[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41179-41185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0043; Notice No. 2022-06]


Hazardous Materials: Request for Information on Electronic Hazard 
Communication Alternatives

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA seeks input on the potential use of electronic 
communication as an alternative to current, physical documentation 
requirements for hazard communication.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 
September 9, 2022. Comments received after that date will be considered 
to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number 
PHMSA-2021-0043 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing 
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System; Room W12-140 on 
the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
Docket Number (PHMSA-2022-0043) for this notice. To avoid duplication, 
please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will 
be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 
and will include any personal information you provide.
    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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits 
comments from the public. DOT posts these comments, without edit, 
including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Confidential Business Information (CBI): CBI is commercial or 
financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as 
private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 
U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt

[[Page 41180]]

from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice 
contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated 
as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or 
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate 
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission 
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' PHMSA will treat such marked submissions 
as confidential under FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public 
docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to 
Eamonn Patrick, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. PHMSA will place any commentary not specifically designated as 
CBI into the public docket for this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eamonn Patrick, Standards and 
Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    PHMSA is considering revisions to the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR), which would authorize a performance-based electronic 
communication alternative to the existing physical, paper-based hazard 
communication requirements. This revision is meant to facilitate and 
promote the use of electronic hazard communication. For the purpose of 
this request for information (RFI), ``hazard communication'' means 
shipping papers, train consists, dangerous goods manifests, 
notifications to the pilot in command, and emergency response 
information, as well as associated administrative documentation 
including Department of Transportation (DOT) Special Permits (SPs), 
approvals, and registrations.
    The HMR currently require that hazard communication be maintained 
as physical, printed documents during transportation. However, widely 
adopted technologies could supplement, or replace, the existing paper-
based hazard communication system, and offer opportunities for improved 
emergency response and oversight, as well as increased efficiency in 
the operations of transportation networks. PHMSA anticipates that 
electronic communication would improve transportation safety, 
efficiency, and effectiveness by providing electronic access to the 
same required information currently contained in hazard communication 
documents. With this RFI, PHMSA seeks your input, to help determine the 
most effective mechanisms and potential impediments for implementing 
electronic hazard communication.

II. Background

    PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment by 
advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous 
materials that are essential to our daily lives. To achieve this 
mission, PHMSA establishes national policy, sets and enforces HMR 
standards, educates, and conducts research to prevent hazardous 
materials incidents. In doing so, PHMSA collaborates closely with other 
Federal agencies and operating administrations, including the Federal 
Motor Carriers Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration, and United States Coast Guard. Federal 
hazardous materials law authorizes the Secretary to ``prescribe 
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of 
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce'' 
49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to 
PHMSA in 49 CFR 1.97(b).
    The HMR are designed to achieve three primary goals:
    (1) Ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely 
and securely during transportation.
    (2) Effectively communicate the hazards of the materials being 
transported to transportation workers and emergency responders.
    (3) Minimize the consequences of an accident or incident, should 
one occur.
    The HMR provide hazard communication requirements for the transport 
of hazardous materials in subparts C through G of part 172 of the HMR, 
with modal specific requirements in parts 174 to 177. This RFI 
addresses the following topics:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                               Topic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 172, subpart C...............  Shipping papers.
Part 172, subpart G...............  Emergency response information.
Sec.   174.26.....................  Train consists.
Sec.   175.33.....................  Notifications to the pilot in
                                     command.
Sec.   176.30.....................  Dangerous cargo manifests.
Sec.   177.817....................  Shipping papers in motor vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This RFI also addresses documents that accompany shipments that may 
not have a direct emergency response purpose, but either commonly 
accompany shipments or are present on transportation vehicles, 
including DOT SPs, approvals, and registrations.
    The HMR requires that all copies of the shipping papers used for 
transportation purposes must be legible and printed (manually or 
mechanically) in English (see Sec.  172.201(a)(2)). Section 
172.201(a)(5) authorizes rail carriers to accept shipping papers 
information either telephonically (e.g., voice communications and 
facsimiles) or by electronic data interchange (EDI), however the train 
consist containing the hazardous materials description carried by the 
train crew must still be maintained as a physical document (see Sec.  
174.26). Emergency response information is required to be maintained in 
the same manner as a shipping paper, i.e., printed manually or 
mechanically in English (see Sec.  172.602(c)).
    Prior to this RFI, PHMSA considered various alternatives to current 
requirements for paper-based hazardous materials documentation, 
primarily focusing on electronic shipping papers. Previous activities 
related to electronic shipping papers include:
    (1) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste E-
Manifest,
    (2) Current DOT-SPs for electronic hazard communications 
information used in highway and rail transportation,
    (3) The Hazardous Materials Automated Cargo Communications for 
Efficient and Safety Shipments (HM-ACCESS) pilot project,
    (4) Integrated Communications, Information and Support Platform for 
Hazardous Materials Stakeholders

