# Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 61 FR 50616
- **title:** Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Research and Special Programs Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 1996-09-26
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** RSPA is incorporating into the 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. These regulatory changes are intended to improve safety, reduce compliance costs for 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-96-24398.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-24398.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-24398
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1996/09/26/96-24398/performance-oriented-packaging-standards-final-transitional-provisions
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996) [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 50616-50629] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 96-24398] [[Page 50615]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part IV Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171, et al. Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 188 / Thursday, September 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 50616]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 178 [Docket No. HM-181H; Amdt Nos. 171-147, 172-150, 173-255, 178-117] RIN 2137-AC66 Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards; Final Transitional Provisions AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is incorporating into the 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. These regulatory changes are intended to improve safety, reduce compliance costs for offerors and transporters of hazardous materials, make the regulations easier to use, and correct errors. DATES: Effective date. The effective date of these amendments is January 1, 1997. Compliance date. Because the amendments adopted herein generally clarify and relax certain provisions scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 1996, RSPA is authorizing immediate voluntary compliance. However, persons voluntarily complying with these regulations should be aware that petitions for reconsideration may be received and, as a result of RSPA's evaluation of those petitions, the amendments adopted in this final rule could be subject to further revision. Incorporation by reference. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these amendments has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 1, 1997. 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 (UN Recommendations). 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). RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 26, 1996, under Docket HM-181H [61 FR 33216] to address 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]. These issues were raised through petitions for rulemaking and agency initiative. RSPA proposed changes to numerous requirements with a compliance date of October 1, 1996. Although these changes focus primarily on provisions concerning hazard classification and the maintenance and use of performance packaging, RSPA also proposed 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 were proposed for conversion into regulations of general applicability, and an approval concerning design qualification and periodic testing was proposed for incorporation into the HMR. II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM RSPA received nearly 40 comments in response to the proposed rule. The comments were submitted by chemical manufacturing companies, trade associations, packaging manufacturers, drum reconditioners, and various organizations representing the medical waste industry. Commenters were uniformly supportive of RSPA's efforts to address remaining issues associated with Docket HM-181 and other issues arising from the Docket HM-215A final rule. Certain issues proposed in the notice received little or no comment. Other issues, such as drum reuse provisions, display packs for ORM-D materials, an exception proposed for certain Division 6.2 waste materials, and winter filling limits for tank cars, were the focus of many of the comments. Several commenters requested amendments to the HMR other than those proposed as part of this initiative. Most of these suggestions are beyond the scope of the proposed changes in this rule and are under review. The Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC) expressed concern that the proposed rule frequently cited a petition for rulemaking [P- 1169] without proposing adoption or discussing other provisions identified by HMAC in their April 13, 1993 petition. HMAC also claimed that another petition [P-1232], addressing outage requirements for materials poisonous by inhalation, merited consideration because it appeared to be within the scope of the Docket HM-181H rulemaking. Petition P-1169 contained 25 separate issues that HMAC submitted to RSPA for consideration to amend the HMR. Of the 25 issues identified in that petition, RSPA has adopted a majority, including seven issues in this rulemaking. The few remaining issues will appear in upcoming proposed rulemaking actions (such as HM-215B) or are presently under review. Under Docket HM-181, RSPA adopted a five percent outage requirement for poisonous by inhalation hazard materials in bulk packagings. Chemical manufacturers and associations, such as HMAC, opposed this requirement, claiming that any safety benefit is offset by additional shipments and resultant costs. RSPA believes a change in outage requirements is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. III. Summary of Regulatory Changes by Section Listed below is a section-by-section summary of changes and, as applicable, a discussion of comments received. Part 171 Section 