Document ID: PHMSA-2013-0124-0029
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program
Posted Date: 2013-11-25T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70399-70410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

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

Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA 
invited comments on an information collection under Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0034 entitled, ``Hazardous 
Materials Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information,'' 
pertaining to the Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program. In the 
precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No. 13-7, 
Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July 18, 
2013), PHMSA invited volunteers from organizations representing fire 
and other emergency responders, law enforcement, and other regulated 
entities (i.e., shippers and carriers who transport hazardous materials 
(HM) by air, highway, rail, and water) to participate in a pilot 
program to evaluate the effectiveness of paperless hazard 
communications systems and to comment on and participate in an 
information collection activity associated with the pilot program. This 
30-Day Notice acknowledges comments received regarding the 60-Day 
Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No. 13-7, Federal Register 
Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July 18, 2013) and provides 
details on the four information collection efforts to be conducted 
under the pilot program.

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

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk 
Officer for DOT-PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, by 
fax, 202-395-5806, or by email, OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
    We invite commenters to address the following issues: (1) Whether 
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of PHMSA, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of PHMSA's 
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways 
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 
days of publication.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid 
duplication, please use only one of these three methods.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or 
comments received, go to 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: Luciana DiGhionno, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Engineering and Research Division (PHH-23), Pipeline 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone 
(202) 366-7611. Requests for a copy of the information collection

[[Page 70400]]

should be directed to T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH-12), Pipeline 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC. 20590-0001, Telephone 
(202) 366-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. History of and Current Regulatory Requirements for Shipping Papers

    The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) 
require a person who offers HM for transportation in commerce to 
describe the HM on a shipping paper in the manner required in 49 CFR 
Part 172, Subpart C. The shipping paper requirements identify key 
hazard communication information (i.e., UN number, proper shipping 
name, hazard class, packing group, type and quantity of packaging, and 
emergency response telephone number). Unless an exception from the 
shipping paper requirements is provided in the regulations, a paper 
copy of the shipping paper must accompany HM during transportation. A 
shipping paper includes ``a shipping order, bill of lading, manifest or 
other shipping document serving a similar purpose and containing the 
information required by Sec. Sec.  172.202, 172.203, and 172.204'' (49 
CFR 171.8, definition of ``shipping paper''). A hazardous waste 
manifest ``may be used as the shipping paper'' if it contains all the 
information required by Part 172, Subpart C (49 CFR 172.205(h)). The 
rationale behind a paper-based system is to convey the necessary 
information in a consistent manner that is widely understood and 
accepted by all regulated entities, law enforcement, and emergency 
responders.
    In 1994, Congress amended the Federal HM transportation law to 
require that, after a hazardous material ``is no longer in 
transportation,'' all offerors and carriers of a hazardous material 
must retain the shipping paper ``or electronic image thereof for a 
period of 1 year to be accessible through their respective principal 
places of business'' (49 U.S.C. 5110(e), added by Pub. L. 103-311, 
Title I, Sec.  115, 108 Stat. 1678 (Aug. 26, 1994)). An electronic 
image includes an image transmitted by a facsimile (FAX) machine, an 
image on the screen of a computer, or an image generated by an optical 
imaging machine. In 2002, the Research and Special Programs 
Administration (the predecessor to PHMSA) issued a final rule further 
amending parts 172, 174, 175, and 176 of the HMR regarding the 
retention and information requirements associated with shipping papers. 
The 2002 final rule required shippers and carriers to retain a copy of 
each HM shipping paper, or an electronic image thereof, for a period of 
375 days after the date the HM is accepted by a carrier. Consideration 
for allowing the use of electronic communication while HM are actually 
in transportation is the next step in the evolution of hazard 
communication.

2. Authority Granted Under MAP-21

    Section 33005 of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act'' (MAP-21) authorizes PHMSA to conduct a pilot program to 
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using paperless hazard 
communications systems. In accordance with MAP-21, in conducting the 
pilot projects, PHMSA may not waive the current shipping paper 
requirements and must include at least one rural area in the pilot 
projects. Upon completion of the pilot projects, PHMSA must prepare a 
report to be delivered by the Secretary to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the U.S. Senate and to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives 
by October 1, 2014. The report must provide: (1) A detailed description 
of the pilot projects; (2) an evaluation of each pilot project to 
include an evaluation of the performance of the e-systems; (3) an 
assessment of the safety and security impacts of using electronic HM 
(e-HM) communication systems (e-systems) to include the impact on the 
public, emergency responders, law enforcement, and on conducting 
inspections and investigations; (4) an analysis of the associated 
benefits and costs of using e-systems for each mode of transportation; 
and (5) a recommendation whether e-systems should be permanently 
incorporated into the Federal hazmat regulations.

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

    Beginning in 2007, PHMSA initiated actions to implement paperless 
hazard communications. PHMSA strongly believes, through its prior 
efforts and activities, paperless hazard communication is possible and 
that this pilot program will demonstrate the capabilities of e-systems. 
In the precursor 60-Day Notice (Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0124, Notice No. 
13-7, Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 139, FR Doc. 2013-17363, filed July 
18, 2013), PHMSA described a strategy for conducting the pilot projects 
that will enable PHMSA to evaluate paperless hazard communication 
systems (e-systems) capabilities from a real-world perspective. Key 
aspects of this strategy include the following:
     Determining if e-systems are a feasible and effective 
means of providing hazard communication by evaluating their use while 
shipping HM from point of origin to final destination using different 
transportation conveyances (i.e., trucks, railcars, maritime vessels, 
and airplanes) and during inspection and emergency response 
simulations. (Note: For purposes of the pilot tests conducted under 
this project, ``simulation'' refers to planned exercises designed 
solely to test the feasibility and effectiveness of using e-systems to 
communicate the needed HM shipping paper information during project-
related HM inspections and emergency response scenarios among pilot 
test participants. The scope of the simulations will be defined by 
project data collection needs for testing electronic communication of 
shipping paper information. Emergency response simulations will not 
entail mimicking a full response to a HM incident, and as such will not 
involve testing first responder procedures, equipment, or resources not 
related to the communication of shipping paper information.)
     Using the information gathered during the pilot projects 
(tests) to assess the level of safety and security, as well as the 
associated benefits and costs, of e-systems as compared to the current 
HM shipping paper requirements.
     Conducting the tests without disrupting the normal flow of 
commerce.
     Allowing emergency response providers and law enforcement 
officials to continue to perform their duties and respective roles 
during the simulations according to existing emergency and inspection 
requirements, procedures, and policies.
     Abiding by current HMR hardcopy shipping paper 
requirements while simultaneously testing e-system hazard 
communications capabilities.
    In the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA explained its process and criteria for 
evaluating all pilot test volunteers and selecting those participants 
that satisfy the pilot test qualification requirements, meet the 
criteria specified in MAP-21, and are best able to aid in testing a 
variety of scenarios. PHMSA encouraged shippers, carriers, law 
enforcement, and emergency responders interested in participating in 
the pilot projects to provide statements of interest via comments to 
the 60-Day Notice.

