# Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 61 FR 33216
- **title:** Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** proposed
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1996-06-26
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** RSPA is proposing to incorporate into the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) a number of changes, based on agency initiative, petitions for rulemaking and comments received at public meetings, to the classification of certain hazardous materials which are poisonous by inhalation and to provisions for the manufacture, use and reuse of hazardous materials packagings. The intended effect of these regulatory changes is to improve safety, reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials, make the regulations easier to use and correct errors.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-15272.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-15272.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-15272
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1996/06/26/96-15272/performance-oriented-packaging-standards-final-transitional-provisions
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996) [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 33216-33230] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 96-15272] [[Page 33215]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part IV Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171, et al. Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards: Final Transitional Provisions; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules [[Page 33216]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 178 [Docket No. HM-181H; Notice No. 96-11] RIN 2137-AC80 Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing to incorporate into the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) a number of changes, based on agency initiative, petitions for rulemaking and comments received at public meetings, to the classification of certain hazardous materials which are poisonous by inhalation and to provisions for the manufacture, use and reuse of hazardous materials packagings. The intended effect of these regulatory changes is to improve safety, reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials, make the regulations easier to use and correct errors. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 1996. ADDRESSES: Address comments to Dockets Unit (DHM-30), Hazardous Materials Safety, RSPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket and notice number and be submitted, when possible, in five copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. The Dockets Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, except on public holidays when the office is closed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Romo, telephone (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, or Bill Gramer, telephone (202) 366-4545, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 21, 1990, RSPA published a final rule [Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402], which comprehensively revised the HMR with respect to hazard communication, classification, and packaging requirements based on the United Nations (UN) Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. A document responding to petitions for reconsideration and containing editorial and substantive revisions to the final rule was published on December 20, 1991 [56 FR 66124]. On October 1, 1992, under Dockets HM-181 and HM-189, RSPA issued editorial and technical corrections to the regulations published in 1991. On September 24, 1993, RSPA issued a final rule under Docket HM-181F [58 FR 50224] which made changes to the HMR based on agency initiative and petitions for rulemaking received since the December 20, 1991 response to petitions for reconsideration. That final rule primarily revised requirements with a mandatory compliance date of October 1, 1993, as provided in the transitional provisions in Sec. 171.14(b)(4). This rule, as proposed, addresses most remaining issues associated with the implementation of Docket HM-181 provisions and certain other issues arising from a final rule issued December 29, 1994, under Docket HM-215A [59 FR 67390]. Many of these proposed changes are to requirements with a compliance date of October 1, 1996. These issues have been raised through petitions for rulemaking and agency initiative. Although these proposed changes focus primarily on provisions concerning hazard classification and the maintenance and use of performance packaging, RSPA also is proposing changes to intermediate bulk container (IBC) requirements, portable tank requirements, and regulated medical waste provisions adopted under Dockets HM-181E and HM-181G, respectively. Several current exemptions would be converted into regulations of general applicability, and an approval concerning design qualification and periodic testing would be incorporated into the HMR. This