# Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 78 FR 1101
- **title:** Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations, 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:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2013-01-07
- **effective on:** 2013-01-01
- **summary:** This document responds to administrative appeals generated as a result of certain amendments adopted in an international harmonization final rule published on January 19, 2011. The January 19, 2011 final rule amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) by revising, removing or adding proper shipping names, the hazard class of a material, packing group assignments, special provisions, packaging authorizations, packaging sections, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. The amendments were necessary to align the HMR with recent revisions to international standards for the transport of hazardous materials by all modes. In this final rule, PHMSA amends the HMR as a result of administrative appeals submitted in response to various amendments adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule. This document also addresses recent actions taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) regarding certain lithium ion battery-powered mobility aids (e.g., wheelchairs, travel scooters) offered by passengers for air transport and passenger notification of hazardous materials restrictions by operators. Further, this final rule adopts amendments to the HMR as a result of two administrative appeals submitted by an appellant in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010, that revised shipper responsibilities related to packaging design variation, manufacturer notification, and recordkeeping requirements for certain packaging types.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2012-31242.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2012-31242.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2012-31242
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/01/07/2012-31242/hazardous-materials-harmonization-with-the-united-nations-recommendations-on-the-transport-of
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013) [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 1101-1118] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2012-31242] [[Page 1101]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 175, 176 and 178 [Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0126 (HM-215K)] RIN 2137-AE83 Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations, 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: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document responds to administrative appeals generated as a result of certain amendments adopted in an international harmonization final rule published on January 19, 2011. The January 19, 2011 final rule amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) by revising, removing or adding proper shipping names, the hazard class of a material, packing group assignments, special provisions, packaging authorizations, packaging sections, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. The amendments were necessary to align the HMR with recent revisions to international standards for the transport of hazardous materials by all modes. In this final rule, PHMSA amends the HMR as a result of administrative appeals submitted in response to various amendments adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule. This document also addresses recent actions taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) regarding certain lithium ion battery-powered mobility aids (e.g., wheelchairs, travel scooters) offered by passengers for air transport and passenger notification of hazardous materials restrictions by operators. Further, this final rule adopts amendments to the HMR as a result of two administrative appeals submitted by an appellant in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010, that revised shipper responsibilities related to packaging design variation, manufacturer notification, and recordkeeping requirements for certain packaging types. DATES: Effective: January 1, 2013. 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.regulations.gov . Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Stevens or Vincent Babich, Standards and Rulemaking Division, telephone (202) 366-8553, 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. Administrative Aappeals and Public Comments Submitted in Response to HM-215K Rulemaking Actions A. Transportation of ORM-D Material 1. Phase-Out of the ORM-D System 2. Overpacks Containing Limited Quantity or ORM-D Material B. Use of the Square-on-Point and ID Number Limited QuantityMarking C. Fuel Cell Cartridges Transported in Passenger Checked Baggage D. Consumer Commodity Transported by Aircraft E. Incident Reporting for Limited Quantity Material F. Materials of Trade Exceptions III. Recent Changes to Part 8 of the ICAO Technical Instructions IV. Administrative Appeals Submitted in Response to the HM-231 Final Rule V. Section-by-Section Review of Changes VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for the Rulemaking B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Environmental Assessment J. Privacy Act K. International Trade Analysis I. Background PHMSA published a final rule under Docket PHMSA-2009-0126 (HM-215K) on January 19, 2011 [76 FR 3308] that revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to align with various international standards. The final rule adopted amendments to the HMR regarding hazard communication, hazard classification including packing group assignment, packaging authorization, air transport quantity limitations, and