[[Page 41181]]

Across Multiple Modes (HazSMART) research, and
    (5) Transport Canada's (TC) ongoing Regulatory Sandbox on 
Electronic Shipping Documents.
    These activities provide a baseline for PHMSA's development of this 
RFI. All documents discussed here are available for review in the RFI 
docket.

EPA Hazardous Waste E-Manifest

    The EPA developed the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-
Manifest) System to aid in the cradle-to-grave tracking of hazardous 
waste.\a\ EPA identified the following benefits of the e-Manifest 
system:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \a\ https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cost savings,
     Accurate and more timely information on waste shipments,
     Rapid notification of discrepancies or other problems 
related to a particular shipment,
     Creation of a single hub for one-stop reporting of 
manifest data for use by EPA and states,
     Increased effectiveness of compliance monitoring of waste 
shipments by regulators, and
     Potential for integrating manifest reporting with the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) biennial reporting 
process and other federal and state information systems.
    The development and maintenance costs of the e-Manifest system is 
offset by user fees charged to hazardous waste manifest users.
    While the goal of the EPA e-Manifest system is related to this DOT-
led electronic hazard communication project, there are substantial 
differences. First, the e-Manifest system is not designed to provide 
information to emergency response organizations during a hazardous 
material transportation incident, which is a primary purpose of DOT 
hazard communication documents. Also, DOT has no legal authority to 
charge user fees for an electronic hazard communication system. 
Finally, hazardous wastes are only a small subset of the approximately 
1.2 million hazardous materials shipments that transit the United 
States every day. Despite these differences, the successful 
implementation of the e-Manifest system is an instructive example for 
transitioning from a paper-intensive process to a national electronic 
manifest system.

DOT Special Permits

    PHMSA safely allows technological innovation through its special 
permit program. Special permits set forth requirements for performance 
of functions not otherwise allowed by--or a variance to--the 
requirements of the HMR. These functions must either (1) achieve an 
equivalent level of safety to that required under the regulations, or 
(2) if a required safety level does not exist, do so in a manner 
consistent with the public interest. PHMSA's Approvals and Permits 
Division is responsible for the issuance of DOT special permits in 
accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 107, subpart B.
    The HMR often include performance-based standards that provide the 
regulated community with some flexibility in meeting safety 
requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be 
anticipated and covered under the regulations. The hazardous materials 
community is at the cutting edge of development of new materials, 
technologies, and innovative ways of moving hazardous materials. 
Special permits provide a mechanism for testing new technologies, 
promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and 
ensuring economic competitiveness without compromising safety. In this 
way, they allow the hazardous materials industry to integrate new 
products and technologies into production and the transportation stream 
safely, quickly, and effectively.
    PHMSA has issued several DOT-SPs in recent years related to the 
maintenance of hazard communication information in an electronic 
format. For rail transportation, PHMSA issued DOT-SPs which permit 
train crews to maintain the train consist (required by Sec.  174.26) on 
an electronic device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet) carried by the 
train crew in the locomotive cab, and to transmit the train consist 
information electronically to emergency responders or other authorized 
Federal, state, or local officials in the event of an incident, 
accident, or inspection. These SPs include:
     DOT-SP 20954 to BNSF Railway Company,
     DOT-SP 21053 to Canadian National Railway Company,
     DOT-SP 21046 to CSX Transportation,
     DOT-SP 21059 to Union Pacific, and
     DOT-SP 21110 to Norfolk Southern.
    For highway transportation, PHMSA issued DOT-SP 15747 to United 
Parcel Service (UPS). Under this SP, the physical shipping papers and 
emergency response information can be replaced with a document 
instructing responders to call a specific phone number and provide the 
trailer's unique identification number. The call center is then 
required to provide shipping papers and emergency response information 
in a single electronic transmission within five (5) minutes. The types 
and quantities of hazardous materials authorized for transportation in 
accordance with DOT-SP 15747 are limited, and do not encompass all, or 
even most, types and quantities of hazardous materials transported by 
highway in the United States.