proposed rule does not address the manufacture, maintenance and use of fiber drums. A final rule was published February 29, 1996 [61 FR 7958] which extends the authority to ship certain liquid hazardous materials in open-head fiber drums that do not meet performance-oriented packaging standards for hazardous materials in Packing Group III. This proposed rule is consistent with the goals of President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed Federal agencies to review all agency regulations and eliminate or revise those that are outdated or in need of reform. A notice issued April 4, 1995 by RSPA requested comments on regulatory reform (Docket HM-222; 60 FR 17049) and announced a comprehensive review of the HMR to identify provisions that are candidates for elimination, revision, clarification, or relaxation. Certain proposed changes in this document reflect the results of this review. II. Summary of Proposed Regulatory Changes by Section Listed below is a section-by-section summary of the proposed changes and, where applicable, the assigned petition number. Part 171 Section 171.7. The table of material incorporated by reference would be amended by adding a new entry referencing a publication issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for defining biosafety levels. Section 171.14. All transitional provisions reflecting a compliance date of October 1, 1996, or earlier would be removed. Three remaining transition provisions apply to packages filled prior to October 1, 1991, new placard specifications, and authorization for use of fiber drums. Part 172 Section 172.101. The text preceding the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) sets forth procedures for using the HMT. RSPA received a petition for rulemaking [P-1169] from the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC) requesting clarification of the procedures contained in paragraph (c)(12)(iii) for selecting a proper shipping name for a material that meets the definition of more than one hazard class. RSPA agrees and is proposing to replace the phrase ``identify . . . by a specific description'' with ``identify . . . specifically by name'' and include an example. Section 172.101; the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). A new entry to provide for the domestic transportation of black powder for small arms reclassed as a Division 4.1 would be added. This proposed revision is in response to a petition [P-1295] asking RSPA to incorporate the provisions of an exemption (DOT-E-8958) into regulations of general applicability. As part of the justification for the request, the petitioner noted an incident-free shipping history of more than 12 years and cited comparable provisions for smokeless powder, small arms cartridges and power device cartridges. In conjunction with this proposed [[Page 33217]] change, a new Special Provision 70 and new non-bulk packaging section Sec. 173.170 would be added. In the HMT, the entries ``Chlorosilanes, n.o.s.'', with identification numbers UN 2986, UN 2987, and UN 2988, are not authorized to be shipped in IM portable tanks. A petitioner [P-1257] requested that RSPA authorize IM portable tanks for all chlorosilanes because individual chlorosilanes, such as Ethyldichlorosilane, Methyldichlorosilane and Trichlorosilane, pose similar hazards and are authorized under the HMR to be shipped in IM portable tanks. RSPA agrees with the petitioner that authorizing certain IM portable tanks for all chlorosilanes would not compromise safety and would be consistent with packaging authorizations for other materials posing similar hazards. RSPA proposes to add special provisions in Column (7) for ``Chlorosilanes, n.o.s.'', with identification numbers UN 2986, UN 2987, and UN 2988, to permit the transport of these materials in IM portable tanks. Bulk packaging references for three Type F organic peroxides (UN 3110, UN 3119, and UN 3120) would be revised by changing ``None'' to ``225'' in Column (8C) to indicate that these materials are authorized in bulk packagings. In addition, for the entries ``Organic Peroxide, type F, liquid (or solid), temperature controlled'' (UN 3119 and UN 3120), in Column (8A), the packaging exception reference ``152'' would be removed for each entry to indicate that these temperature controlled organic peroxides are not eligible for packaging exceptions. Twenty-nine entries classed as Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) solids in Packing Groups II and III would be amended by revising Column (8A) to authorize Sec. 173.151 as a packaging exception section. Revisions to Classification and Hazard Zone Identification for Certain Materials Poisonous by Inhalation. Based on acute inhalation toxicity data and related information obtained by RSPA, the HMT would be amended to change the hazard zone for some materials poisonous by inhalation, and to add other materials to the list of materials poisonous by inhalation. For certain materials this revision would impose more stringent hazard communication and packaging requirements. The materials and a description of the data on which these proposals are based are listed as follows: a. Bromine trifluoride (UN1746). This material is a liquid at 20 deg.C and is identified as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. Based on harmonization of the HMR with the UN Recommendations (Eighth revised edition), bromine trifluoride is assigned to Division 5.1. However, according to Sec. 173.2a(a), ``Division 6.1 (poisonous liquids), Packing Group I, poisonous-by-inhalation only'' takes precedence over ``Division 5.1 (oxidizers).'' Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add the plus (+) symbol to Column 1 of the entry for bromine trifluoride. b. Hydrogen cyanide, solution in alcohol (with not more than 45 percent hydrogen cyanide) (UN3294). This material is a liquid at 20 deg.C and is classified as a Division 6.1 material. Packing Group I only is assigned. Hydrogen cyanide, stabilized (UN1051), is identified as a Hazard Zone A inhalation hazard. Therefore, based on the toxicity and volatility of hydrogen cyanide, the packing group assigned and the dilution factor for this solution of hydrogen cyanide, RSPA is proposing to identify hydrogen cyanide, solution in alcohol with not more than 45 percent hydrogen cyanide as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. c. Metal carbonyls, n.o.s. (UN3281). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I, II and III toxic metal carbonyls that are not specifically listed by name but which exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these metal carbonyls may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Others may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal toxicity, which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for metal carbonyls, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. d. Methanesulfonyl chloride (UN3246). This material is a liquid at 20 deg.C and is classified as a Division 6.1 material. Acute inhalation toxicity data for this material was obtained from a Special Approval application before the material was listed by name in the UN Recommendations (Seventh revised edition) and, subsequently, in the HMR. Following publication of the final rule under Docket HM-215A (59 FR 67390; December 29, 1994), a manufacturer submitted data identifying the material as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard (rat; LC50:205 ppm/1H (hour); V (saturated vapor concentration):2760 ppm). RSPA agrees with the data and is proposing to identify methanesulfonyl chloride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. e. Methyl vinyl ketone (UN1251). This material is a liquid at 20 deg.C and is classified as a Class 3 material. Acute inhalation toxicity data for methyl vinyl ketone was listed in the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) (RTECS: EM9800000), as follows: Rat; LC50:7 mg/m\3\/4H. The value, converted to ppm/one hour, was: Rat; LC50:5 ppm/1H. The saturated vapor concentration was calculated to be: V:93400 ppm at 20 deg.C, indicating that methyl vinyl ketone is a material poisonous by inhalation and falls within Hazard Zone A. RSPA agrees with this data and is proposing to identify methyl vinyl ketone as a Hazard Zone A inhalation hazard. Also, to maintain harmony with the UN Recommendations (Eighth revised edition), RSPA is proposing to add the plus (+) symbol to Column 1 of the entry for methyl vinyl ketone. f. Nitriles, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. (UN3275). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I and II toxic, flammable nitriles that are not specifically listed by name but exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these nitriles may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Other nitriles may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal toxicity which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for nitriles, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. g. Nitriles, toxic, n.o.s. (UN3276). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I, II and III toxic nitriles that are not specifically listed by name but exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these nitriles may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Other nitriles may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal toxicity which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for nitriles, toxic, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. h. Organoarsenic compound, n.o.s. (UN3280). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I, II and III toxic organoarsenic compounds that are not specifically listed by name but exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these organoarsenic compounds may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Others may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal [[Page 33218]] toxicity which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for organoarsenic compound, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. i. Organophosphorus compound, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. (UN3279). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I and II toxic, flammable organophosphorus compounds that are not specifically listed by name but may exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these organophosphorus compounds may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Others may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal toxicity which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for organophosphorus compound, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. j. Organophosphorus compound, toxic, n.o.s. (UN3278). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Group I, II and III toxic organophosphorus compounds that are not listed by name but exhibit acute oral, dermal and/or inhalation toxicity. The acute toxicity of these organophosphorus compounds may differ from one compound to another. Those toxic by inhalation may fall into Hazard Zone A or Hazard Zone B. Others may not be toxic by inhalation, but may exhibit oral and/or dermal toxicity which places them in Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to add special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of this entry for organophosphorus compound, toxic, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. k. Phosphorus pentafluoride (UN2198). This material is a gas at 20 deg.C and is currently identified as a Hazard Zone A inhalation hazard - a tentative classification since no acute inhalation toxicity data was available. The Compressed Gas Association, Inc. (CGA) has reviewed the acute inhalation toxicity of phosphorous pentafluoride, among others. In their Standard for Classification of Toxic Gas Mixtures (CGA P-20--1995), the CGA estimates the toxicity to be: Rat; LC50:260 ppm/1H. RSPA agrees with the CGA estimate and is proposing to identify phosphorus pentafluoride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. l. Tungsten hexafluoride (UN2196). This material is a gas at 20 deg.C and is currently identified as a Hazard Zone C inhalation hazard. This was an RSPA estimate since no acute inhalation toxicity data was available. The CGA has reviewed the acute inhalation toxicity of tungsten hexafluoride. In their Standard for Classification of Toxic Gas Mixtures, the CGA estimates the toxicity to be: Rat; LC50:217 ppm/ 1H. RSPA agrees with the CGA estimate and is proposing to identify phosphorus pentafluoride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. Section 172.102. Special Provision B59, which authorizes AAR 207A rail cars for phosphorus pentasulfide, would be revised based on a petition [P-1286] submitted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). In its petition, the AAR maintained that the current authorization in B59 for AAR Specification ``207A tank cars'' is not correct. The AAR acknowledged that it has contributed to the problem by referring to these cars in its Tank Car Manual as tank cars, when they are, in fact, hopper cars used to transport solid materials. RSPA agrees that these cars are more appropriately described as hopper cars and proposes to amend Special Provision B59 accordingly. A new special provision (N42) would be added to authorize a UN 1A1 steel drum for stabilized benzyl chloride. Prior to the adoption of performance packaging standards under Docket HM-181, the use of DOT Specification 5A and 17C steel drums was authorized for stabilized benzyl chloride. Under Docket HM-181, Special Provision N43 was assigned to both stabilized and unstabilized benzyl chloride, which prohibited use of metal drums other than those constructed of monel or nickel. Based on a petition for rulemaking [P-1296], RSPA agrees with the petitioner that certain 1A1 steel drums having a phenolic lining are appropriate for stabilized benzyl chloride. Therefore, RSPA is proposing to remove N43 from the entry for benzyl chloride and replace it with a new special provision N42, which will allow use of phenolic- lined steel drums with a minimum thickness of 0.050 inches which have been tested and certified to a Packing Group I level at a specific gravity of 1.8. Section 172.302. In the general marking requirements for bulk packagings, markings on portable tanks with capacities of less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons) must be at least 6.0 mm (0.24 inch) wide and at least 25 mm (one inch) high. RSPA received a petition for rulemaking [P-1191] requesting that paragraph (b)(2) of this section be amended to decrease to 3 mm the minimum width of markings required on portable tanks having a capacity less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). The petitioner stated that the required minimum width (6 mm) is disproportionate to the required minimum height (25 mm). The petitioner stated that this marking is difficult to read, which reduces the