{"operation":"document","citation":"79 FR 40590","title":"Hazardous Materials: Compatibility With the Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (RRR)","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-07-11","effective_on":"2014-10-01","summary":"PHMSA, in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is amending requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) governing the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials based on recent changes contained in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publication \"Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2009 Edition, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. TS-R-1.\" The purposes of this rulemaking are to harmonize requirements of the HMR with international standards for the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials and update, clarify, correct, or provide relief from certain regulatory requirements applicable to the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-15514.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-15514.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-15514","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/11/2014-15514/hazardous-materials-compatibility-with-the-regulations-of-the-international-atomic-energy-agency-rrr","body":"Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014) [Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 40590-40618] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2014-15514] [[Page 40589]] Vol. 79 Friday, No. 133 July 11, 2014 Part V Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, et al. Hazardous Materials: Compatibility With the Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (RRR); Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 40590]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178 [Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0063 (HM-250)] RIN 2137-AE38 Hazardous Materials: Compatibility With the Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (RRR) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA, in coordination with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is amending requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) governing the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials based on recent changes contained in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publication ``Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2009 Edition, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. TS-R-1.'' The purposes of this rulemaking are to harmonize requirements of the HMR with international standards for the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials and update, clarify, correct, or provide relief from certain regulatory requirements applicable to the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials. DATES: Effective date: October 1, 2014. Voluntary compliance date: PHMSA is authorizing voluntary compliance beginning July 11, 2014. Delayed compliance date: Unless otherwise specified, compliance with the amendments adopted in this final rule is required beginning July 13, 2015. Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 1, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Webb, Standards and Rulemaking Division, telephone (202) 366-8553, or Michael Conroy, Engineering and Research Division, telephone (202) 366-4545, 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. Executive Summary II. Background III. Section-by-Section Review IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for the Rulemaking B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and C. Procedures D. Executive Order 13132 E. Executive Order 13175 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies and Procedures G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act J. Environmental Assessment K. Privacy Act L. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis I. Executive Summary In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) to incorporate changes adopted in the 2009 Edition of the IAEA Safety Standards publication titled ``Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2009 Edition, Safety Requirements, No. TS-R-1'' (hereinafter referred to as ``TS-R-1.'') \\1\\ Additionally, PHMSA is making other changes to amend or clarify the requirements for transport of radioactive materials. These changes will help ensure that the classification, packaging requirements, and hazard communication requirements for shipments of radioactive materials provide the requisite level of public safety and are consistent with those employed throughout the world. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ A copy of the 2009 Edition of TS-R-1may be obtained from the U.S. distributors, Bernan, 15200 NBN Way, P.O. Box 191, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214, telephone 800-865-3457, email: [email protected] , or Renouf Publishing Company Ltd., 812 Proctor Ave., Ogdensburg, NY 13669, telephone: 1-888-551-7470, email: [email protected] . An electronic copy of TS-R-1 has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking and may also be found at the following IAEA Web site: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1384_web.