HM-ACCESS

    The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe 
Center) conducted the Hazardous Materials Automated Cargo 
Communications for Efficient and Safe Shipments (HM-ACCESS) project 
from 2011-2015 and issued a report to Congress on behalf of PHMSA in 
2016. The HM-ACCESS project consisted of consultation with 
stakeholders; pilot tests with hazardous materials offerors, carriers, 
inspectors, and emergency responders; and a survey of stakeholders. HM-
ACCESS determined that many shippers and carriers in the rail, vessel, 
and air modes already have electronic systems in place that could be 
used to accept and transmit hazard communication information. Highway 
shippers and carriers are a more complex, heterogeneous group, so not 
all entities would be able to accept and transmit hazard communication 
information.
    Since rail and air modes already utilize electronic systems, most 
inspectors who perform compliance inspections at rail and air 
transportation facilities have electronic devices that can receive and 
display hazard communication information. Inspectors who conduct 
container inspections in port areas before and after vessel 
transportation were found to have more limited access to electronic 
devices. Many highway inspectors who conduct motor vehicle inspections 
have electronic devices in their vehicles that could be used to receive 
and display electronic hazard communication information. However, the 
readiness of highway inspectors to utilize electronic hazard 
communication is less certain due to the lower usage rate of electronic 
systems by highway carriers and potential connectivity issues.
    The report found that professional emergency responders in urban 
areas generally have access to electronic devices capable of receiving 
and displaying hazard communication information, as well as high 
confidence that their response areas are covered by data networks 
without connectivity issues. But volunteer organizations, especially 
those in rural areas, may lack

[[Page 41182]]

both the required systems and necessary data connectivity. These rural 
and volunteer organizations would potentially need to rely upon hazard 
communication relayed via voice-only communication from their 
dispatcher, if a physical hazard communication document was not 
available at the scene of an incident.
    The HM-ACCESS report found that the implementation of a 
performance-based electronic hazard communication standard could 
provide safety and economic benefits, but these benefits would depend 
on numerous variables. Potential safety benefits identified in the 
report include more timely provision of information during an 
emergency, increased accuracy of hazard communication, increased 
redundancy if the electronic system provides multiple methods of 
information access, and improved access to hazard communication 
information away from the vehicle involved. The report found that the 
economic costs and benefits of implementation are likely to vary across 
different modes, and would depend on the size of the company involved, 
previous investments made to electronic systems, the range of hazardous 
materials involved, and the complexity of the system, among other 
factors.