various other international harmonization-related topics. The amendments were necessary to align the HMR with the latest revisions to the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions), the International Maritime Organization's Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), Transport Canada's Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG Regulations), and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations) to facilitate the seamless transportation of hazardous materials internationally, to, from, and within the United States. In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting amendments in response to administrative appeals filed in accordance with 49 CFR 106.110-130 regarding revisions to the HMR adopted in the January 19, 2011 final rule and to public comments submitted in response to corresponding amendments proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 25, 2012 [77 FR 31274], also under this docket (PHMSA-2009- 0126). Additionally, this document addresses recent actions taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) regarding certain lithium ion battery-powered mobility aids (e.g., wheelchairs, travel scooters) offered by passengers for air transport and notification to passengers on hazardous materials restrictions an operator must provide at the point of ticket purchase and flight check-in. Further, PHMSA is adopting amendments to the HMR as a result of two administrative appeals submitted by an appellant in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 [75 FR 5376] under Docket PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231) that revised shipper responsibilities related to packaging design variation and manufacturer notification recordkeeping requirements for certain packaging types. [[Page 1102]] II. Administrative Appeals and Public Comments Submitted in Response to HM-215K Rulemaking Actions This final rule addresses administrative appeals submitted in response to the January 19, 2011 final rule and public comments submitted in response to the May 25, 2012 NPRM from the following companies and organizations: Administrative appeals submitted in response to the January 19, 2011 final rule: American Coatings Association (ACA). Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. (AHS). Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, Inc. (DGAC). Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA). Patton Boggs, LLP, on behalf of Lilliputian Systems, Inc. (LSI). PPG Industries (PPG). Public comments submitted in response to the May 25, 2012 NPRM: Amadeus IT Group, S.A. (Amadeus). Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA). Airlines for America (A4A). Alaska Airlines (Alaska). American Coatings Association (ACA). American Veterinary Distributors Association (AVDA). Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. (AHS). Brookstone. Broward Fire Equipment and Service, Inc. (Broward). ChemTel, Inc. (ChemTel). Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA). Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA). Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, Inc. (DGAC). Food Marketing Institute (FMI). Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA). HMT Associates, L.L.C. (HMT). Integrated Support Services (ISS). Intel Corporation (Intel). Interactive Travel Services Association (ITSA). International Air Transport Association (IATA). International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA). Patton Boggs, LLP, on behalf of Lilliputian Systems, Inc. (LSI). Ministry of Commerce, Peoples Republic of China (P.R. China). National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS). National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED). Safety Specialists, Inc. (SSI). UPS. Urethane Supply Company (USC). URS Corporation (URS). Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG). A. Transportation of ORM-D Material A number of administrative appeals concern issues related to our adoption of the international system for the transportation of limited quantity material. Specifically, some appellants are concerned with the eventual phase-out of our domestic system for the transportation of limited quantity material reclassed as other regulated material (ORM-D) (i.e., the ORM-D system). Under certain conditions, the HMR and international standards allow lesser quantities of relatively low risk hazardous materials (i.e., limited quantity material) to be afforded relief from some of the requirements generally applicable to hazardous materials transported by all modes. For example, a limited quantity material is not generally required to be packaged in a Department of Transportation (DOT) or United Nations (UN) standard packaging. Most regulatory amendments resulting from adoption of the international system and the eventual phase-out of the ORM-D system involve revisions to hazard communication requirements, material quantity limitations, and the types of material authorized. 