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation enhances safety by creating a uniform framework for compliance. Harmonization also facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements and avoiding hindrances to international shipments. Harmonization has become increasingly important as the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce grows. Accordingly, 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.) directs PHMSA to participate in relevant international standard-setting bodies and encourages DOT to align the HMR with international transport standards to the extent practicable, while recognizing that deviations may be appropriate, at times in the public interest (see 49 U.S.C. 5120). Under this authority, PHMSA actively participates in relevant international standard-setting bodies and promotes the adoption of standards consistent with the high safety standards set by the HMR. PHMSA's continued leadership in maintaining consistency with international regulations and enhances the hazardous materials safety program. II. Background Under their respective statutory authorities, DOT and the NRC jointly regulate the transportation of radioactive materials to, from, and within the United States. In accordance with their July 2, 1979, Memorandum of Understanding (a copy of which has been placed in the docket of this rulemaking) (44 FR 38690): 1. DOT regulates both shippers and carriers with respect to: A. Packaging requirements; B. Communication requirements for: [ssquf] Shipping paper contents, [ssquf] Package labeling and marking requirements, and [ssquf] Vehicle placarding requirements; C. Training and emergency response requirements; and D. Highway routing requirements.\\2\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\2\\ Within DOT, PHMSA is currently delegated the authority to carry out the functions assigned to DOT, except for highway routing requirements which are set forth in regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 49 CFR part 397, subpart D. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. NRC requires its licensees to satisfy requirements to protect public health and safety and to assure the common defense and security, and: A. Certifies Type B and fissile material package designs and approves package quality assurance programs for its licensees; B. Provides technical support to PHMSA and works with PHMSA to ensure consistency with respect to the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials; and C. Conducts inspections of licensees and an enforcement program within its jurisdiction to assure compliance with its requirements. Since 1968, PHMSA and the NRC (and their predecessor agencies) have, to the extent practicable, harmonized their [[Page 40591]] respective regulations with international regulations of the IAEA in: Safety Series No. 6, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, as published in 1961 and revised in 1964 and 1967. Amendments to the HMR were adopted in a final rule published on October 4, 1968 in Docket HM-2 (33 FR 14918). The major updates of Safety Series No. 6 in 1973 and 1985. See the final rules published on March 10, 1983 in Docket HM-169 (48 FR 10218) and September 28, 1995, in Docket HM-169A (60 FR 50291). The 1996 major revision to the Safety Series No. 6, renamed ``Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition, No. ST-1'' issued by the IAEA in 1996 and republished in 2000 to include minor editorial changes at which time the previous title was changed to ``Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition, No. TS-R-1 (ST-1, Revised).'' See the final rule published on January 26, 2004, in Docket HM-230 (69 FR 3632). Since then, the IAEA has published amendments and revised editions of TS-R-1 in 2003, 2005, and 2009.\\3\\ PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 12, 2011 (76 FR 50332) that proposed to amend the HMR to maintain alignment with the 2009 Edition of TS-R-1, which incorporates all of the changes made to TS-R-1 in the 2003 amendments, the 2005 Edition, as well as other revisions. In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting the proposal with some changes. In addition to changes to harmonize with TS-R-1, PHMSA is enacting regulatory amendments identified through internal regulatory review processes to update, clarify, correct, or provide relief from certain regulatory requirements applicable to the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) materials. Notable amendments to the HMR in this final rule include the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\3\\ In 2012, the IAEA published the Specific