HazSMART Research Project

    PHMSA funded the HazSMART research project and received a final 
report from Factor, Inc. and Spill Center, Inc. in 2020. The objective 
of HazSMART was to develop and deploy technologies that could connect 
hazardous materials transportation industry stakeholders during 
scenarios in which sharing hazard and shipment information is needed to 
protect public health and safety, such as in hazardous materials 
incidents. The project developed a central platform for management of 
shipping, transport, geographic information systems, and incident data. 
The HazSMART platform included a response dashboard, which provided 
protective action distances to emergency responders and other 
authorized stakeholders. While the HazSMART project was not intended to 
develop an electronic hazard communication standard, participants in an 
exercise with emergency responders noted that the technologies 
developed in the HazSMART project have the capability to receive, send, 
and display required shipping paper elements and could be further 
developed into an electronic hazard communication system.

Transport Canada (TC) Regulatory Sandbox on Electronic Shipping 
Documents

    Since early 2020, TC has authorized a pilot project to evaluate 
electronic hazard communication for highway, rail, and air hazardous 
materials transportation. This pilot project, known as the ``Regulatory 
Sandbox on Electronic Shipping Documents,'' was conducted by three rail 
carriers, three highway carriers, and one Unmanned Aerial Systems 
carrier in accordance with Equivalency Certificates (ECs) issued by 
Transport Canada. The ECs authorize each carrier to maintain and 
transmit shipping paper information in an electronic format, subject to 
the limitations and conditions of each EC. Important features of the 
Transport Canada ECs include standardized vehicle markings and 
redundant electronic hazard communication systems, able to provide 
necessary information to emergency responders in multiple formats.

III. Questions

    PHMSA requests information on the implications of authorizing 
electronic hazard communication. For the purpose of this RFI, paper 
``hazard communication'' means shipping papers, train consists, 
dangerous goods manifests, notifications to the pilot in command, and 
emergency response information, as well as associated administrative 
documentation including DOT-SPs, approvals, and registrations. The 
questions below are divided into two sections: Section A for emergency 
response and inspection organizations, and Section B for organizations 
who offer, transport, or facilitate the movement of hazardous 
materials. PHMSA requests that you provide as much information as 
possible and answer as many of the questions as applicable.
    We encourage trade associations, labor unions, and other 
organizations that represent companies and workers in the emergency 
response, hazardous materials inspection, hazardous material 
transportation, and technology fields to respond as well. If you 
represent such an organization, please choose the appropriate section; 
for the ``Identification'' questions, briefly describe the types of 
companies and workers that your organization represents.

A. Emergency Response Community and Authorized Officials

    Note: In this section, the terms ``inspectors'' and ``inspection 
organizations'' refer to any local or state entity that is authorized 
to receive and review shipping paper records, but does not typically 
respond to incidents, accidents, or other hazardous material 
transportation emergencies.
1. Identification
    a. What type of inspection or emergency response organization do 
you represent (e.g., law enforcement, fire and rescue (including 
volunteer), emergency medical services, specialized hazardous materials 
incident response organization, transportation and public works, towing 
and recovery, etc.)?
    i. What level of hazardous materials response training do you have?
    ii. For emergency responders, do you rely on outside support (e.g., 
state, federal, contract organization) for hazardous materials incident 
response? Please explain.
    iii. Approximately how many employees work in your response or 
inspection organization?
    b. Which description below best describes your typical response or 
inspection area population density and layout?
    i. Urban,
    ii. Rural,
    iii. Suburban,
    iv. Not applicable (Varies widely; not limited to a specific 
geographic location.)
2. Background (Responsibilities and Capabilities)
    a. Please list or identify any major transportation hubs that 
handle hazardous materials (e.g., airports, ports, rail yards) or 
routes (e.g., interstate highways, rail corridors) contained in your 
response or inspection area.
    b. For responders, how many incidents involving hazardous materials 
transportation do you respond to per year, on average? What percentage 
of your total annual responses is this?
    c. For inspectors, how many hazardous materials compliance 
inspections or investigations do you conduct per year, on average?
    d. Approximately what percentage of your response or inspection 
area is covered by a wireless technology network that supports portable 
electronic devices capable of communications, data processing, and/or 
computing?
    e. Approximately what percentage of your response or inspection 
area is covered by a voice-only radio network?
    f. Does your organization currently issue, or do persons in your 
organization have access to, portable electronic devices in vehicles 
capable of:
    (1) receiving and displaying hazard communication information?

