2: equipment and process concept formulated
e. Level 1: basic technology principles observed
42. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs to develop, implement, operate, and maintain
the e-system?
43. Do your agency's/company's/organization's employees receive
training on the e-system?
44. How long does the training generally take to complete?
45. Is refresher training provided?
46. How long does refresher training typically take to complete?
47. Are all/most employees who receive initial e-system training
provided with refresher training?
48. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs for training personnel on the e-system?
49. Did your agency/company/organization incorporate a customer
outreach/education program as part of implementation of your e-system?
50. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded
estimation of the costs to conduct customer outreach/education on your
e-system?
51. What types of security is in place to prevent unauthorized e-
system access?
52. Which of the following entities outside your agency/company/
organization directly utilize your e-system?
53. What type of involvement and input did these stakeholders have
in the design and development of your e-system?
54. If your agency/company/organization has an e-system:
a. What constraints did the e-system have to overcome to be
successfully used by your agency/company/organization?
b. What benefits does the e-system offer over a paper-based system?
c. What benefits resulted from your agency's/company's/
organization's customer outreach/education efforts regarding your e-
system?
d. What constraints did your agency/company/organization need to
overcome during customer outreach/education regarding your e-system?
55. If your agency/company/organization does not have an e-system:
a. What constraints would an e-system have to overcome to be
successfully used by your agency/company/organization?
b. What benefits would an e-system offer over a paper-based system?
56. Has your agency/company/organization performed any studies/
analyses on the effectiveness of your e-system, including the e-
system's impacts on your agency/company/organization?
57. What can improve your e-system's capability?
58. With respect to real-work application, has your agency/company/
organization observed any positive or negative interactions between
your e-system technology and other e-system technologies?
59. Has your agency/company/organization identified any e-system
impediments/limitations?
60. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for
improvement of e-commerce?
7. Total Information Collection Burden
The total information collection burden for the Paperless Hazard
Communication Pilot Program is as follows:
Shipper and Carrier Participant Questions: 55 Respondents x 0.5 Hr. =
27.5 Hours
73 entities responded with their interest to participate in the
pilot tests. Of these 73, 52 appear to be shippers, carriers,
universities, associations, unions, consultants, technology vendors,
and unknowns; i.e., all respondents who could potentially act in a
shipper and/or carrier capacity. The other 21 entities expressing
interest in participating in the pilot appear to be law enforcement and
emergency responders. PHMSA is estimating a maximum of 55 participants
(52 previously indicated plus three additional, to account for any
other respondents who may act in a shipper/carrier capacity) will
complete the pilot test participant questions. The 55 respondent
estimate has been increased by 25 from the original 30 estimate posted
in the 60-Day Notice based on the number of entities who commented to
the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to participate in the pilot
tests. PHMSA does not anticipate that completing the pilot test
participant questions will impose a significant burden on shipper and
carrier respondents. PHMSA estimates it will take each respondent
approximately 30 minutes to answer the list of participant questions,
based on the type of questions identified in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of question Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No....................................................... 20
Yes/No + text................................................ 1
Multiple choice.............................................. 2
Multiple choice + text....................................... 1
Select all that apply........................................ 4
Select all that apply + text................................. 3
Text......................................................... 3
----------
Total number of pilot test participant questions........... 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting estimated total burden is 27.5 hours (55 respondents
x 0.5 hour per respondent = 27.5 hours) for the shipper and carrier
participant question data collection.
Shipper and Carrier Information: 40 Respondents x 4.0 Hr. = 160 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that follow-up discussions with shippers
and carriers and the associated information collection will impose a
significant burden on respondents. In
[[Page 70410]]
the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA anticipated a total of 30 shippers and
carriers (assuming 10 respondents for each of three test regions) and a
burden of no more than four hours per shipper and carrier for the
entirety of the test period; however, based on the number of entities
who commented to the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to
participate in the pilot tests, PHMSA has increased its estimate to 40
shippers and carriers for this information collection activity. The
resulting estimated total burden is 160 hours (40 respondents x 4.0
hour per respondent = 160 hours) for follow-up discussions and
associated information collection with shippers and carriers.