1. Phase-Out of the ORM-D System PHMSA revised the HMR to phase out its system of reclassing and transporting limited quantity material as ORM-D. Under this system, a limited quantity of hazardous material that also meets the definition of a ``consumer commodity'' may be reclassed as ORM-D and is eligible for additional exceptions from regulation. See Sec. 171.8 for the definition of ``consumer commodity.'' The January 19, 2011 final rule amended the HMR by phasing out the ORM-D system beginning January 1, 2013, for material transported by aircraft and, beginning January 1, 2014, for material transported by all other modes of transportation (e.g., motor vehicle). ACA and HDMA appealed our decision to phase out the ORM-D system arguing that we did so ``without any debate or consideration of [1] the type of materials that use this exception; [2] the costs incurred by the regulated community; and [3] the safety benefits.'' ACA claimed that many companies and organizations, including itself, asked for a separate rulemaking to address these issues. ACA is also concerned that although we provided a summary of comments against the phase-out in the preamble to the final rule, PHMSA did not discuss arguments raised in the comments. It stated we arbitrarily concluded that because there would be no immediate phase- out of the current ORM-D system, there would not be a sizeable impact to companies on the basis that they would have sufficient time to adjust to the eventual phase-out. ACA asked us to reconsider the decision to not move forward in a separate rulemaking and to fully consider the effects of phasing out the ORM-D system. Additionally, HDMA requested that PHMSA allow for up to a 10-year phase-out based on the longevity of its packaging systems (i.e., totes) currently in use. According to HDMA, such totes are permanently marked with the ``Consumer commodity, ORM-D'' marking. PHMSA response. The HMR have long recognized the relatively low risk posed by the transportation of certain hazardous materials such as limited quantities or consumer commodities. Considerable efforts have 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 again in March 2008 to discuss potential impacts on domestic stakeholders. Additionally, this issue was discussed during our 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 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (October 21, 2009; 74 FR 53982) and NPRM (August 24, 2010; 75 FR 52070), we 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 were any negative impacts on the domestic transportation of consumer commodities reclassed as ORM-D materials. While some changes adopted in the UN Model Regulations were similar to those currently in the HMR regarding limited quantities and consumer commodities (e.g., inner packaging limits and non-specification outer packagings allowed), some changes were not (e.g., marking, labeling, package gross mass). We stated that depending on the comments received and our own evaluation, we may determine that the significance of any amendments on the issue may warrant a separate rulemaking action. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we concluded a separate rulemaking was not in the best interest of the hazardous material transportation community particularly when it involves international transportation. Further, [[Page 1103]] creating a single global system for packaging, hazard communication, and transportation of limited quantity material would facilitate the domestic and international flow of hazardous material trade and any further delay in the phase-out would not be useful. Little or no quantification of any negative impact, including costs to domestic shippers and carriers alike, was provided in response to the ANPRM or NPRM. However, the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA) did provide some cost data related to its unique practice of reusing totes permanently embossed with the ORM-D marking. Some commenters also argued against any phase-out based on the historically safe transportation of limited quantity material under the ORM-D system. Further, commenters stated that PHMSA should not adopt the international system simply based on the opportunity to align the HMR with international standards. Allowing dual systems indefinitely for offering and transporting packages of limited quantity material would likely cause confusion and place unreasonable burdens on carriers and some shippers to train their hazmat employees to recognize and comply with both systems. We believe adopting a single global system for the transportation of limited quantity material will greatly improve safety and efficiency by decreasing the aforementioned potential for delays and confusion during transportation, and by removing the burden of providing training in dual systems used to communicate the transportation of limited quantity material. However, we recognize the need to provide sufficient time for domestic shippers and carriers to adjust to the revised system and are sympathetic to the concerns expressed by ACA, HDMA and others regarding this need. Therefore, in the NPRM we proposed to authorize the ORM-D classification and the use of packagings marked ``Consumer commodity, ORM-D'' until December 31, 2015 for domestic highway, rail, and vessel transportation. Based on the merits of public comment received, we are extending authorization of the ORM-D classification and the use of packagings marked ``Consumer commodity, ORM-D'' until December 31, 2020 for domestic highway, rail, and vessel transportation. 2. Overpacks Containing Limited Quantity or ORM-D Material In the January 19, 2011 final rule, PHMSA revised the regulation for overpacks (as defined in Sec. 171.8) by requiring the ``OVERPACK'' marking on an overpack containing limited quantity packaging if all markings are not visible. DGAC expressed concern over the manner in which the language in the requirement is phrased, and indicated that it implies all markings on each packaging in the overpack must be visible. DGAC noted that this is not consistent with the UN Model Regulations which states the overpack ``shall be marked with the word ``OVERPACK'' and the marking required by this Chapter unless the markings representative of all dangerous goods in the overpack are visible.'' See 3.4.11 of the 16th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations. It is DGAC's understanding that this requirement refers