[[Page 41183]]

    (2) accessing the internet consistently during a response or 
inspection?
    i. If yes to either, describe the types of devices. Are they 
available to all persons or units, or only a subset?
    ii. If yes to either, do you currently use an electronic system to 
receive and display electronic hazard communication that specifically 
identifies the hazardous materials present in a transport vehicle or 
container? If so, please identify and describe the system, especially 
how the data is received and transmitted.
    iii. If no to either, are there budgetary or other constraints that 
would prevent you from upgrading your equipment to accommodate an 
electronic hazard communication system? Please describe.
3. Responding to a Hazardous Materials Incident (Needs and Systems)
    Note: Inspectors, please see the next section (Section 4).
    a. What additional hazard communication information would aid in 
emergency response, beyond what is currently required in the HMR? What 
currently required hazard communication information is unnecessary for 
emergency response? Please provide detailed examples.
    b. How often are paper-based hazard communication documents 
inaccessible during a hazardous materials incident response? What are 
the reasons for this inaccessibility? What steps are taken to obtain 
needed information if the document is not available during an incident?
    c. Do you use existing system(s) designed to provide electronic 
information to emergency responders arriving at a scene? And if so, 
which system(s)? Could these systems be adapted for use in transmission 
of hazard communication information?
    d. What role do dispatchers play in obtaining hazard communication 
information in an incident response for your organization? Do you 
experience difficulties in relaying information from a dispatcher to 
responders at a scene? If yes, please explain.
    e. What are the differences in type, format, and content of hazard 
communication you need to respond to incidents in different modes 
(e.g., highway versus rail, vessel, aircraft at airport)?
    f. To respond appropriately to an incident involving mixed freight 
and less than truckload (LTL) in the highway mode, do you need 
additional information on the non-hazardous materials that are being 
transported alongside the hazardous material?
    g. Are you concerned that increased reliance on electronic devices 
for emergency response purposes would create a distraction during 
emergency responses? Why or why not?
4. Conducting a Hazardous Materials Inspection (Needs and Systems)
    Note: emergency response organizations, please see previous section 
(Section 3).
    a. What additional hazard communication information would aid in 
inspections, beyond what is currently required in the HMR? What 
currently required hazard communication information is unnecessary for 
inspection? Please provide detailed examples.
    b. How often are paper-based hazard communication documents 
inaccessible during a hazardous materials inspection? What are the 
reasons for the lack of information availability? What steps do you 
take if documents are not available during an inspection?
    c. Do you currently use electronic systems for inspections 
unrelated to hazardous materials and/or hazardous material inspections? 
If so, please describe. Could systems non-hazardous material 
inspections be adapted to enhance hazardous material inspections? If 
so, please describe.
    d. Are you concerned that increased reliance on electronic devices 
for inspection purposes would create a distraction during the 
inspection? Why or why not?
5. Preferences for an Electronic Hazard Communication Alternative
    a. How would you like to receive hazard communication documents if 
electronic transmission were permitted? What format or means would best 
suit your organization's current equipment and capabilities?
    b. What format or means would you prefer for the electronic 
transmission of hazard communication, if there were no limitations on 
cost or capabilities?
    c. Should the information content and format for electronic hazard 
communication be standardized across all modes, to facilitate 
recognition in an emergency or inspection?
    d. Do you have any recommendations for communicating that 
electronic hazard communication is in use, such as a standardized 
visual aid (e.g., a marking or placard) on the exterior of the 
transport vehicle or container, or other means?
    e. What is your preference for how electronic hazard communication 
documents should be maintained, transmitted, and overseen?
    f. What additional costs, if any, would there be for your 
organization to successfully utilize electronic hazard communication 
(e.g., new electronic devices, upgraded data plans, and training)?
    g. Are there certain scenarios in which electronic hazard 
communication should not be allowed? If so, please provide examples.
    h. Approximately how much preparation time would your organization 
need to be capable of using electronic hazard communication during a 
hazardous materials incident response or inspection?
    i. Do you anticipate new training needs to enable the use of 
electronic hazard communication? If so, please describe. In particular, 
describe challenges any new training would pose for your organization.
6. Potential Benefits
    a. Are there benefits for having hazard communication available 
electronically? Do you have any data that can help us quantify your 
input? How could benefits be maximized over paper-based hazard 
communication requirements?
7. Potential Concerns
    a. What concerns do you have regarding the use of an electronic 
hazard communication system in place of paper-based hazard 
communication?
    b. What concerns do you have regarding the reliability of a 
wireless technology network in your response or inspection area? How 
should access to hazard communication be maintained in situations where 
area utilities are disabled? Should persons who use an electronic 
system be required to maintain a backup or redundant system?
    c. What concerns do you have regarding the interoperability of 
equipment maintained by local/county organizations versus state/federal 
organizations?
    d. What concerns do you have regarding import shipments into the 
United States having access to an electronic hazard communication 
system?
    e. What concerns do you have regarding the security of electronic 
hazard communication?
8. Overall Perspective and Input
    a. Do you support the use of electronic hazard communication as an 
alternative to the current paper requirements? Please provide your 
reasoning.
    b. Are there any specific knowledge gaps or areas of concern that 
the Department of Transportation should address, via additional 
information-gathering or research, before authorizing electronic hazard 
communication on a broad basis?

