Skip
to Content

Home

Sections

Money

Environment

World

Science &
Technology

Business &
Industry

Health
& Public Welfare

Defining
Larger Participants of the Student Loan Servicing Market

A Rule by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau on 12/06/2013

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection amends the
regulation defining larger participants of certain consumer financial
product and service markets by adding a new section to define larger
participants of a market for student loan servicing.

photo by: Adam
Fagen

←

1

→

Dodd-Frank
Wall Steet Reform 328 in the last year

Stock
& Commodities Trading 537 in the last
year

Government
Contracts 58 in the last year

Economic
Sanctions & Foreign Assets Control 584 in
the last year

33 New Articles In this
Issue

19 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

Chlorsulfuron;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

A Proposed Rule by the Environmental
Protection Agency on 12/09/2013

EPA is denying a petition to remove chlorsulfuron from
the list of chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. EPA has reviewed the
available data on this chemical and has determined that chlorsulfuron does
not meet the deletion criterion.

photo by: DonkeyHotey

←

1

→

Endangered
& Threatened Species 980 in the last
year

Taking of
Marine Mammals 283 in the last year

Fishery
Management 1405 in the last year

Parks &
Recreation 1091 in the last year

28 New Articles In this
Issue

40 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

Glycine
From the People's Republic of China

A Notice by the International
Trade Administration on 12/09/2013

The Department of Commerce published its Preliminary
Rescission for the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on
glycine from the People's Republic of China covering the period of review
March 1, 2012, through August 31, 2012, for Hebei Donghua Jiheng Fine
Chemical Company, Ltd.

photo by: DonkeyHotey

←

1

→

Immigration
& Border Control 248 in the last
year

International
Trade (Anti-Dumping) 564 in the last
year

Cultural
Objects Imported for Exhibition 87 in the last
year

Controlled
Exports (CCL & USML) 64 in the last
year

24 New Articles In this
Issue

23 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

North
Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program Standard Ex-Vessel
Prices

A Notice by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 12/09/2013

NMFS publishes standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish
and halibut for the calculation of the observer fee under the North
Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program. This notice is intended
to provide information to vessel owners, processors, registered buyers,
and other participants about the standard ex-vessel prices.

photo by: Steve
Betts

←

1

→

Broadband
Policy 200 in the last year

Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Resources 481 in the
last year

Patent,
Trademark, and Copyright 1272 in the last
year

Climate
Change 425 in the last year

37 New Articles In this
Issue

53 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

Partnerships;
Start-Up Expenditures; Organization and Syndication Fees

A Proposed Rule by the Internal
Revenue Service on 12/09/2013

This document contains proposed regulations concerning
the deductibility of start-up expenditures and organizational expenses for
partnerships. The proposed regulations provide guidance regarding the
deductibility of start-up expenditures and organizational expenses for
partnerships following a technical termination of a partnership.

photo by: Ray
Tsang

←

1

→

Automobile
Safety & Fuel Economy 42 in the last
year

Air Travel
133 in the last year

Oil and
Gas Leasing 35 in the last year

Trade
Adjustment Assistance 291 in the last
year

52 New Articles In this
Issue

65 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards

A Rule by the Housing
and Urban Development Department on 12/09/2013

This final rule amends the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards by adopting certain recommendations made
to HUD by the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC), as modified
by HUD.

photo by: Tim
Evanson

←

1

→

Health Care
Reform 357 in the last year

Veterans
Employment & Training 32 in the last
year

Veterans
Educational Benefits 6 in the last year

Disaster
Declarations & Assistance 923 in the last
year

23 New Articles In this
Issue

30 Comment Periods Ending
Soon

Browse

Agencies

Topics

Dates

Public
Inspection

Executive Orders

Go to a specific agency

Go to a
specific agency:

Browse Agencies

Agriculture
Department

27

10

0

Commerce
Department

46

10

8

Defense
Department

29

12

7

Education
Department

5

6

7

Energy
Department

21

5

4

Environmental
Protection Agency

30

16

19

Health
and Human Services Department

45

17

6

Homeland
Security Department

22

15

8

Housing
and Urban Development Department

13

1

1

Interior
Department

19

13

12

Justice
Department

14

1

0

Labor
Department

16

6

9

State
Department

3

2

1

Transportation
Department

54

39

32

Treasury
Department

15

5

2

Veterans
Affairs Department

2

0

8

Go to a Specific Topic

Go to a specific
topic:

Browse Topics

Air
pollution control

8

3

5

Air
transportation

14

10

1

Airspace

10

5

4

Aviation
safety

19

15

8

Environmental
protection

14

3

5

Intergovernmental
relations

8

2

4

Marine
safety

4

1

2

Navigation
(air)

10

5

4

Navigation
(water)

4

1

2

Waterways

4

1

2

Current Issue 234 Pages

3
Significant Documents

88

12

12

Explore

November

« Prev

Next
»

S

M

T

W

T

F

S

27

28

29

30

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

December

« Prev

S

M

T

W

T

F

S

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2

3

4

Go to a specific date

Go to
a specific date:

The Public Inspection web page on FederalRegister.gov offers a
preview of documents scheduled to appear in the next day’s Federal
Register issue. The Public Inspection page may also include documents
scheduled for later issues, at the request of the issuing agency. This gives
the public access to important or complex documents before they publish in
the Federal Register. See About
Public Inspection for more information.

Special Filing updated at 11:15 AM, on Wednesday,
December 11th, 2013

5
articles from 4 agencies.

4

1

Regular Filing updated at 08:45 AM, on Wednesday,
December 11th, 2013

89
articles from 36 agencies.

70

7

12

Barack Obama

EO 13653:
Preparing
the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

EO 13652:
Continuance
Of Certain Federal Advisory Committees

EO 13651:
Prohibiting
Certain Imports of Burmese Jadeite and Rubies

2009: 39

2010: 35

2011: 33

2012: 38

2013: 19

George W. Bush

2001: 51

2002: 32

2003: 40

2004: 46

2005: 27

2006: 25

2007: 32

2008: 29

2009: 5

William J. Clinton

1993: N/A

1994: 54

1995: 40

1996: 50

1997: 38

1998: 38

1999: 35

2000: 39

2001: 14

Search

Article Search

Advanced
Article Search

Events Search

Unified Agenda
Search

Public
Inspection Search

FR Index

Policy

About Us

Legal Status

Contact Us

Privacy

Accessibility

FOIA

No Fear Act

Continuity
Information

Learn

User
Information

About
Public Inspection

Document
Drafting & Research

Related
Resources

Tutorials, History,
and Statistics

Regulatory
Journals

Regulatory
Improvement

Developers

Blog

view all

Recent Blog
Posts

Federal
Register Workshop, Online!

Posted by Aaron Woo on December 9, 2013

The Office of the Federal Register(OFR) regularly
offers a workshop entitled “Federal Register, What is it and How to Use
it”. The workshop provides an overview of the regulatory process... Continue
reading →

Public
Printer to Testify Before House

Posted by Amelia Otovo on December 3, 2013

Public Printer Davita Vance-Cooks is slated
to testify in an oversight hearing before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on House Administration Wednesday. The hearing
on GPO in 2023:... Continue
reading →

Government
is Re-Opening

Posted by Aaron Woo on October 17, 2013

Congress has restored funding of appropriated
activities and the government has begun to resume normal operations.... Continue
reading →

My FR

My Subscriptions

My Clipboard

Sign In / Sign Up

Search the Federal Register

0

Sign
in

Sign up

The
Federal Register

The Daily Journal of the United States
Government

Notice

Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program

A Notice by the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on 11/25/2013

Email

Twitter

Facebook

This article has a comment period that ends in 15 days (12/26/2013) Submit a formal comment

Read the 26 submitted public comments

Skip
the metadata and jump to content

Previous
Article Next
Article

Legal
Disclaimer

Font Controls

Increase

Decrease

Sans

Serif

PDF

DEV
Print
Public
Inspection

Publication Date:

Monday,
November 25, 2013

Agencies:

Department
of Transportation

Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Dates:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December
26, 2013.

Comments Close:

12/26/2013

Entry Type:

Notice

Action:

Notice and request for comments.

Document Citation:

78 FR 70399

Page:

70399 -70410 (12 pages)

Agency/Docket Number:

Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124 Notice No. 13-20

Document Number:

2013-28168

Shorter URL:

https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-28168

Regulations.gov Docket Info

Docket Number

PHMSA-2013-0124

Docket Name

Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program

Public Comments

26 comments

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.