to the limited quantity marking and not to all markings that may be required by the UN Model Regulations. Its understanding is that use of the term ``representative'' communicates a requirement that only one limited quantity package marking needs to be visible to represent all limited quantity packaging. DGAC requested that PHMSA revise the overpack requirements in Sec. 173.25(a)(6) to be consistent with the UN Model Regulations. PHMSA response. The HMR do not currently require that every individual mark (or label) on each package contained in an overpack be visible. For example, as stated in Sec. 173.25(a)(2), an overpack must be marked with the proper shipping name and identification number (when applicable) for each hazardous material contained in the overpack, unless marking and labels representative of each hazardous material in the overpack are visible. We recommend where packages are stacked and/ or banded on a pallet as part of an overpack, the packages should be positioned, when possible, so that the markings and labels are visible on the outside of the overpack. However, this does not mean that every package marking (or label) must be visible or the overpack must be marked accordingly. With regard to the ``OVERPACK'' marking requirement for overpacks containing limited quantity and ORM packages, in this final rule we are accepting DGAC's appeal and are adopting, as proposed, the revision of Sec. 173.25(a)(6) to clarify that not all limited quantity and ORM markings must be visible and that the marking requirement is only applicable to the limited quantity and ORM mark itself. Additionally, a new Sec. 173.25(a)(7) is adopted as proposed and is added for clarity to separate limited quantity and ORM overpack marking requirements from excepted quantity overpack marking requirements. B. Use of the Square-On-Point and ID Number Limited Quantity Marking Formerly, Sec. 172.315 excepted for other than transportation by aircraft, a package containing a limited quantity substance or article from being marked with the proper shipping name if it was marked with a square-on-point limited quantity marking containing the UN identification (ID) number of the limited quantity substance or article. In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we provided a one-year transition period to authorize continued use of this marking before the revisions to the limited quantity markings become effective. ACA, DGAC, and PPG all stated the one-year transition period does not allow sufficient time to deplete stock(s) of packagings pre-printed with the square-on-point mark containing the ID number, and requested an extension of three- to five-years. Specifically, ACA requested a three- to five-year timeframe while DGAC and PPG ask for a three-year timeframe. ACA, DGAC, and PPG maintained that without a longer transition period, shippers will be forced to remark packaging at their cost and there is no impact to safety by allowing continued use of the existing marking. Appellants also pointed out this alternative limited quantity marking communicates more information than the newly adopted markings or the original ORM-D markings. They stated that PHMSA already provides for a two- to three-year transition period for the phase-out of the ORM-D marking, depending on the mode of transportation. In addition, commenters also requested that, for clarification, any transition periods be included in Sec. 171.14 (transitional provisions) and Sec. 172.300 (marking applicability). PHMSA response. We agree that shippers should be provided with the same transition period to continue using the square-on-point mark containing the UN identification (ID) number that was provided for the continued use of the ORM-D marking(s). In the administrative appeal final rule (HM-215K; RIN 2137-AE76), we granted the appeals submitted by ACA, DGAC, and PPG and revised Sec. 172.315 accordingly to extend the transition period to December 31, 2013. The administrative final rule also authorized, for domestic air transportation, use of the square-on-point mark containing the ID number to continue until December 31, 2012. Based on the merits of public comment received, we are extending authorization of the ORM-D [[Page 1104]] classification and the use of packagings marked ``Consumer commodity, ORM-D'' until December 31, 2020 for domestic highway, rail and vessel transportation. However, in this final rule we are only extending authorization to continue using the square-on-point mark containing the UN identification (ID) number until January 1, 2015, as proposed in the May 25, 2012 NPRM, for other than transportation by aircraft. C. Fuel Cell Cartridges Transported in Passenger Checked Baggage In the January 19, 2011 final rule, we revised the 49 CFR 175.10 passenger exceptions to allow passengers and crew members to place certain spare fuel cell cartridges containing a flammable liquid (Class 3) or corrosive material (Class 8) in checked baggage. We limited the fuel cell cartridge chemistries allowed in checked baggage by excluding fuel cell cartridges containing Divisions 2.1 (flammable gas) and 4.3 (dangerous when wet) material. Although this is inconsistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions, we believed that the prohibition should include spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 materials. Flammable gases are generally prohibited from transportation on passenger-carrying aircraft as cargo. When combined with the uncertainty of the effect of baggage handling on the durability of these products when stowed in a passenger's checked baggage, the safety risks posed are of concern. In their administrative appeals, FCHEA and LSI requested that PHMSA revise