{"operation":"document","citation":"75 FR 52070","title":"Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2010-08-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PHMSA proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. These revisions are necessary to harmonize the Hazardous Materials Regulations with recent changes made to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods--Model Regulations.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2010-19952.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2010-19952.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2010-19952","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/08/24/2010-19952/hazardous-materials-harmonization-with-the-united-nations-recommendations-international-maritime","body":"Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010) [Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 52070-52138] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2010-19952] [[Page 52069]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, et al. Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules [[Page 52070]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, and 180 [Docket Nos. PHMSA-2009-0126 (HM-215K)] RIN 2137-AE45 Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. These revisions are necessary to harmonize the Hazardous Materials Regulations with recent changes made to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods--Model Regulations. DATES: Comments must be received by October 25, 2010. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-202-493-2251. Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Instructions: Include the agency name and docket number PHMSA-2009- 0126 (HM-215K) or RIN 2137-AE45 for this rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. 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.regulations.gov . Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office at the above address (See ADDRESSES). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Stevens, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, telephone (202) 366-8553, or Shane Kelley, International Standards, telephone (202) 366-0656, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. ANPRM III. Harmonization Proposals in This NPRM IV. Amendments Not Being Considered for Adoption in This NPRM V. Section-by-Section Review VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for the Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act I. Environment Assessment J. Privacy Act K. International Trade Analysis I. Background In a final rule published December 21, 1990 (Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402), the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the predecessor agency to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), comprehensively revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 to 180) to harmonize U.S. hazardous materials transportation requirements with the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Model Regulations). The UN Model Regulations are not regulations, but rather are recommendations issued by the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE) and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). These Model Regulations are amended and updated biennially by the UNSCOE and serve as the basis for national, regional, and international modal regulations, including the International Maritime Organization's International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) and International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions (ICAO TI) for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. Since publication of the 1990 rule, we have issued eight additional international harmonization rules (Dockets HM-215A, 59 FR 67390; HM- 215B, 62 FR 24690; HM-215C, 64 FR 10742; HM-215D, 66 FR 33316; HM-215E, 68 FR 44992; HM-215G, 69 FR 76044; HM-215I, 71 FR 78595; and HM-215J, 74 FR 2200) based on the corresponding biennial updates of the UN Model Regulations, the IMDG Code, and the ICAO TI. To maintain alignment of the HMR with international requirements, in this NPRM, we are proposing to incorporate changes based on the Sixteenth revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, Amendment 35-10 to the IMDG Code, and the 2011-2012 ICAO TI, which becomes effective January 1, 2011 (the IMDG Code is effective January 1, 2012). Federal law and policy strongly favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) permits PHMSA to depart from international standards in order to promote safety or other overriding public interest, but otherwise requires PHMSA to align the HMR with international transport standards and requirements to the extent practicable (see 49 U.S.C. 5120). Harmonization facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous materials to and from the United States and becomes increasingly important as the volume of hazardous materials transported in [[Page 52071]] international commerce grows. By facilitating compliance, harmonization also tends to enhance safety for international movements, but only if the international standards themselves provide an appropriate level of safety. To that end, PHMSA actively participates in the development of international