effectiveness of the marking. RSPA agrees that the width of the markings should be proportionate to the height, but believes that 3 mm may be too narrow for the size of the packaging. In this notice, RSPA proposes to revise the minimum width of markings for portable tanks with capacities less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons) to 4 mm (0.16 inches). In addition, minimum height of markings required on IBCs would be specified in paragraph (b)(2) as 25 mm (one inch). Currently, minimum height markings for IBCs would fall under paragraph (b)(3) with IBCs described as ``other bulk packagings'' which are required to have a minimum height of 50 mm (2.0 inches). RSPA has received comments requesting the minimum height requirement be lowered for IBCs. After reviewing this issue, RSPA agrees that the minimum marking height for IBCs should be consistent with markings for smaller portable tanks and is proposing a reduction in both height and width for IBCs. Section 172.504. In response to a petition for rulemaking from HMAC [P-1169], RSPA is proposing to remove paragraph (f)(8), which allows a CLASS 9 placard to be substituted for a COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID placard for a material meeting both Combustible liquid and Class 9 hazard classes. HMAC noted the potential for confusion and delay of a shipment because of inconsistencies between the documentation and marking requirements describing a Combustible liquid and the application of CLASS 9 placards. In addition, this alternative placarding conflicts with paragraph (f)(9), which provides an exception from placarding for Class 9 materials in domestic transportation. Part 173 Section 173.24a. It has come to RSPA's attention that certain cushioning materials deteriorate if there is even minimal leakage from an inner packaging. A degradation of cushioning materials could seriously reduce the effectiveness of a packaging and render it as not conforming to its marked performance standard or not meeting general packaging requirements. Paragraph (a)(3) would be revised to clarify that cushioning material used to protect inner packagings must not be adversely affected (e.g., disintegrate) if there is leakage of a hazardous material from the inner packagings. This clarification is consistent with [[Page 33219]] international air transport provisions contained in the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions. Currently, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) provide filling limits for single and composite packagings, but no such limits are provided for combination packagings. RSPA proposes to revise paragraph (b)(2) of this section to prescribe filling limits for all non-bulk packagings, including combination packagings. This provision would prohibit combination packagings from being filled with a hazardous material to a gross mass greater than the maximum gross mass marked on the packaging. In addition, a new paragraph (e) would be added to incorporate a definition for stainless steel as it pertains to non-bulk packaging. This is consistent with paragraph (b) in Sec. 173.24b for calculating equivalent steel for bulk packagings. Section 173.28. RSPA received a petition [P-1303] requesting that paragraph (b)(4) be revised to incorporate a calculation which may be used to determine an equivalent drum thickness for stainless steel drums. The petitioner maintained that drums fabricated of stainless steel are less susceptible to damage or a reduction in structural integrity resulting from mechanical stresses associated with handling and reuse. The petitioner further claimed that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved through reuse of a thinner stainless steel drum and noted the same method is authorized already in the HMR for calculating equivalent minimum thicknesses of portable tanks and metal IBCs. RSPA agrees, and is proposing to add a formula in paragraph (b)(4) for calculating an equivalent minimum thickness for stainless steel drums. This proposed formula is consistent with the formula contained in Sec. 178.705 for calculating minimum wall thicknesses for metal IBCs. The Association of Container Reconditioners (ACR) submitted a petition for rulemaking [P-1292] dated August 10, 1995, asking RSPA to revise the footnote in paragraph (b)(4) once again to reflect a 1.1 mm (0.043 inch) head. This footnote has been revised three times since the issuance of the 1990 Docket HM-181 final rule. In 1988, ACR (formerly National Barrel and Drum Association) was among commenters to the HM- 181 NPRM asking RSPA to allow the ``20/18 gauge'' drum. RSPA responded to this comment in the 1990 final rule by adopting a footnote to the Sec. 173.28(b)(4) minimum thickness table, to allow the ``20/18 gauge'' drum, (i.e. drums of 220 liters with a body thickness of 0.82 mm and head thickness of 1.09 mm) to be reused. The 1991 revised final rule under Docket HM-181 amended the footnote to allow a minimum body thickness of 0.8 