Safety Requirements-6 (SSR-6) which may be addressed in a future rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revise paragraph Sec. 173.25(a)(4) to adopt the new TS-R- 1 requirement for the marking of all overpacks of Class 7 (radioactive) packages with the word ``OVERPACK.'' Revise Sec. Sec. 172.203(d)(3) and 172.403(g) to clarify that the total activity indicated on the shipping paper and label must be the maximum activity during transportation. Revise Table 1 in Sec. 172.504 to additionally require conveyances carrying unpackaged LSA-I material or SCO-I, all conveyances required by Sec. Sec. 173.427, 173.441, and 173.457 to operate under exclusive use conditions, and all closed vehicles used in accordance with Sec. 173.443(d) to be placarded. This change is a result of internal PHMSA review. Update definitions in Sec. 173.403 for contamination, criticality safety index (CSI) for conveyances, fissile material, LSA, and radiation level. These changes are proposed primarily to align with definitions in the TS-R-1, and the change to the definition of ``criticality safety index'' is made to align with the NRC definition. Extend the retention period for Type A, Type IP-2, and Type IP-3 package documentation from one year to two years, to coincide with the minimum retention period currently required for shipping papers. PHMSA is also including more detailed language describing the kinds of information required to be included as part of the Type A package documentation. This change is being made based on internal PHMSA review of existing regulations, and is intended to ensure proper testing and preparation of these packages prior to being offered for transportation. Require that any conveyance, overpack, freight container, tank, or intermediate bulk container involved in an exclusive use shipment under Sec. 173.427 or Sec. 173.443(b) be surveyed with appropriate radiation detection instrumentation after each such shipment, and not be permitted to be used for another such exclusive use shipment until the removable surface contamination meets package contamination limits and the radiation dose rate at each accessible surface is no greater than 0.005 mSv/h (0.5 mrem/h). These changes are a result of internal PHMSA review. Update matter incorporated by reference to align with updated references in the TS-R-1 in Sec. 171.7 and applicable sections. Clarify labeling requirements for radioactive shipments with subsidiary hazards in Sec. 172.402. This change is a result of internal PHMSA review. Require that, when it is evident that a package of radioactive material or conveyance carrying unpackaged radioactive material is leaking or suspected to have leaked, access to the package or conveyance must be restricted and, as soon as possible, the extent of contamination and the resultant radiation level of the package or conveyance must be assessed in Sec. 173.443. This will more closely align with the requirements in TS-R-1. As in PHMSA's past rulemakings to incorporate updates of the IAEA regulations into the HMR, PHMSA has worked in close cooperation with the NRC in the development of this rulemaking. The NRC published a parallel NPRM on May 16, 2013 (78 FR 28988). PHMSA anticipates that NRC will publish a parallel final rule at a future date. Since the proposed rules will be published separately, there is a risk of differences in overlapping proposals that may affect the compatibility of the NRC and PHMSA regulations. PHMSA and the NRC have coordinated the development and publication schedules for the final rules. Several actions have been taken to mitigate possible problems that may arise from such asynchronous publication, including but not limited to: A delayed mandatory compliance date, enforcement guidance/discretion, and deferred consideration of a proposed change to Sec. 173.453 regarding a fissile material exception for uranium enriched in uranium-235. PHMSA believes these actions, most specifically the delayed mandatory compliance date, will allow the NRC to complete its rulemaking cycle and to publish a final rule with an effective date in line with our effective date. This final rule addresses only the areas for which DOT has jurisdiction as defined in the MOU with NRC. In response to the 2011 NPRM we received comments from the following persons, companies, associations and other entities: Alaska Inter-Tribal Council B&W Y-12 L.L.C. (B&W) Energy Solutions J. L. Shepherd & Associates (J. L. Shepherd) Lawrence Laude Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) & Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC) (NIRS & CACC) QSA Global Inc. (QSA Global) Regulatory Resources The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) These comments are discussed in the section-by-section portion of this rule.