[[Page 41184]]

    c. Is there any additional information that you would like to 
provide to the Department of Transportation for consideration in the 
development of an electronic hazard communication standard?

B. Hazardous Materials Shippers, Carriers, and Logistics Facilitators

1. Identification
    a. Please provide a general description of your business activities 
as related to the transportation of hazardous materials (e.g., less 
than truckload (LTL) highway carrier, bulk chemical shipper, third-
party logistics company, trade association, labor union, technology 
provider, etc.). If you are responding on behalf of a trade 
association, labor union, or other organization, please answer for your 
entire membership, if possible.
    b. In which mode(s) (highway, rail, vessel, air) do you offer, 
transport, or facilitate the movement of hazardous materials? Please 
identify all modes utilized if multi-modal.
    c. Please estimate the number of hazardous materials shipments you 
offer, transport, or provide third-party facilitation for, per year.
    d. Please identify the classes, divisions and quantities (bulk, 
non-bulk, or both) of hazardous materials you offer, transport, or for 
which you provide third-party facilitation.
    e. How many people does your company employ? Is your company (or 
the companies you represent) a small business, as defined by the Small 
Business Administration (SBA)?
    f. What percentage of your business involves the offering, 
transportation, or third-party facilitation of hazardous materials 
shipments?
    g. Do you offer, transport, or provide third-party facilitation for 
hazardous materials transportation solely within a single state, 
between states, or internationally? Do the shipments you offer, 
transport, or facilitate cross through urban, rural, or suburban areas? 
Please identify all that apply.
2. General Participation
    a. Would you consider implementing electronic hazard communication 
if the HMR authorized it as an option? Why or why not? What factors 
would you consider in your determination? Have you analyzed the 
developmental and deployment costs with the safety benefits? If so, 
please share any available data.
    b. What value could you gain by using electronic hazard 
communication? What benefits--financial, organizational, safety, etc.--
could you obtain by implementing electronic hazard communication?
    c. Would you be more likely to adopt electronic hazard 
communication if the hazard information was maintained and transmitted 
utilizing a:
    i. central DOT or other government agency-run repository,
    ii. central third-party run repository,
    iii. performance-based, individual shipper/carrier-based standard,
    iv. another option (please describe)?
    d. If a centralized database was used to maintain and transmit 
hazard communication information, do you have any concerns with DOT/
other government agencies having permanent, historical access to the 
database, rather than having access only during transportation?
    e. To what extent would you participate in an electronic hazard 
communication alternative that was not fully multi-modal (i.e., not all 
modes are authorized for electronic hazard communication)? How high of 
a priority should it be for electronic hazard communication to 
encompass all modes? Which modes should be the highest priority?
    f. To what extent would you use electronic hazard communication if 
the applicability for the electronic standard was limited to bulk 
transport of hazardous materials (i.e., not permitted for LTL and non-
bulk shipments)? How high of a priority should it be for electronic 
hazard communication to encompass all quantities of hazardous materials 
shipments?
    g. Do you anticipate resistance from other entities in the 
hazardous materials supply chain, if you decide to adopt electronic 
hazard communication? If yes, please describe.
    h. How would implementation of electronic hazard communication by 
other entities in the supply chain affect your ability to conduct your 