171.7. The table of material incorporated by reference is amended by adding a new entry referencing a publication issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for defining biosafety levels and adding two new ASTM steel standards referenced in Sec. 178.601. Section 171.14. All transitional provisions reflecting a compliance date of October 1, 1996, or earlier are [[Page 50617]] removed. One commenter representing the agricultural chemical industry asked RSPA to establish a five-year delayed compliance date for products in DOT specification and non-specification packagings filled before October 1, 1996. The commenter described a lengthy process for agricultural chemicals moving through a distribution chain to end users and then frequent product returns several years after the original sale. According to the commenter, an additional five-year compliance period would provide sufficient time for the industry to eliminate any non- specification and DOT-specification packagings which would not otherwise be authorized after October 1, 1996. RSPA provided a five-year transition period from October 1, 1991 to October 1, 1996 for users of these packagings to deplete inventory and phase in UN performance packagings. RSPA believes this five-year transition period has afforded industry sufficient time to prepare for the October 1, 1996 compliance date. However, RSPA recognizes that an extensive distribution process that includes procedures for return of products to distributors warrants limited relief to allow the transportation of materials in previously authorized and filled packages to end users or for their return, repackaging, or disposal. From an overall transportation safety perspective, it is RSPA's view that it is safer to allow one final shipment of these previously authorized and filled packagings than to compel the transfer of materials, such as pesticides, into packagings required by the HMR as of October 1, 1996. Therefore, RSPA is adding a provision to authorize non-bulk packagings, other than cylinders, which were filled prior to October 1, 1996 in conformance with regulations in effect on September 30, 1996, to be offered for transportation and transported domestically until October 1, 1999. RSPA believes a three-year delay in compliance affords sufficient time for these packagings to be eliminated from a distribution system. It is emphasized that this provision does not authorize the filling of packagings, only offering and transportation of packagings filled prior to October 1, 1996. In addition, three other transition provisions are retained for 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. To clarify 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 proposed to replace the phrase ``identified * * * by a specific description'' with ``identified * * * specifically by name'' and include an example. All three commenters addressing this issue supported this proposed change, stating that it will clarify the procedure for selecting a proper shipping name. In addition, RSPA is adding as proposed a new paragraph (c)(10)(iii) which clarifies the process for selecting a proper shipping name for a mixture of two or more hazardous materials in the same hazard class. Currently, paragraph (c)(10)(i) contains a provision for selecting a proper shipping name for a mixture of a hazardous material and non-hazardous material, and paragraph (c)(12)(ii) prescribes the proper shipping name selection process for a material meeting more than one hazard class. 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 is added as proposed. This revision is based on comparable provisions for smokeless powder, small arms cartridges and power device cartridges. In conjunction with this change, a new Special Provision 70 and new non-bulk packaging section Sec. 173.170 is 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 DOT Specification Intermodal (IM) portable tanks. Based on a petition for rulemaking requesting that RSPA authorize IM portable tanks for all chlorosilanes and that the use of IM portable tanks for these materials will not compromise safety and would be consistent with other specific authorizations, RSPA is adopting the proposal to authorize certain IM portable tanks for all chlorosilanes. RSPA is adding 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) are 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'' is removed for each entry to indicate that these temperature controlled organic peroxides are not eligible for packaging exceptions. One commenter noted that even though Sec. 173.225 is authorized in Column (8C) of the Hazardous Materials Table, this authorization alone will not allow bulk packaging for organic peroxide, type F, solid. A note in Column 8 of the Organic Peroxide Table, in conjunction with the technical name of the material, indicates whether the material is authorized to be packaged in a bulk packaging. More than 30 entries classed as Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) solids in Packing Groups II and III are amended by revising Column (8A) to authorize Sec. 173.151 as a packaging exception section. One commenter asked RSPA to authorize a packaging exception section for three additional Division 4.3 materials that exhibit similar characteristics and do not pose an unreasonable risk in transportation. After reviewing these materials, RSPA agrees and is adding them to the list of entries that are authorized a packaging exception in Sec. 173.151. 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 is 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 imposes more stringent hazard communication and packaging requirements. The Docket HM-181H NPRM contains a more complete description of the data on which these revisions are based. The materials are listed as follows: a. Hydrogen cyanide, solution in alcohol (with not more than 45 percent hydrogen cyanide) (UN3294). 