[[Page 70401]]

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

    PHMSA indicated it was seeking shippers, carriers, law enforcement 
personnel, and emergency responders who may be interested in 
volunteering to participate in the pilot projects via an April 2013 Web 
site announcement and through the 60-Day Notice.
    In reply to an April 2013 announcement posted on the HM-ACCESS Web 
site entitled, ``Defining the HM ACCESS Pilot Test,'' PHMSA received 64 
email responses representing 60 companies/agencies/organizations; of 
the 64, four (ID Nos. 2, 4, 26, and 27) were double responses (i.e., 
two entities representing the same agency/company/organization 
response). Of the 60 responding companies/agencies/organizations, 54 
expressed interest in participating in the pilot tests, four (ID Nos. 
6, 24, 32, and 33) indicated they do not want to actively participate, 
and two (ID Nos. 42 and 47) were unclear as to the purpose of their 
responses.
    A total of twenty-eight (28) comments were posted to the 60-Day 
Notice, with one (ID No. 67) responding twice with the same message. Of 
the twenty-seven (27) responding agencies/companies/organizations, four 
(ID Nos. 61, 65, 70, and 77) had previously expressed interest in 
participating in the pilot tests in their responses to the April 2013 
Web site announcement, and four (ID Nos. 59, 63, 75, and 81) indicated 
they do not want to actively participate in the pilot tests, but 
provided comments on key aspects of the HM-ACCESS initiative.
    The data collected during the pilot tests and information 
collection efforts is intended to ensure that the evaluation and 
feasibility report required under MAP-21 focuses on results and 
includes quantitative data on the recommendation for possible 
implementation of e-systems into the Federal HM transportation safety 
program. This data and information will enable PHMSA to more accurately 
assess the safety and security impacts of using e-systems and to 
analyze the associated benefits and cost of using the e-systems.
    The following table provides a list of all respondents (Note: The 
ID Number (No.), unique to each responding agency/company/organization, 
was assigned by PHMSA in the order PHMSA reviewed the responses.):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Address associated       Offer to
     ID No.           Company name          with comment         volunteer         Response venue      Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  Con-way Freight.....  Michigan...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
2...............  United Air Lines....  Illinois...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
3...............  Savage Services.....  Utah...............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
4...............  PSC.................  Pennsylvania and     YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                                         Texas.
5...............  Tellus Operating      Mississippi........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Group, LLC.
6...............  DG Consulting         New Hampshire......  NO...............  Web Posting........            2
                   International LLC.
7...............  Whitehurst Paving     Virginia...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Company.
8...............  American President    Arizona............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Lines, Limited
                   (International-
                   Americas Region).
9...............  Coastal Transport     Texas..............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Company,
                   Incorporated.
10..............  Spill Center,         Massachusetts......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Incorporated.
11..............  Reactives Management  Virginia...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Corporation.
12..............  GBK Gefahrgut Buro    Not Provided         YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Gmbh.                 (International
                                         headquarters in
                                         Germany).
13..............  ICC Compliance        Not Provided         YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Center.               (offices in Ohio,
                                         Texas, and New
                                         York).
14..............  HAZMATEAM,            Not Provided.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Incorporated.
15..............  Environmental         North Carolina.....  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Resource Center.
16..............  Project Consulting    Texas..............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Services,
                   Incorporated.
17..............  Walkerville Area      Michigan...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Fire and Rescue.
18..............  Hopkinsville Fire     Kentucky...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Department.
19..............  Florida Division of   Florida............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Emergency
                   Management.
20..............  Grand Junction Fire   Colorado...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Department.
21..............  San Diego Fire-       California.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Rescue Department.
22..............  Michigan Department   Michigan...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   of Community Health.
23..............  Madonna University..  Michigan...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
24..............  Texas Tech            Texas..............  NO...............  Web Posting........            2
                   University Health
                   Sciences Center.
25..............  Federal Aviation      District of          YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Administration.       Columbia.
26..............  Federal Motor         Texas..............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Carrier Safety
                   Administration.
27..............  Federal Railroad      District of          YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Administration.       Columbia.
28..............  Port of Tacoma......  Washington.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
29..............  Florida Highway       Florida............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Patrol, Florida
                   Department of
                   Highway Safety and
                   Motor Vehicles.
30..............  New Mexico State      New Mexico.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Police.
31..............  United States Coast   California.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Guard.
32..............  Unknown (Daniel       Not Provided.......  NO...............  Web Posting........            2
                   Gregory).
33..............  Unknown (Doug         Not Provided.......  NO...............  Web Posting........            2
                   Shackelford).
34..............  Bombardier..........  Illinois...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
35..............  Mercedes-Benz USA,    New Jersey.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   LLC.
36..............  Huntsman............  Not Provided         YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                                         (headquarters in
                                         Texas).
37..............  Interline Brands,     Florida............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Incorporated.

[[Page 70402]]

 
38..............  Citgo...............  Not Provided         YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                                         (headquarters in
                                         Texas).
39..............  Air Liquide America   Colorado...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Specialty Gases.
40..............  Fairchild             Maine..............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Semiconductor.
41..............  Raytheon Company....  Arizona............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
42..............  Midstream Pipeline    Louisiana..........  Unknown (reply is  Web Posting........            3
                   Safety/CenterPoint                         ambiguous).
                   Energy.
43..............  Kinder Morgan,        Not provided         YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Incorporated.         (headquarters in
                                         Texas).
44..............  Hartman Brothers,     Colorado...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Incorporated.
45..............  Maine Drilling &      New Hampshire......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Blasting.
46..............  Master Meter          New Jersey.........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Program, Pipeline
                   Safety, State Board
                   of Public Utilities.
47..............  Garner..............  Texas..............  Unknown (reply is  Web Posting........            3
                                                              ambiguous).
48..............  Combined Accident     Texas..............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Reduction Efforts,
                   Incorporated.
49..............  Blue Rock...........  Colorado...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
50..............  United Steel Workers  Pennsylvania.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
51..............  Unknown (Michael      Not Provided.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Wagner).
52..............  Unknown (Carl         Not Provided.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
                   Zebrocki).
53..............  Unknown (Tom Wray)..  Not Provided.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
54..............  Unknown (Don Shafer)  Not Provided.......  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
55..............  AristaTek...........  Wyoming............  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
56..............  Intrado.............  Colorado...........  YES..............  Web Posting........            1
57..............  J.B. Hunt...........  Arkansas...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
58..............  CHEMTREC............  Virginia...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
59..............  Unknown (Edward       Florida............  NO...............  60-Day Notice......            2
                   Larkin).
60..............  EHSSE...............  Missouri...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
61..............  Norfolk Southern      Georgia............  YES..............  60-Day Notice and              1
                   Corporation.                                                  Web Posting.
62..............  Nordstrom Direct....  Iowa...............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
63..............  International         Virginia...........  NO...............  60-Day Notice......            2
                   Association of Fire
                   Chiefs.
64..............  Turnkey Technical     Tennessee..........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Services.
65..............  HMF2, LLC...........  California.........  YES..............  60-Day Notice and              1
                                                                                 Web Posting.
66..............  Tri-County Fire       Texas..............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Department.
67..............  Qualified Carriers..  New Jersey.........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
68..............  Cherry Hill Fire      New Jersey.........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   District 13.
69..............  Mid Columbia Fire     Oregon.............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   and Rescue.
70..............  Maryland Department   Maryland...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice and              1
                   of the Environment.                                           Web Posting.
71..............  Seattle Fire          Washington.........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Department.
72..............  Indiana State Police  Indiana............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Commercial Vehicle
                   Enforcement
                   Division.
73..............  Fire Department,      New York...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   City of New York.
74..............  Unknown (Raymond      Ohio...............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Lewis).
75..............  American Trucking     Virginia...........  NO...............  60-Day Notice......            2
                   Association.
76..............  Unknown (Daniel       Ohio...............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Collins).
77..............  AllTransPack,         Virginia...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice and              1
                   Incorporated (ATP).                                           Web Posting.
78..............  CSX Transportation..  Florida............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
79..............  Union Pacific.......  Nebraska...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
80..............  Cardinal Health       Ohio...............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Nuclear Pharmacy
                   Services.
81..............  Commercial Vehicle    Maryland...........  NO...............  60-Day Notice......            2
                   Safety Alliance.
82..............  Labelmaster Services  Illinois...........  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
83..............  Quality Distribution  Florida............  YES..............  60-Day Notice......            1
                   Incorporated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments posted in response to both the Web site announcement 
and the 60-Day Notice are organized into three categories, based on the 
information provided in the comments and information publically 
available on agency/company/organization Web sites. The three 
categories are as follows:
    Category 1--88% of the entities, those expressing interest in 
participating in the pilot tests.
    Category 2--10% of the entities, those not wanting to participate 
in the pilot tests but commenting on use of e-systems; confirming the 
importance of certain aspects of e-communication/validating 
observations in stakeholder information papers; and/or providing 
comments outside of the defined data