\\4\\ In considering each proposal in the NPRM and each comment, we reviewed and evaluated each amendment on its own merit, on the basis of its overall impact on transportation safety, and on the basis of the economic implications [[Page 40592]] associated with its adoption into the HMR. Our goal is to harmonize the HMR with TS-R-1 without diminishing the level of safety currently provided by the HMR or imposing undue burdens on the regulated community. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\4\\ Comments which were outside the scope of this rulemaking are not addressed in this final rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Section-by-Section Review Part 171 Section 171.7 In Sec. 171.7, which contains a listing of all standards incorporated by reference into the HMR, PHMSA is replacing the 1996 edition of ``TS-R-1 (ST-1, Revised)'' with the 2009 edition of TS-R-1, with which we are harmonizing requirements in the HMR. We are also replacing the International Organization for Standardization standard ``ISO 2919-1980(E) Sealed radioactive sources--classification'' with ``ISO 2919-1999(E) Radiation Protection--Sealed radioactive sources-- General requirements and classification,'' applicable to Sec. 173.469(d). We are removing from Sec. 171.7 all entries that are only listed in Sec. Sec. 178.356 and 178.358 covering the construction and use of 20PF and 21PF specification overpacks, respectively. These overpacks are no longer authorized in hazardous materials regulations. We are also deleting references to 2R vessels, and any materials incorporated by reference solely into Sec. 178.360. The specifications for these packages are being removed from Sec. Sec. 178.356, 178.358, and 178.360, respectively, as discussed below. J. L. Shepherd raised a concern about a possible effect on currently issued special permits that allow use of 2R vessels, but these changes would not affect existing special permits. As a consequence of the removal of Sec. Sec. 178.356, 178.358, and 178.360 the following references are being removed from the list of matter incorporated by reference in Sec. 171.7: ANSI B16.5-77, Steel Pipe Flanges, Flanged Fittings, 1977 from Sec. 171.7(d)(2), AWWA Standard C207-55, Steel Pipe Flanges, 1955 from Sec. 171.7(i)(1), the reference heading for American Water Works Association from Sec. 171.7(i); and all listings and the reference heading for Department of Energy under Sec. 171.8(p) [cir] USDOE, CAPE-1662, Revision 1, and Supplement 1, Civilian Application Program Engineering Drawings, April 6, 1988, from Sec. 171.7(p)(1) [cir] USDOE, Material and Equipment Specification No. SP-9, Rev. 1, and Supplement--Fire Resistant Phenolic Foam, March 28, 1968, from Sec. 171.7(p)(2) [cir] USDOE, KSS-471,--Proposal for Modifications to U.S. Department of Transportation Specification 21PF-1, Fire and Shock Resistant Phenolic Foam--Insulated Metal Overpack, November 30, 1986 from Sec. 171.7(p)(3). Part 172 Section 172.203 This section details additional description requirements that are required for certain shipments of hazardous materials. As proposed in our NPRM, we are revising Sec. 172.203(d)(2) to specify that when a material is in ``special form'' the words ``special form'' must be included in the description, unless those words already appear in the proper shipping name. Lawrence Laude noted that this change would require that the offeror have the proper documentation to declare the material as special form. We agree, but note that an offeror of special form Class 7 material is already required to maintain documentation showing that the material meets the special form test requirements in Sec. 173.469 or has an IAEA Certificate of Competent Authority showing this (see Sec. 173.476). Consequently, if such documentation does not exist, the offeror may not classify the material as special form. An offeror who does not have the proper special form documentation, or does not wish to classify the material as special form, has the option to not declare it as special form. In our NPRM we proposed that the activity included on shipping papers and labels required by Sec. 172.203(d)(3) should include all parent radionuclides and daughter products, even those daughters that have half-lives shorter than 10 days and not greater than that of the parent. Several commenters raised concerns on our proposal. Lawrence Laude and J.L Shepherd commented that as proposed the NPRM changes would require listing multiple daughter products on the label with limited space, and create a potential conflict with the 95 percent requirement of Sec. 173.433(g). (Sec. 173.433(g). requires that those radionuclides that constitute 95% of the total radioactive hazard, based on nuclide-specific activity/Type A ratios, to be listed on the shipping paper) While we did not propose any changes to the listing of the radionuclides, but only to the total activity, we agree this could introduce confusion between the list and the total. Lawrence Laude also noted that the proposed change would introduce an inconsistency with Sec. 173.433(c)(2) for the calculation of A values