mm, with minimum head thickness of 1.1 mm. This change was not based on comments or RSPA's intent to change minimum thickness requirements, but from revised methods of rounding metric units. In 1993, the eighth revised edition of the UN Recommendations adopted a requirement to mark nominal thickness, which is tied to minimum thickness by ISO 3574. RSPA, in response to an ACR request for clarification, stated that drums marked in accordance with the UN Recommendations would be satisfactory, but they must be marked with the minimum thickness to the nearest 0.1 mm. In the 1994 edition of the HMR, Footnote 1 continued to authorize a minimum thickness of 0.8 mm (0.03 inch) body and 1.1 mm (0.043 inch) head. No changes to the footnote were proposed in the Docket HM-215A NPRM published July 18, 1994, but in its September 6, 1994 comment to this proposed rule, ACR ``strongly'' urged RSPA to restore Footnote 1 to the original provision implemented in the 1990 HM-181 final rule ( 0.82 mm body and 1.09 mm head). ACR stated: ``In reprinting this table in 1991, however, the thicknesses identified in this footnote were changed, from 0.82 mm (0.0324 inch) to `0.8 mm (0.03 inch' in the body and from 1.09 mm (0.0428 inch) to `1.1 mm (0.043 inch)' in the heads.'' ACR claimed these criteria do not correspond to the 20/18 gauge DOT specification drums in current use at the time HM-181 was adopted, ``nor were they explained in any fashion in the preamble to the second printing of the final rule.'' ACR suggested that the footnote ``could be recast'' to prescribe ``0.9 mm nominal (0.82 mm minimum) body and 1.2 mm nominal (1.1 mm minimum) body''. In the December 29, 1994 final rule issued under HM-215A, RSPA adopted a requirement to mark drums with nominal, rather than minimum thickness, based on revised UN Recommendations, but retained minimum thickness standards for reuse. In Footnote 1, RSPA revised the 0.8 mm thickness to read ``0.80 mm'' for clarity. On January 27, 1995, ACR submitted a petition for reconsideration of HM- 215A final rule within the prescribed 30-day period following the December 29, 1994 final rule. ACR requested an immediate ``spot'' amendment to Footnote 1. In its petition, ACR stated ``. . . we ask you to issue an immediate correction to the footnote to Sec. 173.28(b)(4) to make it read properly as it did in the December 21, 1990 Federal Register: `Metal drums or jerricans constructed with a minimum thickness of 0.82 mm (0.032 inch) body and 1.09 mm (0.043 inch) heads are authorized.' '' However, on February 24, 1995, after the petition for reconsideration period for HM-215A had ended, ACR submitted another letter ``intended to provide clarifying detail'' regarding Footnote 1. This letter indicated the footnote should be corrected to express minimum thicknesses for nominal markings in accordance with the ISO standard and should reference a minimum thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.11 mm heads, which would bear a nominal marking ``1.2/0.9/1.2.'' Less than a month after receipt of the petition requesting an immediate correction to authorize 1.09 mm minimum thickness for heads, ACR again requested a minimum thickness of 1.11 mm heads. A revised final rule under Docket HM-215A issued on May 18, 1995, addressed the ACR petition of January 27, 1995, by restoring the minimum thicknesses of 0.82 mm body and 1.09 heads, as adopted in the HM-181 final rule issued December 21, 1990. ACR responded by submitting a petition for rulemaking on August 10, 1995, claiming that RSPA had not adjusted Footnote 1 to correlate with ISO Standard 3574:1986, and petitioning RSPA to revise Footnote 1 to prescribe a metal drum minimum thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.11 mm heads. ACR indicated that this would result in a ``modest increase in the minimum head thickness of 0.02 mm, . . . most of the metal thicknesses now set forth in the table . . . also involved modest increases.'' In a subsequent action, ACR sent a letter to the RSPA Administrator, claiming that ``DOT has been unable to successfully marry the international standards used and cited by the UN with DOT's minimum thickness requirements, with respect to `20/18' style drums.'' ACR also cited ``changes made by RSPA in HM-215A'' (one based on the ACR petition for a spot amendment to restore the footnote to 0.82 body and 1.09 heads) and noted the agency's failure to adjust the Sec. 173.28 footnote to correspond with ISO. Based on this discussion, RSPA is proposing one final adjustment to Footnote 1 to specify a minimum thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.11 mm head to correspond with ISO and respond to ACR's latest petition. Paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(C) would be revised to clarify that there are established conditions which must be met before an approval is granted by the [[Page 33220]] Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety to allow relief from leakproofness testing for a packaging