[[Page 70403]]

collection and more pertinent to anticipatory regulatory changes.
    Category 3--2% of the entities, those submitting only their contact 
information, and entities posting unclear comments regarding pilot test 
participation.
    No comments were posted to the 60-Day Notice regarding the intended 
types of data collection questions.

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

    73 (88%) of the 83 total entities expressed interest in 
participating in the pilot tests. These 73 entities include ten (10) 
emergency response organizations, three (3) Federal government 
agencies, three (3) state/local government agencies, five (5) law 
enforcement agencies (one Federal agency, three state agencies, and one 
port authority), one (1) university, thirteen (13) carriers, five (5) 
shippers, nine (9) companies that are both shippers and carriers, one 
(1) association, one (1) union, eleven (11) consultants, two (2) 
technology vendors, five (5) companies that function as both vendors 
and consultants, and four (4) unknowns. These 73 entities are primarily 
located in the eastern half of the U.S. and in the South; a few 
entities are located in the Southwest, Northwest, and at international 
locations. Many of the entities have locations in more than one area of 
the U.S. ID No. 82, a company that functions as both a vendor and 
consultant, expressed interest in participating in the pilot projects 
as a consortium of parties to demonstrate the capability of the 
technological solution that it developed in conjunction with these 
partners.

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

    Eight (10%) of the 83 total entities indicated they do not wish to 
actively participate in the pilot tests. Collectively, these entities 
posted comments that indicated they (a) want to continue to receive 
information on the HM-ACCESS effort; (b) want to participate in a 
different PHMSA training event (i.e., submitted in error in response to 
HM-ACCESS); (c) agree with the importance of a particular aspect of the 
HM-ACCESS initiative; and/or (d) want to emphasize the importance of 
particular observations made to date regarding HM-ACCESS. In some 
cases, the comments are not directed to and are outside of the scope of 
the defined data collection, and instead are more pertinent to 
anticipatory regulatory changes. Comments from these eight entities 
included the following:
     Two (ID Nos. 6 and 24) indicated they wanted to receive 
update information on the HM-ACCESS effort as it becomes available. 
PHMSA will keep these entities on the HM-ACCESS information 
distribution email notifications.
     One (ID No. 32) was submitted in error; this entity wanted 
to register for a pipeline hazard safety training event. PHMSA will 
keep this entity on the HM-ACCESS information distribution email 
notifications.
     One (ID No. 33) originally wanted to volunteer to 
participate in the pilot tests, but later rescinded the request. PHMSA 
will keep this entity on the HM-ACCESS information distribution email 
notifications.
     One (ID No. 59) indicated its support of PHMSA's method of 
allowing stakeholders to assist in testing the viability of using e-HM 
shipping papers as an alternative to hardcopy HM shipping papers rather 
than simply issuing a regulatory change, and also affirmed its support 
of changes that reduce paperwork and clutter. PHMSA recognizes these 
comments as being consistent with the current HM-ACCESS methodology and 
pilot test approach.
     One (ID No. 63) emphasized the importance of HM 
information fitting the intended need and being uniform and scalable 
while not including extraneous information; being provided in a 
standard format using cost-effective, standardized tools and data; and 
being accurate as well as immediately available. As described in the 
60-Day Notice, the goal of the paperless hazard communications pilot 
program is to determine if e-systems are a feasible and effective means 
of providing hazard communication; the pilot projects will evaluate the 
feasibility of using e-systems to collect and convey the same 
information that is currently required on a paper copy of an HM 
shipping document as described in 49 CFR 172, Subpart C. Evaluation of 
shipping paper information requirements (content, format, etc.) is 
outside the scope of HM-ACCESS. This entity also confirmed PHMSA's 
proceeding with a performance-based regulatory approach that provides 
for an equivalent or higher level of safety, and commented that e-
shipping paper information used for inspections should be 
instantaneously viewable, thus reducing inspectors' wait time. PHMSA 
reiterates that the pilot tests will study the performance, safety and 
security impacts, and the associated benefits and costs of using e-
systems for HM shipments, without disrupting the normal flow of 
commerce, and that the time needed to send and receive the e-
information will be one of the data fields evaluated during the tests. 
The entity also commented on the need for training on electronic tools 
used to comply with e-shipping papers; the lack of availability of 
devices for receiving e-HM information in the emergency response 
community; and allowing shippers to have the capability for data entry 
and error correction. Although not pertinent to the data collection as 
defined within the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA recognizes the entity's 
equipment, training, and data entry concerns. PHMSA encourages the 
entity to participate in the impact analysis data collection for 
inclusion in the evaluation and feasibility report required under MAP-
21 and to make recommendations for implementing e-systems into the 
Federal HM transportation safety program. The entity emphasized e-
shipping papers should not result in the public safety sector incurring 
additional equipment, data access, connectivity, etc., costs, and that 
the format and content of the electronic HM data must meet the various 
needs and levels of responder operational knowledge and capabilities. 
As described in the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA seeks volunteer pilot test 
participants who currently possess e-system(s) capable of managing and 
communicating the HM shipping paper information at their own expense, 
and who possess their own equipment and personnel and/or contractor 
resources necessary to transport HM shipments. PHMSA is not asking 
companies to purchase additional equipment to support the pilot tests.
     One (ID No. 75) commended PHMSA on its implementation of 
the HM-ACCESS pilot program consistent with MAP-21 requirements. This 
entity emphasized the importance of using e-shipping papers to 
supplement, rather than replace, hardcopy shipping papers until the 
feasibility and effectiveness of using e-shipping papers to communicate 
with law enforcement and emergency responders are proven. This 
commenter also stressed the importance of allowing carriers the choice 
to use hardcopy shipping papers for the foreseeable future, as long as 
the required information is provided and safety is maintained. PHMSA 
reiterates that one strategic aspect of the pilot tests is to abide by 
current HMR hardcopy shipping paper requirements while simultaneously 
testing e-system hazard communications capabilities. Hardcopy shipping 
papers will accompany HM shipments during the pilot tests; the