for chains with short-lived daughters as that paragraph omits short-lived daughters. Lawrence Laude and J. L. Shepherd additionally noted that the A 1 and A 2 values for those radionuclides with short-lived daughters were derived taking the presence of the short- lived daughters into account; adding their activity would not be a fair comparison to the A 1 and A 2 values and would not be in harmony with TS[hyphen]R[hyphen]1. To avoid confusion with the nuclides to be listed, and to maintain consistency with the calculated A 1 and A 2 values, we are not adopting the proposed requirement to include daughter products when those daughters have half-lives less than 10 days and not greater than that of the parent. As proposed in the NPRM, we are also more closely aligning with the wording in TS-R-1 by specifying that the activity should be the maximum activity of the radioactive contents during transport. Lawrence Laude agreed with adding ``maximum'' to require that the offeror take into account changes in the activity due to decay and/or buildup of daughters, and suggested it would be useful to include a short explanation of ``maximum'' in the regulations. We believe the phrase ``maximum activity of the radioactive contents contained in each package during transport'' is self-explanatory. We are also amending Sec. 172.203(d)(3) to permit the mass of each fissile nuclide for mixtures to be included when appropriate, that is, when there is a mixture present. Additionally, in Sec. 172.203(d)(4), we are revising the example to clarify that the word ``RADIOACTIVE'' is not required to be included in the description of the category of label. Section 172.310 This section contains additional marking requirements for packages containing Class 7 (radioactive) material. In the NPRM we proposed to align the marking requirements in this section with the requirements in Sec. 178.350 which references the marking requirements of Sec. 178. 3. Lawrence Laude noted that our proposed change would have the unintended effect of requiring all Type A packages, including those with an AF certificate of compliance, to be marked with ``DOT 7A'' which is also required by Sec. 178.350. The commenter also noted that an alternate approach is to simply change the current marking size requirements in Sec. 172.310 to 12 mm (0.47 inches). We agree and are revising this paragraph accordingly. [[Page 40593]] Section 172.402 This section prescribes additional labeling requirements for shipments of hazardous materials. We are revising paragraph (d)(1) to clarify that for a package containing a Class 7 (radioactive) material that meets the definition of one or more additional hazard classes a subsidiary label is not required on the package if the non-radioactive material conforms to the small quantity exception in Sec. 173.4, excepted quantities exception in Sec. 173.4a, or de minimis exceptions in Sec. 173.4b. Lawrence Laude suggested modification to clarify that applicable packaging and marking requirements for the subsidiary hazard need not be met. However, our intent is to except these packages only from labeling. Regulatory Resources stated that paragraph (d)(1) is redundant with the referenced paragraphs and should be deleted in its entirety. However we are keeping the paragraph to provide clarity that the subsidiary label is not needed in these situations. Section 172.403 This section describes labeling requirements for shipments of Class 7 (radioactive) materials. We are correcting the reference in paragraph (d) from Sec. 173.428(d) to Sec. 173.428(e). We are revising paragraph (g)(2) to be consistent with the change included herein for Sec. 172.203(d)(3) to more closely align with the wording in TS-R-1 by specifying that the activity should be the maximum activity of the radioactive contents during transport. In response to several comments, and as discussed under Sec. 172.203(d)(3), we are not including the word ``total'' before ``maximum activity''. Further, we are amending the activity printing requirement on the RADIOACTIVE label to permit the mass of each fissile nuclide, as appropriate for mixtures, to be included. Section 172.504 This section prescribes general placarding requirements. In the NPRM we proposed to require placards to be affixed to conveyances carrying fissile material packages, unpackaged low specific activity (LSA) material or surface contaminated object (SCO) in category I (i.e., LSA-I and SCO-I respectively), all conveyances required by Sec. Sec. 173.427 and 173.441 to operate under exclusive use conditions, and all closed vehicles used in accordance with Sec. 173.443(d). This would more closely align domestic placarding requirements with those of TS-R-1. Regulatory Resources and Lawrence Laude stated their belief that packages bearing a fissile label do not warrant a radioactive placard, as adequate controls are provided by packaging and criticality safety index (CSI) labels. Lawrence Laude recommended