Table of Contents Back
to Top

DATES:

ADDRESSES:

FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

1.
History of and Current Regulatory Requirements for Shipping Papers

2.
Authority Granted Under MAP-21

3.
Goal, Scope, and Intent of the Pilot Program

4.
Pilot Test Volunteer Participants and Comments to the Web Site Announcement
and 60-Day Notice

Category
1: Entities Expressing Interest in Participating in the Pilot Tests

Category
2: Non-Participant Volunteer Entities Confirming the Importance of
E-Communication Aspects/Validating Stakeholder Information Paper
Observations

Category
3: Entities Submitting Only Their Contact Information or Unclear Comments

5.
Criteria Used for Selecting Pilot Project Participants

Law
Enforcement and Emergency Response Volunteers

Shipper
and Carrier Volunteers

Shipper
and Carrier Participant Questions

6.
Request for Information (Following Selection of Pilot Test Participants)

Shipper
and Carrier Information

Inspection
Simulation Questions

Emergency
Response Simulation Questions

Impact
Analysis Questions

7.
Total Information Collection Burden

Shipper
and Carrier Participant Questions: 55 Respondents × 0.5 Hr. = 27.5 Hours

Shipper
and Carrier Information: 40 Respondents × 4.0 Hr. = 160 Hours

Inspection
Simulation Questions: 260 Respondents × 1.0 Hr. = 260 Hours

Emergency
Response Simulation Questions: 24 Respondents × 1.0 Hr. = 24 Hours

Impact
Analysis Questions: 250 Respondents x 1.5 Hr. = 375 Hours

Total
Information Collection Burden: 629 Respondents 846.5 Hours

DATES: Back
to Top

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on
or before December 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Back
to Top

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, [email-masked].

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 http://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 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Back
to Top

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 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: Back
to Top

1. History of and Current Regulatory Requirements for Shipping Papers
Back
to Top

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 103, 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 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 Back
to Top

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 Back
to Top

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.

4. Pilot Test Volunteer Participants and Comments to the Web Site
Announcement and 60-Day Notice Back
to Top

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.):

ID No.

Company name

Address associated with comment

Offer to 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 Texas

YES

Web Posting

1

5

Tellus Operating Group, LLC

Mississippi

YES

Web Posting

1

6

DG Consulting International LLC

New Hampshire

NO

Web Posting

2

7

Whitehurst Paving Company

Virginia

YES

Web Posting

1

8

American President Lines, Limited (International-Americas Region)

Arizona

YES

Web Posting

1

9

Coastal Transport Company, Incorporated

Texas

YES

Web Posting

1

10

Spill Center, Incorporated

Massachusetts

YES

Web Posting

1

11

Reactives Management Corporation

Virginia

YES

Web Posting

1

12

GBK Gefahrgut Buro Gmbh

Not Provided (International headquarters in Germany)

YES

Web Posting

1

13

ICC Compliance Center

Not Provided (offices in Ohio, Texas, and New York)

YES

Web Posting

1

14

HAZMATEAM, Incorporated

Not Provided

YES

Web Posting

1

15

Environmental Resource Center

North Carolina

YES

Web Posting

1

16

Project Consulting Services, Incorporated

Texas

YES

Web Posting

1

17

Walkerville Area Fire and Rescue

Michigan

YES

Web Posting

1

18

Hopkinsville Fire Department

Kentucky

YES

Web Posting

1

19

Florida Division of Emergency Management

Florida

YES

Web Posting

1

20

Grand Junction Fire Department

Colorado

YES

Web Posting

1

21

San Diego Fire-Rescue Department

California

YES

Web Posting

1

22

Michigan Department of Community Health

Michigan

YES

Web Posting

1

23

Madonna University

Michigan

YES

Web Posting

1

24

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center

Texas

NO

Web Posting

2

25

Federal Aviation Administration

District of Columbia

YES

Web Posting

1

26

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Texas

YES

Web Posting

1

27

Federal Railroad Administration

District of Columbia

YES

Web Posting

1

28

Port of Tacoma

Washington

YES

Web Posting

1

29

Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles

Florida

YES

Web Posting

1

30

New Mexico State Police

New Mexico

YES

Web Posting

1

31

United States Coast Guard

California

YES

Web Posting

1

32

Unknown (Daniel Gregory)

Not Provided

NO

Web Posting

2

33

Unknown (Doug Shackelford)

Not Provided

NO

Web Posting

2

34

Bombardier

Illinois

YES

Web Posting

1

35

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

New Jersey

YES

Web Posting

1

36

Huntsman

Not Provided (headquarters in Texas)