[[Page 70404]]

only difference during the inspection and emergency response 
simulations will be that the shipping paper information will be 
communicated electronically. The inspectors and emergency responders 
will conduct each simulation following their established inspection and 
response protocols using their own existing equipment and resources. 
This entity also encouraged leveraging pre-existing communications 
standards, such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's 
chosen one for transmitting electronic driver logging information in 
the highway mode, for law enforcement and emergency responders. PHMSA 
has been communicating with its DOT modal counterparts and other 
Federal agencies to coordinate similar electronic HM data collection 
efforts. The entity suggested that PHMSA design the communications 
standard so that any device capable of receiving information from an 
electronic logging device would similarly be capable of receiving 
information from any future paperless hazard communications system, 
thereby lowering technology costs and facilitating acceptance by the HM 
transportation industry. It is not PHMSA's intention at this time 
either to develop an e-communications standard or to test vendors of e-
communications technologies or products; rather, PHMSA will conduct the 
pilot tests to evaluate the feasibility of using e-systems to convey 
the same HM information that is contained on a paper copy of a shipping 
document.
     One (ID No. 81) indicated its support of PHMSA's Paperless 
Hazard Communications Pilot Program, and recommended that PHMSA explore 
the development and management of a uniform e-system that improves HM 
recognition and identification without compromising the safety of law 
enforcement and first responders. As previously stated, the HM-ACCESS 
effort will test and evaluate the feasibility of using e-systems to 
convey the same HM information that is contained on a paper copy of a 
shipping document. PHMSA is not looking to develop a uniform e-system 
at this time; such a substantial level of effort is beyond the scope of 
the MAP-21 mandate, and would most likely require that stakeholders 
purchase additional equipment and resources to utilize the uniform e-
system. The entity also commented that drivers must be informed when HM 
are present and of the method(s) for obtaining e-shipping paper 
information for inspection and emergency response purposes. Drivers are 
currently required to meet the training requirements stipulated in 49 
CFR 177, Subpart A; any future HM transportation regulation amendments 
allowing for the use of e-shipping paper information would likely 
address the methods drivers should use to obtain e-shipping paper 
information. This entity also emphasized (1) the importance that 
devices communicating e-shipping paper information have the capability 
of providing inspectors and first responders the shipping paper 
information required by 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart C; (2) e-shipping 
papers must be carried and be accessible in the manner described in 49 
CFR 177.817(e); and (3) the e-shipping papers included in the pilot 
tests should batch with the corresponding paper copy. PHMSA agrees with 
the importance of these e-shipping paper aspects, and reaffirms the 
goal of the paperless hazard communications pilot program; namely, to 
determine if e-systems are a feasible and effective means of providing 
hazard communication that provides an equivalent level of safety and 
security as compared to the current shipping paper requirements. 
Finally, the entity recognized the burden estimate PHMSA calculated of 
up to one hour for each inspector who participates in the pilot tests 
to complete the inspection simulation questions; commented that the 
additional time spent completing the questions would reduce the number 
of commercial motor vehicle inspections conducted by the inspection 
agency; and recommended PHMSA find funding for agencies participating 
in the pilot tests to offset pilot test participation costs. PHMSA 
understands that this information collection effort may impose a burden 
on respondents; however, no funding is available to reimburse 
participants who participate in the HM-ACCESS pilot test and data 
collection efforts. As previously described, participation in the pilot 
tests and information collection efforts is strictly voluntary, and 
PHMSA will develop the information collection utilizing on-line 
questions, with answers to questions designed to be ``yes,'' ``no,'' or 
multiple choice as much as possible. The information obtained during 
the pilot tests and information collection efforts will assist PHMSA in 
improving safety, hazard communication products, and/or hazard 
communication materials, and in potentially reducing current burden 
hours for completing shipping papers.

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

    Two (2%) of the 83 entities (ID Nos. 42 and 47) responded to the 
April 2013 Web site announcement that they were interested in the 
``hazard communication system'' or in ``paperless updates.'' These 
entities did not state they wanted to participate in the pilot 
projects. PHMSA will keep these entities on the HM-ACCESS information 
distribution email notifications.

5. Criteria Used for Selecting Pilot Project Participants

    PHMSA will evaluate the entities volunteering to participate in the 
pilot tests and select those that best satisfy the pilot project and 
MAP-21 qualification criteria and possess the capability and capacity 
to aid in testing a variety of scenarios.
    PHMSA intends that any pilot conducted under the authority granted 
by MAP-21 will study the performance, safety and security impacts, and 
associated benefits and costs of using e-systems for HM shipments, 
without disrupting the normal flow of commerce. Further, hardcopy 
shipping documents will still be required to accompany each shipment 
during the pilot projects, in accordance with the HMR.
    PHMSA will conduct pilot tests in three, and potentially four, 
regions of the U.S.: the Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and 
Southwest, with at least one pilot test conducted in a rural area 
within one or more of the regions, as prescribed by MAP-21. PHMSA will 
focus the pilot tests in geographical regions possessing high 
concentrations of HM registrants and presenting historically high 
numbers of HM incidents resulting in deaths and injuries.

Law Enforcement and Emergency Response Volunteers

    Desired law enforcement and emergency responder pilot test 
participants are those willing to assist in the collection of 
information during the inspection and emergency response simulations 
and who operate within the regions of the pilot tests where the 
participating shippers and carriers operate.

Shipper and Carrier Volunteers

    Desired shipper and carrier pilot test participants are those who 
offer HM for transportation and/or transport HM by a variety of modes 
and interact with other intermodal carriers for HM transfers. It is not 
PHMSA's intention to test

[[Page 70405]]

vendors of electronic communication technologies or products. To 
volunteer and be selected as a volunteer, interested shipper and 
carrier participants will need to ship and/or transport HM within areas 
of high concentrations of HM registrants and HM incidents. In addition 
to the regions and modal criteria, potential participants must, at a 
minimum, satisfy the following requirements:
     Possess e-system(s) capable of managing and communicating 
the HM shipping paper information at their own expense,
     Possess their own equipment and personnel and/or 
contractor resources necessary to transport HM shipments,
     Be willing to allow, and participate in, inspections and 
emergency response simulations during the pilot tests,
     Be willing to provide feedback on experiences regarding e-
HM communication during the pilot tests, including providing actual e-
HM communications data from the pilot tests,
     Be willing to provide information on the basic function 
and capabilities of their e-system(s),
     Be willing to provide information on administrative, 
business, training, equipment, and operational-related benefits and 
costs associated with implementing e-system(s),
     Transport HM within the targeted test regions of the U.S., 
and
     Be in good standing with all levels of government and 
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations governing the 
safe and secure transportation of HM.
    As part of PHMSA's participant evaluation and selection process, 
each shipper and carrier submitting a statement of interest will need 
to answer on-line the following list of 34 questions to verify its 
qualifications and capabilities (Note: The majority of these questions 
require only a ``yes'' or ``no'' response.):