that, if placarding fissile shipments is considered necessary, placarding should be limited to shipments required by Sec. 173.457 to be operated under exclusive use. While adoption of placarding for all shipments of packages with fissile labels would be consistent with the requirements of TS-R-1, PHMSA recognizes this could be a burden for shipments of small quantities of fissile material. We are therefore adopting the suggested approach to require placarding only for shipments required by Sec. 173.457 to be operated under exclusive use (that is, packages with CSI greater than 50). Regulatory Resources stated that under the proposed requirement, a shipper cannot ``apply full markings and labels per 49 CFR 172 Subparts D and E on a package containing low specific activity (LSA) material or surface contaminated objects (SCO) and ship them as exclusive use unless the shipper placards the vehicle--regardless of the label applied.'' While this is true, when it is not required to be shipped as exclusive use, a shipper may apply full markings and labels per 49 CFR part 172 subparts D and E on a package containing LSA material or SCO and choose to not declare the shipment as exclusive use. Regulatory Resources and Lawrence Laude noted that the placarding of all conveyances required by Sec. 173.441 to operate under exclusive use would extend applicability to shipments where the aggregate transport index (TI) for packages with Radioactive Yellow II labels exceeds 50. Regulatory Resources stated that this would provide little benefit and would result in large training costs, though they did not provide a specific cost estimate. PHMSA believes there is a safety benefit to providing a clear indication to personnel that a package or packages have TI's larger than allowed on non-exclusive use shipments. PHMSA further believes that this benefit will exceed the costs. For further information on costs and benefits, please see the ``placarding'' and ``benefits of the rule'' sections of the RIA placed in the docket for this rulemaking. Lawrence Laude noted that the use of the word ``conveyances'' in our proposed footnote, at least as defined in Sec. 173.403, would require vessels and aircraft to be placarded, which is not consistent with Sec. 172.504(a). While the definition in Sec. 173.403 does not apply to Sec. 172.504(a), we recognize that such an interpretation could be made. USEC added that based upon previous letters of interpretation changes to the existing text in sections to Sec. 172.504(e) and Sec. 173.427 to require only the conveyance to be placarded and not the conveyance and the package(s) would be beneficial. After analyzing the above comments on the NPRM, we are revising Sec. 172.504(e) Table 1 Footnote 1 to read as set out in the regulatory text of this rule. Section 172.505 This section describes when placarding for subsidiary risks is required. In paragraph (b), we proposed to remove the reference to ``low specific activity uranium hexafluoride'' to be consistent with changes to Sec. 173.420(e). Lawrence Laude noted that the phrase ``non-fissile, fissile-excepted, or fissile uranium hexafluoride'' covers all the possible shipments requiring subsidiary placarding, so it should suffice to just refer to ``uranium hexafluoride.'' We agree, but choose to list the three different proper shipping names used for uranium hexafluoride for clarity. Part 173 Section 173.4 This section provides requirements for shipments of small quantities by highway and rail. We proposed to revise paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to remove the reference to Sec. 173.425, as the references in Sec. Sec. 173.421 and 173.424 already cite the activity limits in Sec. 173.425. Lawrence Laude noted that the reference to Sec. 173.426 should also be deleted since, as noted in the preamble, it also does not specify a dose rate limit. The commenter also noted that the current and proposed Sec. 173.4(b) already invoke Sec. Sec. 173.421 and 173.424 which give activity limits for the package, making the inner receptacle activity limit references in Sec. 173.4(a)(1)(iv) redundant. We agree and are removing paragraph (a)(1)(iv) from Sec. 173.4. In the NPRM we proposed to revise paragraph (b) to specify that small quantities of Class 7 (radioactive) materials must satisfy the requirements of Sec. Sec. 173.421, 173.424, or 173.426 in their entirety. Lawrence Laude asked for justification, noting that as proposed, the change brings in all the requirements of Sec. 173.422, including the requirements for notification, training, and for hazardous waste and hazardous substances, shipping papers; not just the marking change highlighted in our NPRM. We agree and we are revising paragraph (b) to cite only the previously [[Page 40594]] referenced paragraphs while adding the similar paragraphs of Sec. 173.426. The commenter also noted that, as currently written, Sec. 173.4 does not require shipping papers for small