Sec. 175.10 to align with the ICAO Technical Instructions and allow spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 flammable gas to be carried in checked baggage. PHMSA response. In the May 25, 2012 NPRM, we granted the appeal for reconsideration by providing additional opportunity for public comment on the issue. In response, one commenter (ALPA) opposed lifting the prohibition on spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division 2.1 flammable gas for carriage in checked baggage. The remaining commenters (IATA, P.R. China, Intel, DGAC, FCHEA, LSI, and Brookstone) all support lifting the U.S. prohibition and recommend alignment with the ICAO Technical Instructions. Points leading to the Department's decision are: Passenger authorizations for hazardous materials are outside the scope of the traditional hazardous materials transportation regulatory system. Many of the critical safety requirements of the HMR that would apply to these items when in transportation as cargo do not apply to passengers, for example, hazard communication, pilot notifications and cargo stowage requirements for hazardous materials. Passengers are not trained to recognize potential hazards. Although passengers pack, handle, and (in many cases) should communicate the hazardous materials carried onboard to an air carrier, the HMR does not require training for passengers. In most instances, passengers are unlikely to be aware of the safety implications if certain commodities are subject to improper packaging or handling. Recognition of the limitations of fire suppression and detection systems. We recognize that aircraft fire detection and suppression systems do not prevent fires nor are they designed to completely extinguish fires. Article Design Management. One example DOT may consider in the future could be similar to is its approach in regulating portable oxygen concentrators (POCs). That is, before any POC design is allowed onboard aircraft, the design must be tested and demonstrate a certain level safety prior to being authorized onboard passenger-carrying aircraft. Cumulative risk of additional passenger authorizations. We believe that when new passenger authorizations are granted consideration must be given to the cumulative risk of the new authorization combined with existing authorizations. Accordingly, we deny Lilliputian's administrative appeal that requests the HMR be revised to allow spare Division 2.1 fuel cell cartridges in checked baggage. D. Consumer Commodity by Air In the January 19, 2011 final rule, PHMSA adopted requirements for certain consumer commodities intended for transportation by aircraft in new Sec. 173.167. The new description and identification number (ID8000) are consistent with the consumer commodity entry in the ICAO Technical Instructions in Packing Instruction Y963. In its appeal submitted in response to the final rule, DGAC expressed concerns that the alignment between the two standards was not consistent. For example, DGAC pointed out that absorbent material requirements and stack test criteria were not included in the Sec. 173.167 packaging section. PHMSA response. DGAC is correct in its assessment of the inconsistencies that exist between the consumer commodity provisions adopted in the HMR and the ICAO Technical Instructions. Therefore, we are adopting the language proposed in DGAC's administrative appeal, and revising Sec. 173.167 accordingly. (See the detailed discussion of revisions to Sec. 173.167 in Section V.) E. Incident Reporting for Limited Quantity Material The detailed hazardous materials incident reporting requirements of the HMR allow for exceptions from these requirements. Specifically, Sec. 171.16(d)(2) excepts, under certain conditions, the unintentional release of a hazardous material properly classed as ORM-D and a PG III material in Class or Division 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8, or 9, from the written reporting requirements. ACA indicated in its appeal that the reporting requirements as they apply to limited quantity material should be reviewed based on the eventual phase-out of the ORM-D hazard class and suggested the exception for ORM-D material should be extended to limited quantity packagings. PHMSA response. We agree with ACA that relief from incident reporting previously provided to ORM-D material should continue to be provided for such materials now transported as limited quantities. In the May 25, 2012 NPRM, we did not propose to extend the exception from incident reporting to limited quantity Class 7 (radioactive) material, instruments, and articles due to the unique nature of the hazard and because this type of material was never authorized to be reclassed and transported as ORM-D. Additionally, we stated this exception was not applicable to air transportation. Thus, the amendment is adopted as proposed. F. Materials of Trade Materials of Trade (MOTs) are hazardous materials, other than hazardous waste, that are carried on a motor vehicle: (1) To protect the health and safety of the motor vehicle operator or passengers, such as insect repellant or a fire extinguisher; (2) To support the operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle (including its auxiliary equipment), such as a spare battery or gasoline; or (3) To directly support a principal business of a private motor carrier (including vehicles operated by a rail carrier) that is other than transportation by motor vehicle--for example, landscaping, pest control, painting, plumbing, or welding services. The MOTS exceptions of the HMR generally allow certain hazardous material articles and substances, including ORM-D, to be transported by motor vehicle as part of a business [[Page 1105]] operation