standards for the transportation of hazardous materials, frequently advocating the adoption in international standards of particular HMR requirements. When considering the adoption of international standards under the HMR, we review and evaluate each amendment on its own merit, on the basis of its overall impact on transportation safety, and the economic implications associated with its adoption into the HMR. Our goal is to harmonize without diminishing the level of safety currently provided by the HMR and without imposing undue burdens on the regulated public. II. ANPRM On October 21, 2009, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 74 FR 53982) highlighting issues under consideration for harmonization with international standards and requesting comments as to whether the HMR should be amended to incorporate specific international standards and the potential benefits and costs of doing so. The following companies and organizations submitted comments in response to the ANPRM: (1) Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME; PHMSA-2009-0126-0003); (2) United Parcel Service (UPS; PHMSA-2009-0126-0005); (3) Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI; PHMSA-2009-0126-0006); (4) Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC; PHMSA-2009-0126-0007); (5) Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA; PHMSA-2009- 0126-0008); (6) Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. (AHS; PHMSA-2009-0126- 0009); (7) U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC; PHMSA-2009-0126-0010); (8) The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA; PHMSA-2009-0126-0011); (9) Federal Express (FedEx; PHMSA-2009-0126-0012); (10) American Petroleum Institute (API; PHMSA-2009-0126-0013); (11) American Coatings Association, Inc. (ACA; PHMSA-2009-0126- 0014); (12) PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG; PHMSA-2009-0126-0016); (13) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont; PHMSA-2009-0126- 0018); (14) The Alliance of Special Effects and Pyrotechnics Operators, Inc. (ASEPO; PHMSA-2009-0126-0020). Comments on specific harmonization issues are discussed below. A. Classification of Sour Crude Oil Transportation of sour crude oil may pose risks due to its inherent potential of evolving hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas. Sour crude oil, commonly found in North America, contains a high concentration of sulfur. The evolution of hydrogen sulfide vapors from crude oil is dependent on temperature, packaging confinement, transport conditions (e.g., sloshing), bacteria, and sulfur concentration, among many other potential factors. Based on the risk of toxic vapors, the UN Model Regulations were amended by assigning a new identification number and shipping description for sour crude oil with a flammable primary hazard and a toxic subsidiary hazard. Additionally, a new special provision was added specifying the assignment of a Packing Group (PG) based on the degree of danger presented by either the flammability or toxicity hazard of the sour crude oil. For example, sour crude oil meeting flammability criteria for Class 3, PG II, and toxicity criteria for Division 6.1, PG I, poisonous-by-inhalation, would be classified as a Class 3, PG I material. In the ANPRM, PHMSA invited commenters to provide data and information concerning the impact on domestic shippers and carriers if these requirements are adopted in the HMR. The agency also asked for comments addressing which hazard communication methods (e.g., package markings, shipping papers) and/or packaging requirements are most cost- effective for communicating the hazards and reducing the risks of transporting sour crude oil. We received two comments (API, DGAC) opposing adoption of the UN amendments for the description and classification of sour crude oil into the HMR. DGAC recommends against requiring domestic use of the new proper shipping name for sour crude oil with a Division 6.1 subsidiary risk and recommends that use be limited to international transport. The DGAC states: [T]he new [proper shipping name] would introduce impracticalities into the collection and transport of crude oil * * * Crude oil carriers, who currently use flammable liquid placards displaying UN1267 and who typically use permanent shipping papers, would now be required to assess the inhalation hazard of each crude oil batch they transport and switch to other placards and shipping papers based on their assessment. In addition, Sec. 173.244 would suggest that some of these crude oils with a Division 6.1 subsidiary risk would be required to be transported in higher integrity bulk packagings. We consider this highly inappropriate. The concentration of [hydrogen sulfide] in the liquid crude oil phase under classification conditions will not predict the hydrogen sulfide concentration in the headspace during transport. It is not possible to use existing UN classification criteria for [D]ivision 6.1 in classifying crude oils as inhalation hazard substances or assigning the packing group. We also noted that classification on the basis of the possible evolution of [hydrogen sulfide] vapors is unprecedented and that there are other substances with the potential to evolve hydrogen sulfide vapors * * * Exposure