YES

Web Posting

1

37

Interline Brands, Incorporated

Florida

YES

Web Posting

1

38

Citgo

Not Provided (headquarters in Texas)

YES

Web Posting

1

39

Air Liquide America Specialty Gases

Colorado

YES

Web Posting

1

40

Fairchild Semiconductor

Maine

YES

Web Posting

1

41

Raytheon Company

Arizona

YES

Web Posting

1

42

Midstream Pipeline Safety/CenterPoint Energy

Louisiana

Unknown (reply is ambiguous)

Web Posting

3

43

Kinder Morgan, Incorporated

Not provided (headquarters in Texas)

YES

Web Posting

1

44

Hartman Brothers, Incorporated

Colorado

YES

Web Posting

1

45

Maine Drilling & Blasting

New Hampshire

YES

Web Posting

1

46

Master Meter Program, Pipeline Safety, State Board of Public
Utilities

New Jersey

YES

Web Posting

1

47

Garner

Texas

Unknown (reply is ambiguous)

Web Posting

3

48

Combined Accident Reduction Efforts, Incorporated

Texas

YES

Web Posting

1

49

Blue Rock

Colorado

YES

Web Posting

1

50

United Steel Workers

Pennsylvania

YES

Web Posting

1

51

Unknown (Michael Wagner)

Not Provided

YES

Web Posting

1

52

Unknown (Carl Zebrocki)

Not Provided

YES

Web Posting

1

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 Larkin)

Florida

NO

60-Day Notice

2

60

EHSSE

Missouri

YES

60-Day Notice

1

61

Norfolk Southern Corporation

Georgia

YES

60-Day Notice and Web Posting

1

62

Nordstrom Direct

Iowa

YES

60-Day Notice

1

63

International Association of Fire Chiefs

Virginia

NO

60-Day Notice

2

64

Turnkey Technical Services

Tennessee

YES

60-Day Notice

1

65

HMF2, LLC

California

YES

60-Day Notice and Web Posting

1

66

Tri-County Fire Department

Texas

YES

60-Day Notice

1

67

Qualified Carriers

New Jersey

YES

60-Day Notice

1

68

Cherry Hill Fire District #13

New Jersey

YES

60-Day Notice

1

69

Mid Columbia Fire and Rescue

Oregon

YES

60-Day Notice

1

70

Maryland Department of the Environment

Maryland

YES

60-Day Notice and Web Posting

1

71

Seattle Fire Department

Washington

YES

60-Day Notice

1

72

Indiana State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division

Indiana

YES

60-Day Notice

1

73

Fire Department, City of New York

New York

YES

60-Day Notice

1

74

Unknown (Raymond Lewis)

Ohio

YES

60-Day Notice

1

75

American Trucking Association

Virginia

NO

60-Day Notice

2

76

Unknown (Daniel Collins)

Ohio

YES

60-Day Notice

1

77

AllTransPack, Incorporated (ATP)

Virginia

YES

60-Day Notice and Web Posting

1

78

CSX Transportation

Florida

YES

60-Day Notice

1

79

Union Pacific

Nebraska

YES

60-Day Notice

1

80

Cardinal Health Nuclear Pharmacy Services

Ohio

YES

60-Day Notice

1

81

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

Maryland

NO

60-Day Notice

2

82

Labelmaster Services

Illinois

YES

60-Day Notice

1

83

Quality Distribution Incorporated

Florida

YES

60-Day Notice

1

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 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 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 Back
to Top

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 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?

6. Request for Information (Following Selection of Pilot Test
Participants) Back
to Top

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?

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?

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., 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 Back
to Top

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

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 × 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 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 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 × 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 × 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

Home

Home

Sections

Money

Environment

World

Science
& Technology

Business
& Industry

Health
& Public Welfare

Browse

Agencies

Topics

Dates

Public
Inspection

Executive
Orders

Search

Article
Search

Advanced
Article Search

Events Search

Unified
Agenda Search

Public
Inspection Search

Policy

About Us

Legal Status

Contact Us

Privacy

Accessibility

FOIA

No Fear Act

Continuity
Information

Learn

User
Information

About
Public Inspection

Document
Drafting & Research

Related
Resources

Tutorials, History, and
Statistics

Regulatory Journals

Regulatory
Improvement

Developers

Blog

Blog

My FR

My Clipboard

Sign In

Site
Feedback