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 identifying hydrogen cyanide, solution in alcohol with not more than 45 percent hydrogen cyanide as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. A new special provision ``25'' is assigned to this entry to authorize a one- year delay for compliance with new packaging requirements. b. Metal carbonyls, n.o.s. (UN3281). The acute toxicity of 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 [[Page 50618]] Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for metal carbonyls, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. c. Methanesulfonyl chloride (UN3246). As proposed, RSPA is identifying methanesulfonyl chloride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. A new special provision ``25'' is assigned to this entry to authorize a one-year delay for compliance with new packaging requirements. d. Methyl vinyl ketone (UN1251). As proposed, RSPA is identifying methyl vinyl ketone as a Hazard Zone A inhalation hazard. Also, to be consistent with the UN Recommendations (Eighth revised edition), RSPA is adding the plus (+) symbol to Column 1 of the entry for methyl vinyl ketone. A new special provision ``25'' is assigned to this entry to authorize a one-year delay for compliance with new packaging requirements. e. Nitriles, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. (UN3275). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Groups 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 adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for nitriles, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. f. Nitriles, toxic, n.o.s. (UN3276). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Groups 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 adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for nitriles, toxic, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. g. Organoarsenic compound, n.o.s. (UN3280). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Groups 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 toxicity which places them in Division 6.1, Packing Group I. Therefore, RSPA is adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for organoarsenic compound, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. h. Organophosphorus compound, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. (UN3279). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Groups 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 adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of the entry for organophosphorus compound, toxic, flammable, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. i. Organophosphorus compound, toxic, n.o.s. (UN3278). This generic entry covers Division 6.1, Packing Groups 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 adding special provision ``5'' to Column 7 of this entry for organophosphorus compound, toxic, n.o.s. at the Packing Group I level. j. Phosphorus pentafluoride (UN2198). As proposed, RSPA is identifying phosphorus pentafluoride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. k. Tungsten hexafluoride (UN2196). As proposed, RSPA is identifying tungsten hexafluoride as a Hazard Zone B inhalation hazard. Section 172.102. As noted in the discussion on revisions for materials poisonous by inhalation, RSPA is authorizing a one-year delay for compliance with new packaging requirements by assigning a new special provision ``25'' to three commodities. Special Provision B59, which authorizes AAR 207A tank cars for phosphorus pentasulfide, is revised as proposed to reference the use of water-tight, sift-proof, closed-top, metal-covered hopper cars. A new special provision (N42) is added as proposed to authorize a UN 1A1 steel drum for stabilized benzyl chloride. One comment was received in response to this proposal and strongly supported the addition of N42, which allows use of phenolic-lined steel drums with a minimum thickness of 1.3 mm (0.050 inch) which have been tested and certified to a Packing Group I level at a specific gravity of 1.8. The commenter cited a history of shipping benzyl chloride in phenolic-lined 17C and UN 1A1 steel drums since 1981 without incident and without failure of the phenolic lining. 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 proposed a revision of paragraph (b)(2) to decrease to 4 mm (0.16 inch) the minimum width of markings required on portable tanks having a capacity less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). RSPA also proposed reducing both the minimum height and width of markings required on IBCs to 25 mm (one inch). Commenters were uniformly supportive of both proposals, and they are adopted as proposed. RSPA is not adopting one commenter's recommendation to amend Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 107 to allow a marking height of one inch for certain small portable tanks authorized under an exemption. Section 172.504. RSPA is removing the second sentence of paragraph (f)(8) which allows a CLASS 9 placard to be substituted for a COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID placard for material meeting both Combustible liquid and Class 9 hazard classes. Several commenters agreed that this provision created potential confusion and misunderstanding between documentation and marking requirements describing a Combustible liquid and the application of CLASS 9 placards. Part 173 Section 173.24a. RSPA proposed to amend paragraph (a)(3) 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. A degradation of cushioning materials could significantly reduce the effectiveness of a packaging to a point that it would not conform with its marked performance standard [[Page 50619]] or meet general packaging requirements. This clarification is consistent with international air transport provisions contained in the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions. Commenters supported this proposed revision; however, the Fibre Box Association expressed concern that the proposal might be interpreted to mean corrugated cushioning and corrugated packaging of liquids will not be allowed. The Fibre Box Association stated that the phrase ``having protective properties [significantly] impaired in event of leakage'' is too vague. The proposed change was not intended to preclude the use of fiberboard cushioning or packaging for liquids. Although there is no established criteria for evaluating degradation of cushioning material, RSPA agrees that the phrase ``significantly impaired'' should be revised. RSPA believes ``significantly weakened'' more accurately conveys the intent of this provision and is revising this phrase accordingly. Currently, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) provide filling limits for single and composite packagings, but no such limits are provided for combination packagings. As proposed, RSPA is revising paragraph (b)(2) of this section to prescribe filling limits for all non-bulk packagings, including combination packagings. This provision prohibits combination packagings from being filled with a hazardous material to a gross mass greater than the maximum gross mass marked on the packaging. Section 173.28. RSPA proposed adding a formula in paragraph (b)(4) for calculating an equivalent minimum thickness for stainless steel drums. This 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) opposed this proposed change and stated that this issue is too complex for adoption at this time. ACR believes that by reducing the minimum thickness of stainless steel to the equivalent strength of carbon steel, the rationale for waiving leakproofness testing for stronger steel is eliminated. ACR requested that, if this proposal is adopted, a drum manufacturer's use of this equivalence formula be communicated through a particular unique mark, thus advising persons responsible for reuse or reconditioning of this equivalence formula being used. RSPA is confident that the equivalence formula adopted in this final rule provides an equivalent level of safety and drum integrity. The language in the paragraph (b)(7) leakproofness testing waiver for stainless steel drums requires a thickness of one and one-half times the thickness prescribed for reuse, thus precluding use of any thinner drums. An adjustment to Footnote 1, which specifies a minimum thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.11 mm head and corresponds with ISO 3574, is adopted as proposed. Commenters supporting this proposed change included ACR, several chemical manufacturing companies, the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters, and a drum manufacturer. Two commenters, a different drum manufacturer and the Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI), opposed this proposal, stating that this request from ACR was driven by economic considerations, not safety. SSCI claimed that technology for determining minimum thicknesses is readily available. The drum manufacturer opposing this change stated that if the footnote adjustment was adopted as proposed, RSPA should provide a transition period for drum manufacturers to deplete their inventory of material rendered obsolete by this change. RSPA is making this adjustment to Footnote 1 to standardize minimum thickness requirements with breakpoints commonly recognized by international standards, not to provide any economic benefit to industry. RSPA also is revising Footnote 1 to authorize metal drums or jerricans constructed with a minimum thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.09 mm heads until December 31, 1996. After that date, drums must be constructed with heads meeting a minimum thickness of 1.11 mm. This delay will provide drum manufacturers additional time to deplete existing inventory and build an inventory of new material. Paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(C) is revised as proposed to clarify that there are established conditions which must be met before an approval is granted by the 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. In the NPRM, RSPA proposed a revision to this paragraph to clarify that repairing or replacing a bung or removable gasket in a plastic closed head (UN 1H1) drum is not considered reconditioning. Both SSCI and ACR opposed this proposed change, stating that replacing gaskets or closures on a plastic drum is plastic drum reconditioning. SSCI claimed that a change in the material of a drum is reconditioning or remanufacturing, and that changing location, type or size of gasket material or properties affecting the performance of the gasket is considered design type changes requiring complete design qualification testing. The SSCI also warned that this proposal downplays the significance of gaskets in minimizing leaks and will shift drum purchases from steel to plastic drums to save costs in reconditioning and leaktesting. In RSPA's view, simply ``replacing'' a bung or gasket in a plastic closed head drum is not reconditioning. In this final rule, RSPA is clarifying in paragraph (c)(2) that repair or replacement of a bung or a removable gasket in a plastic closed head (UN 1H1) drum with a bung or gasket that is of the same design and material as the original bung or gasket, and provides equivalent performance, is not considered reconditioning and does not subject the drum to reconditioning marking requirements or to leakproofness testing requirements if it is otherwise excepted from leakproofness testing. Section 173.32. As proposed, RSPA