under less regulation without compromising safety. In the May 25, 2012 NPRM, PHMSA proposed to apply the same eligibility to limited quantity packages as it currently does to ORM-D packages as MOTS. PHMSA believes that because small quantities of a limited number of low-risk materials are eligible in a properly prepared and marked limited quantity package, allowing such packages as MOTS will not compromise transportation safety. One commenter, ChemTel, opposes such authorization on the basis that because the package is not marked with a common name, it somehow compromises safety. On the other hand, USWAG fully supports the concept of limited quantity packages being eligible for transportation as MOTS. PHMSA response. Similar to the applicability of written incident reporting exceptions to limited quantity material, our review of the HMR indicated that we did not amend the MOTS exceptions under the January 19, 2011 final rule to reflect the eventual phase-out of the ORM-D system. Similar to the revisions to the written incident reporting requirements, we believe there is no impact to safety in authorizing limited quantity material to be transported as MOTS in the same manner as always provided for ORM-D. Most materials reclassed as ORM-D are limited quantity material themselves; an ORM-D is a limited quantity material that also meets the definition of a ``consumer commodity.'' See Sec. 171.8 for the definition of ``consumer commodity.'' In this final rule, we are applying the MOTS exceptions to limited quantity packages consistent with the exception provided to ORM-D material. Additionally, we are clarifying that exceptions for limited quantity material also include limited quantity material authorized under Sec. 173.63(b) for certain Division 1.4S explosives, Sec. 173.306 for compressed gases, and Sec. 173.309 for certain fire extinguishers. III. Recent Changes to Part 8 of the ICAO Technical Instructions At the 23rd Meeting of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP), held October 11-21, 2011, the DGP recommended amending Part 8 of the ICAO Technical Instructions applicable to passengers and crew members and the hazardous materials (dangerous goods) they may introduce aboard an aircraft in either checked or carry-on baggage, or on one's person. Such provisions form the basis of exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators provided in Sec. 175.10 of the HMR. One recommendation adopted by the DGP addressed concerns over wheelchairs and other mobility aids found activated after flight. Additionally, the DGP addressed the absence of any reference to mobility aids powered by nickel metal hydride batteries, and wheelchairs and other mobility aids specifically designed to allow its battery or batteries to be removed from the device and carried aboard the aircraft by a passenger within a protective bag or pouch. In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting, as proposed, amendments to the HMR that address the potential for unintended activation of all stowed devices on an aircraft and provide for the intentional removal of a lithium ion battery from a device and its stowage in the passenger cabin. As explained in the May 25 NPRM, PHMSA intends to address remaining Part 8 and Sec. 175.10 revisions, including wheelchairs and other mobility aids powered by nickel metal hydride batteries, in a separate rulemaking under Docket PHMSA-2012- 0027 (HM-215L). The ICAO Technical Instructions and the HMR limit lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices to 160 watt-hours and 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content, respectively. Additionally, the ICAO Technical Instructions and the HMR limit to carry-on baggage only any spare lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices. At its 23rd Meeting, the DGP was informed of lithium ion batteries developed for wheelchairs and other mobility aids which did not exceed 160 watt-hours (13.5 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content). Subsequently, the DGP adopted a proposal introduced by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to include spare lithium ion batteries for battery- powered wheelchairs and other mobility aids in Part 8 consistent with the provisions for spare lithium ion batteries used to power portable electronic devices and medical devices. In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting as proposed similar provisions and revising Sec. 175.10(a)(17) accordingly. The DGP was also informed of new mobility aid designs which require the lithium ion battery to be removed from the device to permit efficient and effective stowage and transport of the mobility aid in the cargo compartment of the aircraft. The DGP agreed it would be safer to require that the removed lithium ion battery be carried in the passenger cabin rather than being stowed as checked baggage with the mobility aid. Subsequently, at the same meeting, the DGP was informed of mobility aid designs equipped with lithium ion batteries, which required removal for stowage (e.g., collapsible), that exceed the 160 watt-hour limit (13.5 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content). The DGP Panel therefore adopted an upper limit of 300 watt-hours (25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content) for batteries which must be removed and carried aboard in the passenger cabin. The DGP Panel agreed that when applicable, the battery must be removed by the user. Because the HMR currently places an upper limit on such batteries to 25 grams aggregate equivalent lithium content (300 watt-hours), no corresponding revision to Sec. 175.10(a)(17) of the HMR is necessary. In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting amendments to the HMR that are consistent with the ICAO DGP/23 Panel recommendations. This final rule also clarifies and corrects some related amendments adopted in the original January 19, 2011 final rule. See the discussion of specific amendments adopted in Sec. 175.10 under the ``V. Section-by-Section Review of Changes'' section of this rulemaking. IV. Administrative Appeal Submitted in Response to the HM-231 Final Rule In this final rule, PHMSA responds to an administrative appeal submitted in response to a final rule published February 2, 2010 (HM- 231; 75 FR 5376) that adopted miscellaneous amendments to packaging provisions in the HMR. The final rule revised recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 173.22 for shipper retention of manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) and required shippers to maintain a packaging's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for 365 days subsequent to offering the package for transportation. The final rule also revised Sec. 178.2(c) to strengthen manufacturer notification requirements and to allow them greater flexibility in how they provide the notification. The final rule was effective on October 1, 2010. On March 3, 2010, we received an administrative appeal from DGAC requesting that PHMSA delay the effective date of the final rule for two years to provide sufficient time for packaging manufacturers to review their current packaging design manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for compliance with the new requirement to ensure closure instructions provide a repeatable method of closing the packaging consistent with the way it was closed prior to performing qualification testing on the packaging design. [[Page 1106]] We did not grant the DGAC administrative appeal in our September 30, 2010 final rule (75 FR 60333) that responded to a petition for rulemaking and several other administrative appeals. Specifically, we did not grant DGAC's request for a two-year extension of the effective date. However, we did agree that aligning the review and preparation of a packaging's manufacturer notification with its periodic retest merited consideration because it would facilitate the packaging manufacturer's and distributor's compliance with new packaging manufacturer notification requirements adopted in the rule. Thus, in the September 30, 2010 final rule, we revised the recordkeeping requirement from 365 days to a two-year period for combination packagings and a one-year period for single packagings consistent with a typical packaging design's periodic retest frequency. DGAC submitted a follow-up administrative appeal objecting to our revision in the September 30, 2010 final rule to the recordkeeping requirement for manufacturer notification and requested that PHMSA return the recordkeeping duration to the 365 days adopted under the February 2, 2010 final rule. DGAC stated that while the preamble discussion in the September 30, 2010 final rule recognized its concerns in the initial appeal, the regulatory response did not grant its request for the extension of the effective date and, instead, created a recordkeeping requirement of two years that is more difficult to comply with than the original one-year (365-day) requirement in the February 2, 2010 final rule. DGAC claimed there is no need for a shipper to retain a copy of a packaging's manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for longer than 365 days. DGAC also asked whether the words ``supporting documentation'' were intentionally omitted from the September 30, 2011 final rule revision to 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1). Further, DGAC requested that PHMSA amend 49 CFR 171.14 to extend the effective date of the February 2, 2010 final rule to October 1, 2011. PHMSA response. Although not clearly stated in both final rules, it was our intent that the new manufacturer notification requirements apply to all applicable hazardous materials packagings manufactured on or after October 1, 2010. Packagings manufactured before this date should already conform to HMR performance standards for their design type in effect at the time of manufacture. As we stated in the February 2, 2010 final rule, we revised this regulation to address an increase in hazardous materials releases as a result of improperly closed packagings. In our opinion, review of existing manufacturer notifications for packaging designs that should already be in compliance with the HMR would involve much less effort than DGAC described in its administrative appeal. We also believe sufficient time has elapsed since the February 2, 2010 final rule was published to complete this task and any additional time is not warranted. Therefore, in this final rule, we are denying DGAC's appeal to extend the effective date of the rule. However, we are amending Sec. 178.2(c)(1)(ii) of the HMR based on DGAC's request to revert to the original recordkeeping retention duration for manufacturer notification to the 365-day period adopted in the February 2, 2010 final rule. Additionally, PHMSA is amending Sec. 173.22(a)(4)(ii) as proposed to require a shipper who sells or transfers a packaging or closes and offers a package for transportation to retain manufacturer notification (including closure instructions) for a period of 90 days once a package is offered to the initial carrier for transportation in commerce. Subsequent downstream offerors of a filled and otherwise properly prepared unaltered package are not required to maintain manufacturer notification (including closure instructions). Additionally, in this final rule, PHMSA is adopti
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 117805