Shipper and Carrier Participant Questions

    1. Name of company/organization.
    2. Point(s) of contact (POC(s)) information.
    3. Is your company/organization a shipper, a carrier, or both?
    4. Is your company/organization willing to participate in the pilot 
tests for a period of 8 to 12 weeks in 2014 (specific period to be 
determined)?
    5. Does your company/organization understand that answering these 
selection questions does not guarantee your company/organization will 
be selected for participation in the pilot tests (volunteers will be 
selected based on meeting qualifications specified in MAP-21 and the 
ability to aid in testing a variety of test scenarios and criteria)?
    6. Is your company/organization able to identify a single POC for 
coordinating your company's/organization's participation in the pilot 
tests?
    7. Is your company/organization willing to provide a coordinating 
representative to participate in a pre-pilot coordination and training 
meeting in Washington DC prior to implementation of the pilot tests?
    8. Is your company/organization willing to provide a coordinating 
representative to participate in a one-day debriefing meeting in 
Washington DC in 2014 following the conclusion of the pilot tests 
(actual date to be determined)?
    9. Does your company/organization have videoconference capability?
    10. Is your company/organization willing to allow, and participate 
in, inspections and emergency response simulations during the pilot 
tests?
    11. Is your company/organization willing to provide feedback on its 
experiences regarding paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) 
communication during the pilot tests, including actual e-HM 
communications data from your company's/organization's participation in 
the pilot tests and information on administrative, business, training, 
equipment, and operational-related costs and benefits associated with 
implementing e-HM systems?
    12. Do you understand that PHMSA will use the information you 
provide in this questionnaire as part of PHMSA's public report to 
Congress, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders, in support of the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)? (Note: 
Although your company/organization will be referenced by a unique ID 
No. in the report, PHMSA cannot guarantee that the name of your 
company/organization will be kept confidential.)
    13. For which U.S. geographic pilot test area(s) is your company/
organization volunteering to participate?
    14. Do any of your company's/organization's HM shipments that could 
be included in the pilot tests cross international borders during 
transport (U.S. and Canadian border, U.S. and Mexican border, travel 
via plane or ship to other international locations)?
    15. Please describe the transport route(s), from origin to final 
destination, for the HM your company/organization will include in the 
pilot tests. Include city and state information, along with the general 
location(s) of any planned stops/layovers, including transfer points.
    16. Does your company/organization utilize an outside company to 
assist with HM information and emergency response communication?
    17. Does your company/organization currently have a paperless HM 
communications system (e-system) capable of managing and communicating 
the HM shipping paper information?
    18. How many different e-systems is your company/organization 
capable of utilizing for communicating HM shipping paper information?
    19. What electronic and wireless technology(ies) are used by your 
e-system?
    20. What type of electronic data exchange format is used by your e-
system?
    21. In what format(s) can your e-HM shipping paper information be 
exported?
    22. Is your company's/organization's e-system scalable (i.e., able 
to expand if the amount of information increases)?
    23. Does the e-system have built-in security protocols for data 
protection?
    24. Has your company/organization established administrative rights 
for the e-system?
    25. Does the e-system have system redundancy or backup systems?
    26. Has your company/organization ever used wireless or electronic 
communication to provide law enforcement or emergency response 
personnel with HM information for an HM shipment involved in an 
inspection or incident?
    27. Can e-HM shipping information be accessed during transport (in 
the field) in real-time?
    28. What class(es) of HM would your company/organization ship 
during the pilot tests?
    29. Is your company/organization willing to include multiple 
shipments in the pilot tests?
    30. By what mode would your company/organization transport HM 
during the pilot tests?
    31. Does your company/organization interact with other intermodal 
carriers for HM transfers?
    32. Is your company/organization capable of testing less than 
truckload (LTL) HM shipments during the pilot tests?
    33. Does your company/organization transport HM shipments utilizing 
your own equipment and personnel, or contractor resources?
    34. Does your company/organization interact with freight forwarders 
and/or brokers as part of your normal business of transporting HM 
shipments?

[[Page 70406]]

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

    PHMSA is seeking to collect: (1) Information and data as part of 
the pilot tests to support evaluation of the use of e-shipping papers; 
and (2) data and information outside of the pilot tests for analyzing 
potential impacts (safety, security, benefits, and costs) of using e-
systems.
    PHMSA understands that this information collection effort may 
impose a burden on respondents. The information obtained will:
     Assist the agency in improving safety, hazard 
communication products, and/or hazard communication materials, and in 
potentially reducing current burden hours for completing shipping 
papers;
     Be provided strictly on a voluntary basis; and
     Be collected primarily utilizing on-line questions with 
answers to most questions designed to be ``yes,'' ``no,'' or multiple 
choice.
    Volunteer modal inspectors and emergency responders will be 
responsible for conducting inspection and emergency response 
simulations and the majority of the data collection during the pilot 
tests. This approach limits the information collection burden on 
regulated entities while minimizing information bias. Modal inspectors 
(typically law enforcement) will test the feasibility and effectiveness 
of e-systems by performing simulated modal inspections of regulated 
entities (shippers and carriers) participating in the pilot tests 
utilizing e-HM shipping papers. The inspectors will conduct each 
simulation following their established inspection protocols using their 
own existing equipment and resources. The only difference during the 
simulations will be that the shipping paper information will be 
communicated electronically. Following each inspection simulation, the 
participating inspector will answer a list of on-line questions related 
to the simulation and submit to PHMSA a copy of the e-HM shipping paper 
received. Emergency responders will follow a similar process to test 
the feasibility and effectiveness of e-systems during a simulated 
incident response involving HM shipments using e-HM shipping papers. 
PHMSA will use the answers to the on-line questions and the e-HM 
shipping papers provided by the inspectors and emergency responders to 
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the e-system involved in 
the information transfer.
    Outside of the pilot tests, information will be collected from 
shippers, carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders to aid in 
the assessment of potential impacts associated with using e-systems for 
each mode of transportation, as required under MAP-21. Potential 
impacts to be assessed include benefits, costs, safety, and security 
impacts on the public, emergency responders, and law enforcement. The 
impact analysis questions will not be limited to pilot test 
participants but will be available to all HM stakeholders to 
voluntarily answer.
    The following sections summarize the types of information that will 
be requested as part of the pilot program to ensure that the evaluation 
and feasibility report focuses on results and includes quantitative 
data on the recommendation and possible implementation of e-systems 
into the Federal HM transportation safety program. This information and 
data will enable PHMSA to more accurately assess the safety and 
security impacts of using e-systems and to analyze the associated 
benefits and costs of using e-systems for HM communication.

Shipper and Carrier Information

    Shippers and carriers will not be required to answer the list of 
on-line inspection and emergency response simulation questions 
described in the next section as part of the pilot project. However, 
PHMSA does anticipate that the information provided by modal inspectors 
and emergency responders in conducting the simulations may necessitate 
follow-up discussions with the shippers and/or carriers involved. 
Limited information may need to be collected from shippers and carriers 
as a result of these follow-up discussions, potentially including 
obtaining copies of the e-HM shipping papers used during the 
simulations.