quantity packages containing hazardous waste or hazardous substances and suggested considering whether this needs to be addressed. General relief applicable to all hazard classes and divisions was not proposed in the NPRM, and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Lawrence Laude suggested that PHMSA should eliminate the marking requirements of Sec. Sec. 173.4 and 173.4a for UN2910 and UN2911 excepted packages, viewing them as redundant. We did not propose these changes in the NPRM and such a change would be result in a substantive change not proposed and made available for public comment. Thus, such a change is considered outside the scope of this rulemaking. Commenters are welcome to petition for change by following the process detailed in Sec. Sec. 106.95 and 106.100. Section 173.25 This section provides requirements for packages utilizing overpacks. In the NPRM, we proposed to require the ``OVERPACK'' marking on all overpacks containing packages of Class 7 (radioactive) materials, unless package type markings representative of each Class 7 package contained therein are visible from the outside of the overpack. J.L. Shepherd claimed that the historical meaning and understanding by users of Type B packages is that ``overpacks'' are heat and impact resistant structures, and thus the term should not be used for cardboard boxes, shrink wrap or wooden boxes. However, we did not propose any change to the definition of the term ``overpack'' already found in Sec. 171.8 which does not preclude the use of cardboard boxes, shrink wrap, or wooden boxes as overpacks. The commenter also claimed that the IAEA has never addressed the use of ``overpacks'' related to type B shipments; however, the IAEA does define ``overpack'' in TS-R-1 which applies to all radioactive material packages and has marking requirements for overpacks similar to those proposed in our NPRM. Lawrence Laude suggested deletion of the text ``(Type IP-1, -2, or -3)'' since industrial package by definition includes Type IP-1, -2, or -3. We agree and have made this change. He also suggested revisions to Sec. 173.25(a)(6). However, we did not propose any changes to that paragraph in the NPRM and so those changes are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Clarifications were also requested on several other portions of this section that were not within the scope of this rulemaking. Lawrence Laude asked for clarification whether an overpack containing only excepted packages would need to be marked only with the UN number(s), consistent with Table 10 of TS-R-1. This is correct, but we see no needed changes to the proposed language. Regulatory Resources also requested we clarify the overpack marking requirements in Sec. 173.448(g)(2), which references subpart D of part 172 and Sec. 173.25(a), by removing the reference to subpart D. Although we agree that, because the part 172 marking requirements do not cover overpacks, this reference is unnecessary, we did not propose any changes to Sec. 173.448 in the NPRM so this is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We may address this in a future rulemaking. Section 173.401 This section outlines the scope of subpart I; subsection (b) specifies materials that are outside of that scope. We are modifying Sec. 173.401(b)(4) to add the phrase ``which are either in their natural state, or which have only been processed for purposes other than for extraction of the radionuclides.'' We also added ``or determined in accordance with Sec. 173.433'' to account for calculations for mixtures of radionuclides. We are also adding a new paragraph (b)(5) to clarify, based on internal PHMSA review of existing requirements, that non-radioactive solid objects with radioactive substances present on any surfaces in quantities not exceeding the limits cited in the definition of contamination in Sec. 173.403 are not subject to the Class 7 (radioactive) material requirements of the HMR. B & W requested that we consider PHMSA interpretation 06-0274 (issued May 6, 2008) and add that contaminated items below the consignment exemption limits are also not regulated. We believe this concept is already addressed in the regulations as referenced in the letter of interpretation and have not made this addition. The commenter also requested that we recognize ``free release'' limits that have been established by other federal agencies. We are not aware of any other specific codified federal limits and DOT does not have authority to set such limits. Section 173.403 Section 173.403 contains definitions specific to Class 7 (radioactive) materials. We are revising the definitions of ``contamination,'' ``criticality safety index (CSI),'' ``fissile material,'' ``low specific activity (LSA) material,'' ``radiation level,'' and ``uranium.'' NIRS & CACC expressed ``serious concerns'' with the changes in the definitions but provided no specific comments. We are changing the definition of ``contamination'' by