business activities if you choose to continue to operate using a paper-
based concept of operations?
3. Operational and Economic Considerations
    a. Do you have access to the electronic equipment and software 
systems required to accept, transmit, and update electronic hazard 
communication? Are there scenarios in which you would not? How costly 
would it be to acquire the necessary equipment and software systems?
    b. What additional costs would there be for you to successfully 
utilize an electronic hazard communication system, beyond equipment 
procurement (e.g., electronic infrastructure maintenance, training, 
acquisition of resources)?
    c. To what extent do you currently accept or generate electronic 
shipping documents and utilize electronic systems for non-hazardous 
material shipments or operations?
    d. What electronic systems, if any, do you utilize for shipment 
tracking, segregation, and consolidation of separate hazardous material 
shipping papers into a single dangerous goods (DG) manifest or other 
shipping document?
    e. If applicable, describe the capabilities of the electronic 
systems you use today. What is their potential for adaptation for 
electronic hazard communication?
    f. To what extent would your information technology (IT) 
infrastructure be capable of providing electronic hazard communication 
capabilities to your employees, as well as emergency response 
organizations and inspectors, without delay?
    g. If not currently capable, could you develop the necessary IT 
infrastructure to accept and transmit electronic hazard information? 
Please provide a cost estimate, if possible.
    h. Should PHMSA require standardized information content, format, 
and electronic data interchange protocol for electronic hazard 
communication information?
    i. What time and cost savings could be gained if electronic hazard 
communication information was authorized?
    j. Do you use paper hazard communication documents for other 
purposes (e.g., delivery receipts)? Could electronic hazard 
communication facilitate more efficient use of this documentation?
    k. Are there internal technological, administrative, or cultural 
challenges your organization would have to overcome to implement 
electronic hazard communication?
    l. Do you think adopting electronic hazard communication would 
positively or negatively impact small businesses? Please explain.
    m. For international shipments, are there additional barriers to 
implementing electronic hazard communication? If yes, please describe.
    n. Are there any concerns, issues, or potential benefits related to 
electronic hazard communication that have not been addressed elsewhere 
in this RFI? Is so, please discuss.
4. Security and Privacy
    a. Do you have any security concerns related to electronic hazard 
communication, particularly the storage

[[Page 41185]]

of electronic data outside of your company systems?
    b. Despite the potential benefits, are your security concerns so 
extensive that you would not be willing to participate in electronic 
hazard communication? Please explain.
    c. Is there any information contained on your paper-based hazard 
communication documents that you consider proprietary, or otherwise 
have privacy/business competition concerns with sharing?
    d. In what ways could necessary emergency response and hazard 
communication information be stored in an electronic system separate 
from the proprietary information described above?
5. Implementation
    a. What is your ideal concept of operations for electronic hazard 
communication?
    b. Would it be beneficial to develop a single, industry-standard 
hazard communication information input system accessible to shippers, 
carriers, emergency responders, and inspectors across all modes? Please 
explain.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 6, 2022, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-14655 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