Inspection Simulation Questions: 260 Respondents x 1.0 Hr. = 260 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of inspection
simulation questions will impose a significant burden on inspectors.
PHMSA anticipates no more than 260 inspection simulations will be
conducted utilizing non-federal resources (encompassing all pilot
tests, all participants, and each test region throughout the entirety
of the test period), resulting in a total of 260 respondents. The 260
respondent estimate has been increased by 20 from the original 240
estimate posted in the 60-Day Notice based on the number of inspectors
who commented to the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to
participate in the pilot tests. PHMSA estimates it will take each
inspector approximately 60 minutes to answer the list of inspection
simulation questions, based on the type of questions identified in the
following table, and to submit a copy of the e-HM shipping paper to
PHMSA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of question Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No....................................................... 1
Yes/No + text................................................ 7
Multiple choice.............................................. 5
Multiple choice + yes/no..................................... 1
Multiple choice + text....................................... 8
Select all that apply........................................ 2
Select all that apply + text................................. 8
Text......................................................... 12
----------
Total number of inspection simulation questions............ 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting estimated total burden is 260 hours (260 respondents
x 1.0 hour per respondent = 260 hours) for the inspection simulation
question data collection.
Emergency Response Simulation Questions: 24 Respondents x 1.0 Hr. = 24
Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of emergency
response simulation questions will impose a significant burden on
investigators and emergency responders. PHMSA anticipates no more than
12 emergency response simulations will be conducted utilizing non-
Federal resources, resulting in a total of no more than 24 respondents
allowing for up to two respondents per simulation (12 emergency
response providers and 12 investigators). PHMSA estimates it will take
each respondent approximately 60 minutes to answer the list of
emergency response simulation questions, based on the type of questions
identified in the following table, and to submit a copy of the
electronic shipping paper to PHMSA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of question Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No....................................................... 1
Yes/No + text................................................ 5
Multiple choice.............................................. 4
Multiple choice + text....................................... 5
Select all that apply........................................ 2
Select all that apply + text................................. 10
Text......................................................... 15
----------
Total number of emergency response simulation questions.... 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting estimated total burden is 24 hours (24 respondents x
1.0 hour per respondent = 24 hours) for the emergency response
simulation question data collection.
Impact Analysis Questions: 250 Respondents x 1.5 Hr. = 375 Hours
PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of impact
analysis questions will impose a significant burden on respondents
(shippers, carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders). PHMSA
increased its original estimate posted in the 60-Day Notice from 200 to
250 respondents based on the number of entities who provided comments
to the 60-Day Notice. PHMSA estimates no more than 250 respondents will
complete the impact analysis questions, and that it will take each
respondent approximately 90 minutes to answer the questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of question Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No....................................................... 1
Multiple choice.............................................. 16
Multiple choice + text (+ yes/no)............................ 16
Select all that apply........................................ 5
Select all that apply + text (+ yes/no)...................... 15
Text......................................................... 7
----------
Total number of impact analysis questions.................. 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting estimated total burden is 375 hours (250 respondents
x 1.5 hours per respondent = 375 hours) for the impact analysis
question data collection.
Total Information Collection Burden: 629 Respondents 846.5 Hours
Title: Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program.
Type of Request: Request for Comments to Information Collection
Burden for Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program.
Abstract: PHMSA is submitting an information collection to OMB in
support of a paperless hazard communications pilot program under Title
III, Section 33005 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
Improvement Act of 2012 (MAP-21).
Affected Public: Carriers, Shippers, Emergency Response Providers,
and Law Enforcement Personnel
Estimated Number of Respondents: 629.
Estimated Number of Responses: 629.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 846.5.
Estimated Annual Burden Costs: $28,500.
Frequency of collection: Single occasion.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-28168 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