to high concentrations of [hydrogen sulfide] is most likely when the cargo tank truck is opened or when a tank is reloaded * * * The hazard is essentially a workplace hazard. For purposes of the HMR, DGAC recommends limiting the provisions to cargo tank truck [loading and unloading] operations. DGAC recommends that PHMSA require drivers engaged in the loading and unloading of sour crude oil to wear a hydrogen sulfide monitoring device and have respiratory protection accessible, and require warning signs at the cargo tank manhole and area of operation. In its comments, API recognizes that hydrogen sulfide is a hazard, but suggests that classification of crude oil at the time of shipment may not reflect the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide in the vapor space of a cargo tank or other packaging after the crude oil has been in transportation. API also notes that there are best industry practices already in place. API states: [C]reation of a new classification scheme with the addition of a new [proper shipping name] for sour crude oil, and leaving the current classification and [proper shipping name] for ``other'' crude oils, will increase risks at this time, DOT should not harmonize the HMR with the new amendments in the UN Model Regulations regarding classification of sour crude. Before changing the HMR, criteria for sour crude should be defined and a valid test methodology should be developed * * * the occurrence of hazardous levels of [hydrogen sulfide] cannot be predicted from the liquid state [of crude oil]. Safe transport of these materials * * * is best accomplished through training, proper handling procedures, monitoring, and use of proper personal protective equipment, and not a separate identification number, shipping description, or packing group for sour crude oils * * * Until an accurate and accepted method for predicting [hydrogen sulfide] evolution [into the vapor space of packaging] and a corresponding toxicity and [[Page 52072]] hazard during transport is available. * * * The U.S. government should not propose adoption of the [UN] classification scheme in the HMR. API adds that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has requirements in place to communicate the hazards of hydrogen sulfide in the workplace. API supports other means of hazard communication to ensure that workers are aware of the hazards of hydrogen sulfide such as a marking on a bulk packaging. Currently, petroleum crude oil is listed as a Class 3 flammable liquid in the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). PHMSA is aware that, in some instances, petroleum crude oil may evolve hydrogen sulfide gas, a toxic-by-inhalation material. When transported in bulk packagings such as cargo tanks, the evolved hydrogen sulfide gas may build up in the vapor space of the packaging, posing a potential risk, in particular, during loading and unloading. The following table illustrates the dangerous effects of hydrogen sulfide gas exposure to humans: Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on Humans \\1\\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Effect Concentration (ppm) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Detectable odor................................ 0.2 Maximum allowable concentration for daily 8- 20 hour exposure................................. Eye and respiratory irritation................. 50 Olfactory nerve paralysis...................... 150 Exposure may cause pulmonary edema............. 250 Systemic symptoms occur in \\1/2\\ hour.......... 500 Quickly unconscious; death without rescue...... 750 Rapid collapse; respiratory paralysis.......... 1,000 Immediate death................................ 5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The agency agrees with the commenters that a new proper shipping name is not necessary and that there are more cost-effective ways to communicate the potential inhalation hazard risk to transport workers. Therefore, in this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to include the new proper shipping name in the UN Model Regulations--``Petroleum sour crude oil, flammable, toxic''--with the letter ``I'' in Column (1) of the HMT indicating that this description may be used for international transportation. However, PHMSA is not proposing to require use of the new proper shipping name for domestic transportation. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing a new marking be applied to bulk packagings containing sour crude in order to communicate the potential inhalation risk in transportation. See Section 172.327 for a discussion of proposed marking requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ References: Milby T. Baselt R. Hydrogen sulfide poisoning. Clarification of some controversial issues. Am J Ind Med. 1999; 35: 192-195. Beauchamp R, Bus J, Popp J, Boreiko C, Andjelkovich D. A critical review of the literature on hydrogen sulfide toxicity. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol. 1984; 13:25-97. Deng J. Hydrogen sulfide. In: Sullivan J, Kreiger G, eds. Hazardous Materials Toxicology: Clinical Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1997: 711-717. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for a Recommended Standard for Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1977: 23. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-158. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Classification of Division 1.4S Explosives For eight Division 1.4 explosive articles (UN0323, UN0366, UN0441, UN0445, UN0455, UN0456, UN0460, and UN0500), the UN Model Regulations have been amended to require a Type 6(d) test to determine whether an article may be assigned to Compatibility Group S. The test is performed on a single package containing an explosive substance or explosive article to determine if the package is capable of containing any hazardous effects in the event of an accidental initiation or ignition of its contents. The amendments include revisions to the explosives testing standards in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria and include a new special provision that would allow the use of the above mentioned identification numbers only if the results of test Type 6(d) successfully demonstrate that any hazardous effects are confined within a package. In the ANPRM, we invited commenters to provide data and information concerning the possible safety impacts of the new test provisions and compliance costs that would be incurred if the new test is adopted in the HMR. In addition, we invited commenters to provide suggestions or recommendations concerning whether to apply the test to already-approved explosives. We received several comments both supporting (COSTHA, DGAC, and IME) and opposing (ASEPO and SAAMI) adoption of the Type 6(d) test to determine whether a Division 1.4 explosive article may be assigned to Compatibility Group S. All the commenters who addressed this issue indicate that, if adopted, the test must be applied to previously- approved articles in a manner that is reasonable and not overly broad. A suggestion by both DGAC and IME is to allow the classification of previously-approved explosive articles to be based on results of testing of product groups by a PHMSA-approved laboratory or based on results of self-testing and video documentation by the manufacturer. Concerning compliance costs, IME states: [D]epending upon the laboratory, the cost of performing the test will range from $1,000 to $5,000 per article tested. This estimate includes the cost of samples consumed in testing, the cost of transporting those samples to the laboratory, and the cost of set up, performance, and evaluation of the test. In the case of already approved explosives, if self-testing is allowed, the cost per article tested might be somewhat reduced. Also, the cost of the test will be influenced by the extent to which testing is required * * * If the current practice of family classifications is maintained, where ``worst-case'' representative samples are allowed for evaluation of groups of similar articles, the number of tests and the cost of those tests will be reduced. ASEPO and SAAMI oppose adoption of the Type 6(d) test. SAAMI suggests that more research on the practical effect of this testing requirement is necessary and that the lack of grandfathering criteria for products already approved as Division 1.4S explosives (e.g., power device cartridges) is impractical, expensive, and impedes commerce. Concerning compliance costs, ASEPO states: [O]ur organization has contacted all the authorized laboratories regarding the cost of conducting the testing. While the ``several thousand dollars'' figure for testing alone often associated with discussions of such inquiries is not inaccurate, it is important to note that we also received a detailed proposal [[Page 52073]] from one laboratory for $10,000 and one for $13,000 for this [Type 6(d)] test. ASEPO also indicates concern regarding the cost of articles consumed in testing in addition to the cost of pre-testing or redesign of an article by a manufacturer to ensure passing the Type 6(d) test, but did not quantify these costs. While PHMSA understands that additional required tests usually result in increased research and development costs, we believe there is merit to additional required tests when there is a credible and measureable increase in safety. Consequently, PHMSA proposes to require the incremental testing of all new and previously approved designs, depending on the intended mode of transport, under the newly adopted criteria for those affected articles expected to obtain or retain a Division 1.4S classification. For newly produced explosive articles, a person who successfully performs the Type 6(d) test would not be required to also perform the Type 6(a) test. PHMSA believes such initiatives will greatly reduce research and development costs without compromising safety. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to require the Type 6(d) test as prescribed in Section 16.7 of the Fifth revised edition of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria in the new Sec. 172.102(c)(1), Special provision 347. PHMSA is proposing that for affected articles intended for transportation by aircraft, the effective date of this new requirement is April 1, 2011. If a manufacturer or approval holder of affected articles that previously classed and approved an article as Division 1.4S chooses to continue offering such shipments by aircraft, the articles must be successfully tested under Test Series 6(d) and a new approval obtained from PHMSA. Additionally, a previously classed and approved Division 1.4S article that is not successfully tested under Test Series 6(d) must be assigned to a compatibility group other than ``S'' (e.g., B, C, or D) prior to the April 1, 2011 effective date if intended for transportation by aircraft on or after that date. PHMSA is also proposing that the effective date of testing to maintain Division 1.4S classification or reclassification to a higher compatibility group other than ``S'' is no later than January 1, 2014 for Division 1.4S articles approved prior to January 1, 2012 and are intended for domestic highway or rail transportation. For previously- approved affected articles transported by highway, rail and vessel, reclassification to a compatibility group other than ``S'' may be accomplished by using existing data and when recommended by an authorized examination and testing agency approved by PHMSA. For international highway, rail and vessel transportation, the proposed effective date of Type 6(d) testing requirements or reclassification for new and previously produced affected articles is January 1, 2012 (i.e., the compliance date of a final rule under this docket, if adopted as proposed). C. IBC Rebottling Under both the UN Model Regulations and the HMR, replacement of the rigid plastic receptacle of a composite IBC is considered a ``repair'' under certain conditions and, thus, not subject to design qualification testing as a new or different design. The UN Model Regulations were amended to specify that a replacement bottle (i.e., rigid plastic receptacle) must be of the original tested design type and limits the replacement to a bottle from the original manufacturer. In the ANPRM, we invited comments on this amendment and how, if adopted in the HMR, it would impact the use of IBCs in domestic or international commerce. All commenters who addressed this issue (DGAC, DuPont, and RIPA) support the adoption of the UN Model Regulations definition of ``repair'' for IBC rebottling purposes. The comments include a request for an extended compliance date of January 1, 2012, to provide users and manufacturers of composite IBCs adequate time to implement the provision and not place them at an economic disadvantage with international counterparts. In this NPRM, we are proposing to adopt the revised definition of ``repair'' for composite IBCs consistent with international standards. Additionally, to address commenter concern, PHMSA reminds them of the proposed compliance date of a final rule under this docket would be no earlier than January 1, 2012. See Section 180.350 for a discussion of the proposed revision. D. Limited Quantities and Consumer Commodities PHMSA has long recognized the need to authorize limited exceptions for the transportation of certain hazardous materials described as limited quantities or consumer commodities. Considerable efforts have recently been made internationally to harmonize multi-modal standards with regard to the transport of limited quantities, including consumer commodities. PHMSA held public meetings on this issue in February, 2006 and March, 2008 to discuss potential impacts on domestic stakeholders. Additionally, this issue was discussed during the agency's pre-UN public meetings held in 2006 and 2007. There was considerable domestic interest in pursuing further harmonization internationally due to the potential for substantial savings in transportation costs and improved transportation efficiency. In the ANPRM, PHMSA invited comments on this issue with regard to aligning the HMR with the UN Model Regulations for the domestic and international transport of limited quantities and consumer commodities. Of particular concern, was any potential negative impact on the domestic transportation of hazardous materials reclassed as Consumer commodity, ORM-D. While some changes adopted in the UN Model Regulations are similar to those currently in the HMR (e.g., inner packaging limits and authorized use of non-specification outer packagings), some changes are not (e.g., marking, labeling and package gross mass). PHMSA suggested that, depending on comments received and our own evaluation, the agency may determine that the significance of any amendments on this issue may warrant a separate rulemaking action. We received several comments (ACA, AHS, COSTHA, DGAC, DuPont, FedEx, PPG, SAAMI, and UPS) supporting adoption of the UN Model Regulation limited quantity provisions into the HMR. UPS urges PHMSA to move to adopt the Limited Quantity provisions as contained in the UN Model Regulations, stating: [B]y * * * phasing out the current provisions of 49 CFR on a well-publicized schedule, PHMSA will improve the general understanding * * * [I]t is the understanding of UPS that PHMSA may be contemplating replacement of the current ORM-D classifications with the Limited Quantity provisions of the UN Model Regulations. UPS supports such a change * * * The U.S. is unique in its use of the ORM-D classification; other countries do not always recognize the meaning of the ORM-D marking, which means that packages intended for global commerce must be marked in more than one way. While PHMSA has held that such dual (or