Inspection Simulation Questions

    For each HM inspection simulation, inspectors (law enforcement and/
or Federal and state modal inspectors) involved in the simulation will 
be requested to answer the following list of 44 online inspection 
simulation questions and to provide an electronic copy of the HM 
shipping paper they received during the simulation. Analysis of the e-
HM shipping papers for required hazard communication information will 
enable PHMSA to verify the integrity of the data transfer.
    1. Name of inspection agency/organization you are representing.
    2. Main location of inspection agency/organization.
    3. Affiliation of your inspection agency/organization.
    4. Point of Contact (POC) information for the inspector conducting 
the inspection simulation.
    5. POC information for your inspection agency's/organization's 
paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication system (e-system).
    6. Describe the size and geographic parameters of your agency's/
organization's jurisdiction.
    7. Which transportation mode(s) does your agency/organization 
inspect?
    8. How often are inspections conducted?
    9. In general, what percentage of inspections is pre-planned (e.g., 
at a checkpoint, waystation, etc.), and what percentage is impromptu 
(e.g., based on potential safety risk posed by an observed 
transportation conveyance)?
    10. Approximately how many conveyance inspections does your agency/
organization perform annually?
    11. Name and USDOT Number of shipper and/or carrier inspected.
    12. POC information for the driver/pilot/captain/conductor involved 
in the inspection simulation.
    13. POC information for the shipper's and/or carrier's e-system.
    14. Location of inspection simulation.
    15. Date and time of inspection simulation.
    16. Was the inspection pre-scheduled or unannounced (with respect 
to notifying the HM shipper/carrier)?
    17. What type(s) of transportation conveyances were inspected 
during the simulation?
    18. Did the inspector have any interaction with other regulatory 
inspection entities (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border 
Protection, etc.) during HM inspection simulation activities?
    19. What types of HM information was shared with these regulatory 
entities?
    20. Was an attempt made to communicate any of this information 
electronically?
    21. Describe the simulated pilot test HM conveyance inspection:
    a. What was reason for the simulated inspection?
    b. What HM information did the inspector look for or request?
    c. Did the inspection include interviews?
    d. What conveyance documentation did the inspector review?
    22. What types of HM containers were included in the shipment?
    23. What class(es) of HM did the shipment being inspected include?
    24. Had the shipment undergone any intramodal transfers (i.e., 
transfers between conveyances within a single transportation mode) 
prior to the simulation?

[[Page 70407]]

    25. If the shipment had undergone intramodal transfers:
    a. What HM information was shared?
    b. By what mechanism was such information communicated:
    26. Had the shipment undergone any intermodal transfers (i.e., 
transfers between transportation modes) prior to the simulation?
    27. If the shipment had undergone intermodal transfers:
    a. What HM information was shared?
    b. By what mechanism was such information communicated:
    28. Was the shipment involved in the simulation a less than 
truckload (LTL) type HM shipment?
    29. What device(s), electronic data exchange language, 
communication mechanism(s), and data format did inspectors use when 
conducting the simulated inspection?
    30. What device(s) and electronic data exchange language did the 
shipper/carrier use to transmit the electronic shipping papers during 
the simulated inspection?
    31. Was the inspection simulation information collected 
electronically?
    32. How long did it take for the inspector to receive the 
electronic information from when it was requested?
    33. Did the inspector review the HM data received during the 
simulation for accuracy and completeness?
    34. Did the electronic information match that recorded on the 
hardcopy shipping paper?
    35. Did the HM information accurately reflect the details of the HM 
being transported?
    36. Did your agency/organization identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the simulation?
    37. Did your agency/organization identify any benefits related to 
the following e-system components during the simulation?
    38. Was the information included within the electronic transmittal 
sufficient to determine a failed or passed inspection?
    39. How do you feel the e-information satisfied the required HM 
paper documentation (e.g., shipping paper, transportation of dangerous 
goods manifest, bill of lading, notification to pilot in command, 
etc.)?
    40. What training, if any, is needed to conduct electronic 
transfers of information for inspections?
    41. What additional equipment, if any, is needed to conduct 
electronic transfers of information for inspections?
    42. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for 
improvement of e-commerce?
    43. What benefits do you think an e-system would offer over a 
paper-based system for your agency/organization?
    44. How do you believe e-systems will affect the time to conduct an 
inspection?

Emergency Response Simulation Questions

    For each HM emergency response simulation, emergency response 
providers and/or investigators involved in the simulation will be 
requested to answer the following list of 42 online emergency response 
simulation questions and provide an electronic copy of the HM shipping 
paper as received during the simulation. Analysis of the e-HM shipping 
papers for required hazard communication information will enable PHMSA 
to verify the integrity of the data transfer.
    1. Name of emergency response agency/organization you are 
representing.
    2. Location of emergency response agency/organization.
    3. Point of Contact (POC) information for the responder conducting 
the emergency response simulation.
    4. POC information for your emergency response agency's/
organization's paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication 
system (e-system).
    5. Describe the size and geographic parameters of your agency's/
organization's jurisdiction.
    6. How often does your agency/organization respond to HM incidents?
    7. Approximately how many transportation HM incidents does your 
agency/organization respond to annually?
    8. Which transportation mode(s) has your agency/organization 
responded to for an HM incident in the past year?
    9. Does your agency/organization utilize an outside company to 
assist with HM information and emergency response communication?
    10. What is the name of the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) 
which has jurisdiction for the location of the emergency response 
simulation?
    11. Location of responsible PSAP.
    12. POC information for the responsible PSAP.
    13. Name of shipper and/or carrier involved in the emergency 
response simulation.
    14. POC information for the driver/pilot/captain/conductor involved 
in the emergency response simulation.
    15. POC information for the shipper's and/or carrier's e-system.
    16. Location of emergency response simulation.
    17. Date and time of emergency response simulation.
    18. What type(s) of transportation conveyances were involved in the 
emergency response simulation?
    19. What emergency response entities participated in the emergency 
response simulation?
    20. Describe the HM pilot test simulation:
    a. What was the simulated event?
    b. Which emergency response entity was contacted first, and by 
whom?
    c. Which first responder agency/organization arrived on the scene 
first?
    d. Did a dispatcher perform any follow-up activities (e.g., 
obtaining additional information from a shipper regarding an HM that 
may be involved in the simulation) to the initial call?
    21. What class(es) of HM were transported during the simulation?
    22. Was the shipment involved in the simulation a less than 
truckload (LTL) type HM shipment?
    23. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the 
PSAP dispatcher as part of the HM pilot test simulation:
    a. What HM information did the PSAP dispatcher immediately request?
    b. Was information transmitted electronically to the PSAP 
dispatcher?
    24. What device(s) and electronic data exchange language were used 
to transmit the information to the PSAP dispatcher during the HM 
simulation?
    25. What device(s), electronic data exchange language, 
communication mechanism(s), and data format were used by the PSAP 
dispatcher to receive the information during the HM simulation?
    26. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the 
emergency responders prior to their arrival at the scene as part of the 
HM pilot test simulation:
    a. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the driver/pilot/
captain/conductor?
    b. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the PSAP dispatcher?
    c. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the shipper?
    d. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by the carrier?
    e. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders prior to their arrival at the scene by a source other than 
the driver/pilot/captain/conductor, PSAP dispatcher, shipper, or 
carrier?