deleting the word ``radioactive'' from the present definitions of ``Fixed radioactive contamination'' and ``Non-Fixed radioactive contamination.'' In addition, we are replacing the phrase ``contamination exists in two phases'' with ``there are two categories of contamination.'' Lawrence Laude noted that we were not consistent in our subsequent use of the term used for ``non-fixed contamination'' in the NPRM, using variations such as ``non-fixed (removable) radioactive surface contamination,'' ``removable (non-fixed) radioactive contamination,'' and ``removable radioactive surface contamination.'' We agree this could cause confusion, so we are standardizing by using ``non-fixed contamination'' as given in the definition and have made corresponding edits to Sec. Sec. 173.421(c), 173.443, 174.715, 176.715, and 177.843. We are revising the definition of ``criticality safety index (CSI)'' to include the sum of criticality safety indices of all fissile material packages contained within a conveyance. Lawrence Laude suggested that the language ``(rounded up to the next tenth)'' should be deleted from the definition of CSI as this is effectively addressed in the referenced sections of 10 CFR part 71 and would seem to eliminate a valid CSI of zero. The referenced NRC regulations contain the same words as our definition, except the last paragraph which says, ``Any CSI greater than zero must be rounded up to the first decimal place.'' PHMSA is not adopting the suggestion because we are consistent with the NRC definition in 10 CFR 71.4, and we reference 10 CFR 71.59 in our definition which includes the statement, ``Any CSI greater than zero must be rounded up to the first decimal place.'' We are revising the definition of ``fissile material'' to align with NRC's definition and to clarify that certain exceptions are provided in Sec. 173.453. Lawrence Laude suggested that we adopt the IAEA definition, which makes a distinction between fissile nuclides and fissile material, rather than the NRC definition. We choose the NRC definition for domestic consistency and as we believe it more precisely defines what is intended by the regulation. As proposed we are revising the definition of ``low specific activity [[Page 40595]] (LSA) material'' to more closely align with the definitions in TS-R-1 and in the NRC regulations. We proposed slight modifications in the definition of ``package'' to replace ``Industrial package Type 1 (IP-1) . . . (IP-2) . . . (IP- 3)'' with ``Industrial package Type 1 (Type IP-1) . . . (Type IP-2) . . . (Type IP-3).'' However, as Lawrence Laude and USEC noted, we introduced an error, repeating the word ``together'' under ``Industrial package.'' We are now correcting that error and changing only the references to package types. We are revising the definition of ``radiation level'' to clarify the types of radiation that contribute to the radiation level, stating that it consists of the sum of the dose-equivalent rates from all types of ionizing radiation present including alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Energy Solutions claimed this is inapplicable and overly burdensome when applied to container/conveyance release surveys. We do not use the term ``release survey'' in the regulations as DOT does not regulate the transfer of radioactive materials from control while ``radiation level'' limits are given in Sec. Sec. 173.441 and 173.443. The commenter claims that alpha emitting radionuclides are not a contributor to external radiation dose equivalent and are already addressed in the removable surface contamination limits prescribed in the rule; he also claims that low-energy beta emissions should not be of concern and that it is not possible to accurately quantify beta dose at very low levels. We agree that for a large majority of radioactive packages, gamma or neutron radiation is the only significant contributor to dose at one meter from the surface of the package and although low energy beta emissions are typically more difficult to measure or might contribute little or even nothing to the radiation level, it is still possible and appropriate to measure their contribution, or the absence of any contribution, in order to ensure radiological safety. However there are a few packages where neutrons must be considered (as noted in the current definition), and alpha and beta radiation should also be considered in meeting the regulatory requirements. The commenter proposed a new definition of ``Release Survey Effective Radiation Dose Equivalent;'' we do not believe such a term is needed. We are revising the definition of ``uranium'' to include natural uranium that has not been chemically separated from accompanying constituents. Lawrence Laude said we should consider deleting ``(which may be chemically separated)'' as unnecessary. While this is true, we prefer to leave the words in for clarification. B & W suggested we also chan","truncated":true,"body_characters":198583}