constructed of a material or thickness not otherwise authorized in the exception. Paragraph (c)(2) prescribes reconditioning requirements for non- bulk packagings other than metal drums. Based on the merits of a request for clarification from the National Association of Chemical Distributors, RSPA is proposing that paragraph (c)(2) be revised to clarify that repair or replacement of a bung or a removable gasket in a plastic closed head (UN 1H1) drum is not considered reconditioning and does not subject the drum to reconditioning marking requirements or to leakproofness testing requirements if the drum was otherwise excepted from leakproofness testing. Section 173.32. A final rule issued July 26, 1994, under Docket HM- 181E adopted provisions for intermediate bulk containers and imposed a termination date of September 30, 1996 for new construction of DOT Specification 56 and 57 portable tanks. As part of that final rule, requirements in Part 178 for design, construction and testing of these tanks were removed. Although new construction of these tanks will no longer be authorized after September 30, 1996, existing DOT 57 tanks are authorized for use as long as they are successfully retested in accordance with retest provisions of Sec. 173.32(e). Because the pressure testing requirements for DOT 57 tanks refer to a section in Part 178 which has been removed, RSPA is proposing to reinstate this requirement in paragraph (e)(2)(i). In addition, based on the merits of a petition [P-1092], RSPA is proposing to amend paragraph (d) to allow plastic discharge valves for certain stainless steel DOT 57 tanks constructed before October 1, 1996. Allowing a plastic discharge valve on these tanks will eliminate the need for an existing exemption, DOT- E-10916, and will permit continued use of thousands of portable tanks with a proven safety record. Section 173.115. The Association of American Railroads (AAR), in a petition for rulemaking [P-1152], requested a revision to paragraph (b)(1) to correct the conversion of 280 kPa to read ``280 kPa (40.6 psia).'' RSPA agrees and paragraph (b)(1) is revised to reflect the correct conversion in parentheses for informational purposes. Section 173.120 and Appendix H to Part 173. Based on the merit of requests from industry, RSPA is proposing to add provisions to test combustible liquids with a flash point above 60.5 deg.C (141 deg.F) and below 93 deg.C (200 deg.F) for the ability to sustain combustion. Appendix H was added in the Docket HM-215A final rule to incorporate additional testing procedures for a material meeting the definition of Class 3 (flammable liquid). If this material was unable to sustain combustion when heated under test conditions and exposed to an external source of flame, it was excepted from the regulations as a Class 3 material. This notice proposes to expand the exception to apply to materials which meet the definition in paragraph (b) for combustible liquids. Appendix H to Part 173 would be revised to provide additional test temperatures in paragraph 5.(h) for combustible liquids that would closely parallel the approach for flammable liquids. Sections 173.121, 173.125, and 173.127. Currently, procedures for assigning a packing group to a hazardous material in these sections convey to the reader that the Sec. 172.101 Table indicates that the packing group is to be determined on the basis of the grouping criteria for a given hazard class. The AAR and HMAC, in petitions for rulemaking [P-1152 and P-1169, respectively], requested that RSPA amend the regulatory language in Secs. 173.121(a), 173.125(a), and 173.127(b) to mirror the language in Secs. 173.133 and 173.137 for consistency and clarity. In this notice, RSPA proposes to clarify the methods for determining packing groups described in Secs. 173.121(a), 173.125(a), and 173.127(b) for Class 3, Class 4, and Class 5 materials, respectively. Section 173.133. The introductory text of paragraph (a) sets forth procedures for selecting packing group or hazard zone when the Sec. 172.101 Table provides more than one packing group and hazard zone for a hazardous material. The AAR requested, in a petition for rulemaking [P-1152], that RSPA revise the wording ``provides more than one packing group and hazard zone'' to read ``provides more than one packing and/or hazard zone'' because hazard zones do not apply to Packing Group II and III Division 6.1 materials. RSPA agrees and proposes to revise the wording ``more than one packing group and hazard zone'' to read ``more than one packing group or hazard zone''. Section 173.134. Paragraph (a)(4) limits the definition of regulated medical waste to exclude discarded cultures and stocks of infectious substances. In this proposed rule, paragraph (b) would be revised by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) authorizing discarded cultures and stocks in Biosafety Levels 1, 2 and 3, as defined in HHS Publication No. (CDC) 93-8395, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, 