[[Page 70408]]

    27. Describe the electronic data exchange that occurred with the 
emergency responders at the scene as part of the HM pilot test 
simulation:
    a. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders at the scene by the driver/pilot/captain/conductor?
    b. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders at the scene by the PSAP dispatcher?
    c. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders at the scene by the shipper?
    d. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders at the scene by the carrier?
    e. Was HM information provided electronically to the emergency 
responders at the scene by a source other than the driver/pilot/
captain/conductor, PSAP dispatcher, shipper, or carrier?
    28. Was the information collected electronically by the emergency 
responders during the HM simulation?
    29. If electronic information was provided to the PSAP dispatcher 
during the HM simulation, how long did it take for the PSAP dispatcher 
to receive the information from the time it was first requested?
    30. If electronic information was provided to emergency responders 
during the HM simulation, how long did it take for the emergency 
responders to receive the electronic information from the time it was 
first requested?
    31. Did the emergency responders review the HM data received during 
the simulation for accuracy and completeness?
    32. Did the electronic information match that recorded on the 
hardcopy shipping paper?
    33. Did the HM information accurately reflect the details of the HM 
being transported?
    34. Did your agency/organization identify any e-system impediments/
limitations during the HM simulation?
    35. Did your agency/organization identify any benefits related to 
the following e-system components during the HM simulation?
    36. Was the information included within the electronic transmittal 
sufficient, and equivalent to the hardcopy shipping paper, to identify 
the hazards and properly respond to the HM simulation?
    37. How do you feel the e-information satisfied the required HM 
paper documentation (e.g., shipping paper, transportation of dangerous 
goods manifest, bill of lading, notification to pilot in command, 
etc.)?
    38. What training, if any, is needed to conduct electronic 
transfers of information for responders?
    39. What additional equipment, if any, is needed to conduct 
electronic transfers of information for emergency response?
    40. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for 
improvement of the use of e-shipping papers in HM commerce?
    41. What benefits do you think an e-system would offer over a 
paper-based system for your agency/organization?
    42. How do you believe e-systems will impact the time to respond to 
an HM incident?

Impact Analysis Questions

    PHMSA is seeking to collect information and data from shippers, 
carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders to aid in the 
assessment of potential impacts associated with using e-systems for 
each mode of transportation, as required under MAP-21. Potential 
impacts to be assessed include benefits, costs, safety, and security 
impacts on the public, emergency responders, and law enforcement. 
Similar to the pilot test simulation questions, PHMSA has developed the 
following list of 60 impact analysis questions to be administered on-
line. PHMSA anticipates the list of impact analysis questions will not 
be limited to pilot test participants but will be available to all HM 
stakeholders to voluntarily answer.
    1. Name of the agency/company/organization you are representing.
    2. Location of the agency/company/organization.
    3. Point of Contact (POC) information for the person completing 
this questionnaire.
    4. POC information for your agency's/company's/organization's 
paperless hazardous materials (e-HM) communication system (e-system).
    5. Which category describes your agency/company/organization?
    6. With what mode(s) of transportation does your agency/company/
organization interact?
    7. Describe the size (small, medium, large) of your agency/company/
organization.
    8. Does your agency/company/organization perform domestic (i.e., 
within the U.S.) commerce?
    9. Does your agency/company/organization perform international 
commerce?
    10. Does your agency/company/organization belong to any chemical 
and/or transportation industry associations?
    11. Are personnel at your agency/company/organization familiar with 
the look and content of an HM shipping paper?
    12. Do you understand that PHMSA will use the information you 
provide in this questionnaire as part of PHMSA's public report to 
Congress, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders, in support of the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)? (Note: 
Although your agency/company/organization will be referenced by a 
unique ID No. in the report, PHMSA cannot guarantee that the name of 
your agency/company/organization will be kept confidential.)
    13. What class(es) of HM does your company ship?
    14. By what mode(s) does your company transport HM?
    15. Does your company interact with other intermodal carriers for 
HM transfers?
    16. For each mode used to transport HM shipments, does your company 
utilize your own equipment and personnel, or contractor resources?
    17. Does your company transport less than truckload (LTL) HM 
shipments?
    18. How are your HM shipments packaged?
    19. Approximately how much HM does your company ship annually?
    20. Does your agency/company/organization utilize an outside 
company to assist with HM information and emergency response 
communication?
    21. What HM information is essential for emergency responders to 
receive to assess the hazards and to properly respond to an HM incident 
after arriving at the emergency site?
    22. What HM information is essential for HM inspectors to receive 
to properly conduct an HM inspection?
    23. Does your agency/company/organization currently have an e-
system capable of managing and communicating HM shipping paper 
information?
    24. Does the e-system use or contain any proprietary data or have 
any special licensing requirements governing its use?
    25. Is the e-system custom-made or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)?
    26. What electronic and wireless technologies are used by your e-
system?
    27. Does your agency/company/organization currently have electronic 
access to conveyance HM data satisfying the DOT shipping paper 
requirements?
    28. What type of electronic data exchange language is used?
    29. What format can be used to view and share the data?
    30. Is your agency's/company's/organization's e-system scalable 
(i.e.,

[[Page 70409]]

able to expand if the amount of information increases)?
    31. If your agency's/company's/organization's e-system fails during 
an inspection or emergency, is a backup system/procedures available to 
ensure continuity of information?
    32. Who enters HM information into your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system?
    33. How long is the HM information stored in your agency's/
company's/organization's e-system after its initial generation?
    34. When can the HM information in your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system be accessed?
    35. Who can access the HM information in your agency's/company's/
organization's e-system?
    36. Has your company ever used wireless or electronic communication 
to provide law enforcement or emergency response personnel with HM 
information for an HM shipment involved in an inspection or incident?
    37. On average, how long does it take to complete a hardcopy HM 
shipping paper?
    38. On average, how long does it take to complete an e-shipping 
paper?
    39. Do you use HM shipping papers for purposes other than 
regulatory?
    40. Has your agency/organization ever received wireless or 
electronic communication of HM information for an HM shipment involved 
in an inspection or incident?
    41. What technology readiness level from the following list best 
describes the technology used to operate your e-HM system?
    a. Level 5: technology product fully operational in real-world 
environment
    b. Level 4: technology product operational in limited real-world 
environment
    c. Level 3: prototype demonstrated in laboratory environment
    d. Level 2: equipment and process concept formulated
    e. Level 1: basic technology principles observed
    42. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded 
estimation of the costs to develop, implement, operate, and maintain 
the e-system?
    43. Do your agency's/company's/organization's employees receive 
training on the e-system?
    44. How long does the training generally take to complete?
    45. Is refresher training provided?
    46. How long does refresher training typically take to complete?
    47. Are all/most employees who receive initial e-system training 
provided with refresher training?
    48. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded 
estimation of the costs for training personnel on the e-system?
    49. Did your agency/company/organization incorporate a customer 
outreach/education program as part of implementation of your e-system?
    50. Can your agency/company/organization provide a rounded 
estimation of the costs to conduct customer outreach/education on your 
e-system?
    51. What types of security is in place to prevent unauthorized e-
system access?
    52. Which of the following entities outside your agency/company/
organization directly utilize your e-system?
    53. What type of involvement and input did these stakeholders have 
in the design and development of your e-system?
    54. If your agency/company/organization has an e-system:
    a. What constraints did the e-system have to overcome to be 
successfully used by your agency/company/organization?
    b. What benefits does the e-system offer over a paper-based system?
    c. What benefits resulted from your agency's/company's/
organization's customer outreach/education efforts regarding your e-
system?
    d. What constraints did your agency/company/organization need to 
overcome during customer outreach/education regarding your e-system?
    55. If your agency/company/organization does not have an e-system:
    a. What constraints would an e-system have to overcome to be 
successfully used by your agency/company/organization?
    b. What benefits would an e-system offer over a paper-based system?
    56. Has your agency/company/organization performed any studies/
analyses on the effectiveness of your e-system, including the e-
system's impacts on your agency/company/organization?
    57. What can improve your e-system's capability?
    58. With respect to real-work application, has your agency/company/
organization observed any positive or negative interactions between 
your e-system technology and other e-system technologies?
    59. Has your agency/company/organization identified any e-system 
impediments/limitations?
    60. Do you have any lessons learned that should be considered for 
improvement of e-commerce?