multiple) markings are authorized, multiple markings complicate hazard communication and have the potential to confuse both shipper and carrier personnel. AHS adds: To cut back to one system, using one mark, without shipping documents and descriptions for each separate inner receptacle, would enhance compliance and comprehension throughout the transportation system. However, several commenters (ACA, DGAC, DuPont, and SAAMI) express concern that this should not be done at [[Page 52074]] the expense of the ORM-D provisions currently in the HMR. ACA opposes the elimination of the existing provisions for ORM-D materials as part of HM-215K and recommends that any changes to the requirements be made through a separate rulemaking. SAAMI states: [SAAMI] welcome[s] changes to the Limited Quantities (LQ) system which will reduce the regulatory burden for lower hazard products in consumer sized packages * * * and government and industry need time to use the new system and work out any bugs. If in the future LQ is shown to have all the benefits of ORM-D, then ORM-D can be phased out. Meanwhile, the ORM-D system in the US should remain unchanged. DGAC notes: [S]ome items eligible for ORM-D classification are not permitted as limited quantities (e.g., small arms ammunition). In addition, we note that ORM-D provisions in Sec. 173.156 important to retail sale of consumer commodities are not applicable to limited quantities of hazardous materials. We also note that the US Postal Service regulations allow some ORM-D materials to be transported by mail. Eliminating ORM-D provisions could adversely impact use of the mail for packages of some ORM-D materials (e.g., recycling of small spent fuel cell devices). PHMSA believes that aligning the existing limited quantity provisions in the HMR with the international standards will substantially enhance safety. The agency emphasizes that the proposals in this NPRM do not include the immediate or short-term removal of the existing ``limited quantity'' provisions in the HMR (including Consumer commodities, Cartridges, small arms and Cartridges, power device in the ORM-D hazard class). Because the limited quantity provisions in the UN Model Regulations and the IMDG Code are closely aligned with those already contained in the HMR, domestic alignment for highway, rail and vessel transportation will result in minimal impact and regulatory burden. And, because of the inherent risk unique to air transportation, we believe full harmonization with the ICAO TI (where appropriate) is necessary with regard to the materials authorized and quantity limits for limited quantities (including consumer commodities) intended for transport by air. The following table is used to illustrate the differences that exist between the HMR and corresponding international modal standards regarding limited quantities and consumer commodities: Limited Quantities and Consumer Commodities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Requirement HMR LQ HMR ORM-D UN LQ ICAO TI LQ IMDG CODE LQ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marking............................ PSN or UN diamond/ ``ORM-D'' or ``ORM-D- UN diamond/ID or UN diamond/ID (Sec. AIR'' ``Consumer i> unless consumer diamond and ``LTD i> unless consumer Sec. 172.301 and commodity'' (Sec. commodity (ID not required). i> not required). Exception includes MARPOL. Labeling........................... None unless Division None.................. None................. Required............. None (Placard-size 6.1, Packing Groups CTU LQ mark II and III. required). Documentation...................... Required.............. ORM-D-AIR only unless Required unless a Required............. Required unless RQ, waste or MARPOL. consumer commodity. consumer commodity. Material Authorizations............ PSN entry must cite Generally, all Similar to HMR except Aerosols Generally, aligned exception section in materials authorized as follows: (Divisions 2.1, 2.1 with UNMR with minor Column (8A) of HMT, LQ except for Division 2.2 w/sub risks) and vessel-unique typically one of the Division 6.1, PG II only (except Small receptacles requirements. following: (unless drug or aerosols). (Divisions 2.1, 2.2 Divisions 2.1 medicine). Certain w/o sub risks). and 2.2 (gases and Class 9 materials Class 3, PG aerosols). not authorized LQ. II, III.. Class 3 (PG Compared to HMR, the Division II, III). UNMR:. 4.1, PG II, III (no Division 4.1 Permits (9) self-reactives). (Flam solids), PG II, PG I Class 3 Division III. materials as LQ. 4.3, PG II, III Division 4.3, Permits (10) (solids only). PG II, III. Class 9 materials as Division Division 5.1, LQ.. 5.1, PG II,III. PG II, III. Division Division 5.2, 5.2, Types C, D, E, Types B, C, D, E, F. F when part of PRK, Division 6.1, FAK or CK. PG II, III. Division Class 8, PG 6.1, PG II, III. II, III. Class 8, PG Class 9...... II, III excluding Compared to UNMR the 2794, 2795, 2803, HMR:. 