3rd Edition, May 1993, Section II to be described and packaged as regulated medical waste rather than infectious substances. Packagings would be required to conform to Packing Group II performance requirements. Transport of these materials would be limited to private or contract motor freight carriers in dedicated service to the transportation of medical waste. Section 173.151. A new paragraph (d) would be added to incorporate limited quantity provisions for Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) solid materials in Packing Groups II and III. This proposal would align the HMR with limited quantity exceptions contained in the UN Recommendations. Section 173.156. In the December 21, 1990 final rule under Docket HM-181, RSPA imposed a gross weight limit of 30 kg (66 pounds) per package on materials shipped under limited quantity and consumer commodity provisions to minimize their aggregate risk. RSPA also provided an exception in Sec. 173.156 from this 30 kg weight limitation for packages of consumer commodities unitized in cages, carts, boxes, or similar overpacks when shipped by private or contract carrier or common carrier in exclusive use between a manufacturer, a distribution center, and a retail outlet. RSPA received a petition for rulemaking [P-1213] from the Conference on the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) requesting removal of the 30 kg weight restriction for ORM-D materials packaged in ``display packs.'' COSTHA described these display packs as containing inner receptacles of ORM-D materials which are secured in corrugated fiberboard trays and then stacked and placed within a strong outer container. Each outer container is strapped to a wooden pallet with steel or polyester strapping to form an integral part of the packaging. COSTHA claimed the completed package meets the general packaging requirements of Subpart B of Part 173 and is marked in accordance with Sec. 172.316. As part of its petition, COSTHA cited an exemplary safety record in transporting these display packs under pre-HM-181 limited quantity provisions, which do not impose any weight limitations, but will no longer be authorized after October 1, 1996. RSPA believes that ORM-D materials shipped in the above-described display packs achieve an adequate level of safety in transportation. Therefore, RSPA proposes to amend Sec. 173.156 by revising paragraph (b) to authorize [[Page 33221]] ORM-D materials in palletized display packs exceeding the 30 kg (66 pound) gross weight limitation to be offered for transportation, or transported, by highway or rail between a manufacturer, a distribution center, and a retail outlet. In addition, RSPA is proposing to provide an exception for transportation of ORM-D materials to disposal facilities. A petitioner [P-1308] requested that RSPA amend paragraph (b) to allow discarded consumer commodities to be transported from manufacturing, distribution or retail facilities to a disposal facility when packaged in large boxes or overpacks exceeding 30 kg (66 pounds). The petitioner claimed that the cost of meeting the 30 kg weight limit or packaging these consumer commodities in UN-certified performance packagings far exceeds any safety benefit achieved. The petitioner also noted that allowing distribution centers and retail outlets to ship discarded consumer commodities to local disposal facilities rather than back to the manufacturer could enhance transportation safety by shortening the shipping distance. RSPA agrees and is proposing to amend paragraph (b) to authorize discarded consumer commodities to be shipped to disposal facilities when packaged in large boxes or similar overpacks exceeding 30 kg (66 pounds). Section 173.158. This section would be revised to authorize additional packagings for nitric acid. RSPA received one petition [P- 1280] which pointed out that packaging authorizations for nitric acid in 90 percent or greater concentrations, when offered for transportation or transported by rail, highway or water, are more stringent than packaging authorizations for transportation by cargo aircraft only or packaging authorizations for red fuming nitric acid, a toxic by inhalation hazard material. RSPA agrees with this petitioner, and paragraph (d) would be revised to authorize additional packagings for nitric acid in concentrations of 90 percent or greater when offered for transportation or transported by rail, highway or water. A combination packaging consisting of a 1A2, 1B2, 1D, 1G, 1H2, 3H2 or 4G outer packaging with inner glass packagings of 2.5 L (0.66 gallons) or less capacity cushioned with a non-reactive, absorbent material and packed within a leak-tight packaging of metal or plastic would be authorized. In addition, RSPA is proposing to revise paragraph (f)(1) based on the merits of a petition [P-1289] requesting that 6HH1 and 6HA1 composite packagings with PFA Teflon inner receptacles be authorized for nitric acid
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 99860