7. Total Information Collection Burden

    The total information collection burden for the Paperless Hazard 
Communication Pilot Program is as follows:

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

    73 entities responded with their interest to participate in the 
pilot tests. Of these 73, 52 appear to be shippers, carriers, 
universities, associations, unions, consultants, technology vendors, 
and unknowns; i.e., all respondents who could potentially act in a 
shipper and/or carrier capacity. The other 21 entities expressing 
interest in participating in the pilot appear to be law enforcement and 
emergency responders. PHMSA is estimating a maximum of 55 participants 
(52 previously indicated plus three additional, to account for any 
other respondents who may act in a shipper/carrier capacity) will 
complete the pilot test participant questions. The 55 respondent 
estimate has been increased by 25 from the original 30 estimate posted 
in the 60-Day Notice based on the number of entities who commented to 
the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to participate in the pilot 
tests. PHMSA does not anticipate that completing the pilot test 
participant questions will impose a significant burden on shipper and 
carrier respondents. PHMSA estimates it will take each respondent 
approximately 30 minutes to answer the list of participant questions, 
based on the type of questions identified in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Type of question                          Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No.......................................................         20
Yes/No + text................................................          1
Multiple choice..............................................          2
Multiple choice + text.......................................          1
Select all that apply........................................          4
Select all that apply + text.................................          3
Text.........................................................          3
                                                              ----------
  Total number of pilot test participant questions...........         34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting estimated total burden is 27.5 hours (55 respondents 
x 0.5 hour per respondent = 27.5 hours) for the shipper and carrier 
participant question data collection.

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

    PHMSA does not anticipate that follow-up discussions with shippers 
and carriers and the associated information collection will impose a 
significant burden on respondents. In

[[Page 70410]]

the 60-Day Notice, PHMSA anticipated a total of 30 shippers and 
carriers (assuming 10 respondents for each of three test regions) and a 
burden of no more than four hours per shipper and carrier for the 
entirety of the test period; however, based on the number of entities 
who commented to the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to 
participate in the pilot tests, PHMSA has increased its estimate to 40 
shippers and carriers for this information collection activity. The 
resulting estimated total burden is 160 hours (40 respondents x 4.0 
hour per respondent = 160 hours) for follow-up discussions and 
associated information collection with shippers and carriers.

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

    PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of inspection 
simulation questions will impose a significant burden on inspectors. 
PHMSA anticipates no more than 260 inspection simulations will be 
conducted utilizing non-federal resources (encompassing all pilot 
tests, all participants, and each test region throughout the entirety 
of the test period), resulting in a total of 260 respondents. The 260 
respondent estimate has been increased by 20 from the original 240 
estimate posted in the 60-Day Notice based on the number of inspectors 
who commented to the 60-Day Notice and indicated they wish to 
participate in the pilot tests. PHMSA estimates it will take each 
inspector approximately 60 minutes to answer the list of inspection 
simulation questions, based on the type of questions identified in the 
following table, and to submit a copy of the e-HM shipping paper to 
PHMSA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Type of question                          Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No.......................................................          1
Yes/No + text................................................          7
Multiple choice..............................................          5
Multiple choice + yes/no.....................................          1
Multiple choice + text.......................................          8
Select all that apply........................................          2
Select all that apply + text.................................          8
Text.........................................................         12
                                                              ----------
  Total number of inspection simulation questions............         44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting estimated total burden is 260 hours (260 respondents 
x 1.0 hour per respondent = 260 hours) for the inspection simulation 
question data collection.

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

    PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of emergency 
response simulation questions will impose a significant burden on 
investigators and emergency responders. PHMSA anticipates no more than 
12 emergency response simulations will be conducted utilizing non-
Federal resources, resulting in a total of no more than 24 respondents 
allowing for up to two respondents per simulation (12 emergency 
response providers and 12 investigators). PHMSA estimates it will take 
each respondent approximately 60 minutes to answer the list of 
emergency response simulation questions, based on the type of questions 
identified in the following table, and to submit a copy of the 
electronic shipping paper to PHMSA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Type of question                          Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No.......................................................          1
Yes/No + text................................................          5
Multiple choice..............................................          4
Multiple choice + text.......................................          5
Select all that apply........................................          2
Select all that apply + text.................................         10
Text.........................................................         15
                                                              ----------
  Total number of emergency response simulation questions....         42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting estimated total burden is 24 hours (24 respondents x 
1.0 hour per respondent = 24 hours) for the emergency response 
simulation question data collection.

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

    PHMSA does not anticipate that answering the list of impact 
analysis questions will impose a significant burden on respondents 
(shippers, carriers, law enforcement, and emergency responders). PHMSA 
increased its original estimate posted in the 60-Day Notice from 200 to 
250 respondents based on the number of entities who provided comments 
to the 60-Day Notice. PHMSA estimates no more than 250 respondents will 
complete the impact analysis questions, and that it will take each 
respondent approximately 90 minutes to answer the questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Type of question                          Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes/No.......................................................          1
Multiple choice..............................................         16
Multiple choice + text (+ yes/no)............................         16
Select all that apply........................................          5
Select all that apply + text (+ yes/no)......................         15
Text.........................................................          7
                                                              ----------
  Total number of impact analysis questions..................         60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting estimated total burden is 375 hours (250 respondents 
x 1.5 hours per respondent = 375 hours) for the impact analysis 
question data collection.

Total Information Collection Burden: 629 Respondents 846.5 Hours

    Title: Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program.
    Type of Request: Request for Comments to Information Collection 
Burden for Paperless Hazard Communications Pilot Program.
    Abstract: PHMSA is submitting an information collection to OMB in 
support of a paperless hazard communications pilot program under Title 
III, Section 33005 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety 
Improvement Act of 2012 (MAP-21).
    Affected Public: Carriers, Shippers, Emergency Response Providers, 
and Law Enforcement Personnel
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 629.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 629.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 846.5.
    Estimated Annual Burden Costs: $28,500.
    Frequency of collection: Single occasion.

Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-28168 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P