2809 and 3028 Permits (23) (batteries, gallium, PG I Class 3 mercury). materials as LQ.. Class 9 Permits (11) (1941, 1990, 2071, Class 9 materials as 3077, 3082, 3316 LQ. only). [[Page 52075]] LQ Quantity Limits................. Aerosols more ORM-D-AIR inner Generally, aligned Aerosols/ Generally, aligned restrictive than packaging quantity with HMR w/minor Small receptacles: with UNMR with minor UNMR, ICAO TI and limits are specified differences (e.g., 30 Kg G. vessel-unique IMDG Code. in Sec. 173.27 and Division 6.1 and Inner and requirements. Classes and are based on Column Class 9 materials). outer packaging Divisions 3-9 (9A) and (9B) values quantity limits generally aligned w/ in the HMT, or, in generally aligned int'l codes except Sec. Sec. 173.150- with UNMR. for materials w/ 173.155 and 173.306, primary or sub risk whichever value is of Division 6.1, PG more restrictive. II and III. They normally exceed the ICAO TI inner packaging quantity limit values for LQ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the favorable comments received in response to the ANPRM, PHMSA proposes to adopt limited quantities provisions into the HMR based on the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and the ICAO TI that include a transitional period sufficient in length to allow stakeholders adequate time to comply with the new requirements. We are proposing to authorize immediate voluntary compliance with the new requirements upon the effective date of any final rule. Additionally, we are proposing to eliminate the ORM-D and ORM-D-AIR hazard class limited quantities described as ``Consumer commodities'' after three years, effective January 1, 2014, if the amendments proposed in this notice are adopted in a final rule. Such materials or articles would simply become limited quantities based on risk rather than their intended end-use. Additionally, for transportation by domestic highway or rail, alignment of the HMR with international standards actually increases the number of exceptions provided to limited quantities and consumer commodities when compared to current HMR requirements for such materials and articles. To address comments regarding exceptions provided by the HMR to consumer commodities under Sec. 173.156, we are proposing to extend the exceptions to all limited quantities regardless of their end-use. To address the comment regarding the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) allowing certain packages classed as ORM-D in the postal system, we intend to work very closely with our USPS counterparts to ensure a seamless transition to the new HMR requirements and assist them in any way we can. For Cartridges, small arms and Cartridges, power device in the ORM- D hazard class, we are proposing to also continue authorizing such articles indefinitely under the exceptions provided in Sec. 173.63 of the HMR for domestic transportation by highway or rail. For more discussion of proposed amendments to the HMR as a result of the further alignment with international standards, see the detailed discussion in the affected sections under the ``Section-by-Section Review.'' The following sections are affected by the amendments proposed in this NPRM regarding limited quantities and consumer commodities: Sec. 172.203 Additional description requirements. Sec. 172.315 Packages containing limited quantities. Sec. 172.316 Packages containing materials classed as ORM-D. Sec. 172.500 Applicability of placarding requirements. Sec. 173.25 Authorized packagings and overpacks. Sec. 173.27 General requirements for transportation by aircraft. Sec. 173.63 Packaging exceptions. Sec. 173.144 Other regulated materials (ORM)-- Definitions. Sec. 173.150 Exceptions for Class 3 (flammable and combustible liquids). Sec. 173.151 Exceptions for Class 4. Sec. 173.152 Exceptions for Division 5.1 (oxidizers) and Division 5.2 (organic peroxides). Sec. 173.153 Exceptions for Division 6.1 (poisonous materials). Sec. 173.154 Exceptions for Class 8 (corrosive materials). Sec. 173.155 Exceptions for Class 9 (miscellaneous hazardous materials). Sec. 173.156 Exceptions for ORM materials. Sec. 173.161 Chemical kits and first aid kits. Sec. 173.165 Polyester resin kits. Sec. 173.167 Consumer commodities. Sec. 173.230 Fuel cell cartridges containing hazardous material. Sec. 173.306 Limited quantities of compressed gases. E. Metal Hydride Storage Systems in Conveyances A metal hydride storage system is a single complete hydrogen storage system that includes a receptacle, metal hydride, a pressure relief device, a shut-off valve, service equipment, and internal components. The HMR currently do not prescribe specific packaging or shipping methods for metal hydride storage systems containing hydrogen. However, PHMSA has issued a number of special permits to allow the use of these systems for transport. The UN Model Regulations, in new Packing Instruction P205, prescribe standards for the construction, qualification, marking and requalification of such systems. In the ANPRM, PHMSA invited comments on whether similar standards should be adopted in the HMR. One commenter (DGAC) supports adoption of the standards for the construction, qualification, marking, and requalification of metal hydride storage systems containing hydrogen. Thus, in this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to adopt the standards for the construction, qualification, marking and requalification of hydrogen in metal hydride storage systems adopted in the UN Model Regulations. See Section 173.311 for a detailed discussion of proposed requirements. F","truncated":true,"body_characters":334920}