is reinstating pressure testing requirements for DOT 57 portable tanks in paragraph (e)(2)(i). RSPA also is amending 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 eliminates the need for an existing exemption, DOT-E-10916, and permits continued use of thousands of portable tanks with a proven safety record. Two comments were received in response to the proposal, both supporting revisions to this section. RSPA is adding a new paragraph (t) which allows the remarking of certain portable tanks currently authorized under DOT exemptions as DOT 51 portable tanks. These portable tanks were in full conformance with the requirements for DOT 51 portable tanks, including the ASME Code ``U'' stamp, except for the location of fill and discharge outlets. The changes adopted in this final rule relating to the location of outlets on DOT 51 portable tanks will allow for the elimination of numerous exemptions based on the design and excellent safety record of these portable tanks. RSPA believes that as a minimum, the following exemptions will be affected: DOT-E 6518 DOT-E 8196 DOT-E 9401 DOT-E 9402 [[Page 50620]] DOT-E 9632 DOT-E 9718 DOT-E 10032 DOT-E 10171 DOT-E 10193 DOT-E 10291 DOT-E 10567 DOT-E 11239 DOT-E 11275 DOT-E 11313 DOT-E 11331 DOT-E 11539 DOT-E 11589 DOT-E 11604 DOT-E 11658 DOT-E 11661 Persons holding other exemptions which they believe are impacted by changes adopted by this final rule should contact RSPA. Section 173.115. Paragraph (b)(1) is revised as proposed to reflect the correct conversion of 280 kPa to read ``280 kPa (40.6 psia)'' for informational purposes. Section 173.120 and Appendix H to Part 173. Based on requests from industry and comments supporting this proposed revision, RSPA is adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to specify a procedure for testing 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 to Part 173 is revised to provide additional test temperatures in paragraph 5.(h) for combustible liquids that closely parallel the approach for flammable liquids. Sections 173.121, 173.125, and 173.127. As proposed, RSPA is adopting a clarification of 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. RSPA is revising as proposed the wording ``more than one packing group and hazard zone'' in paragraph (b)(1) to read ``more than one packing group or hazard zone''. One commenter expressed support for the proposed change, stating that it will clarify the determination of applicable packing groups. Section 173.134. Paragraph (a)(4) limits the definition of regulated medical waste to exclude discarded cultures and stocks of infectious substances. In this final rule, paragraph (b) is revised as proposed 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 must conform to Packing Group II performance requirements. Transport of these materials is limited to private or contract motor freight carriers in dedicated service to the transportation of medical waste. Commenters uniformly supported this proposed change. One commenter referenced a recent Center for Disease Control proposed list of infectious substances capable of causing substantial harm to human health. This commenter believed all discarded cultures and stocks of infectious substances not on this proposed list should be eligible for regulation as regulated medical waste. Another commenter believed RSPA should provide even more relief for these materials by allowing them to be packaged in OSHA-authorized containers conforming to DOT's general packaging standards, and also should allow private carriers transporting these types of cultures and stocks to backhaul non-food products if trailers are properly disinfected. It is RSPA's view that these suggested changes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Section 173.151. A new paragraph (d) is added as proposed to incorporate limited quantity provisions for Division 4.3 (dangerous when wet) solid materials in Packing Groups II and III. This amendment aligns the HMR with limited quantity exceptions contained in the UN Recommendations. Section 173.156. Paragraph (b)(2) is revised as proposed to remove the 30 kg (66 pounds) weight restriction for ORM-D materials packaged in ``display packs'' which are offered for transportation, or transported, by highway or rail between a manufacturer, a distribution center, and a retail outlet. These display packs are 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. All commenters addressing this issue supported the proposal; however, several commenters requested that the net weight of each display pack be raised from 250 kg (550 pounds) to 525 kg (1155 pounds) to reflect the weight limit authorized in an exemption recently granted for this type of packaging. RSPA believes that display packs should be limited to 250 kg (550 pounds) net weight until satisfactory experience is gained under the exemption at the higher weight. RSPA proposed an exception for transportation of ORM-D materials to disposal facilities in paragraph (b)(1) 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). RSPA received comments supporting this proposal from The Conference on the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (petitioner for this change) and the National Wholesale Druggists' Association. The Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters opposed the proposal, stating it has the potential for abuse. This commenter believed the proposal was not in the public interest and will create confusion about the regulatory status of discarded material, which may be subject to regulation as either a solid waste or hazardous waste. RSPA does not agree. However, based on further review of this proposal, RSPA is revising the proposed provision to require that the transportation of discarded consumer commodities to a disposal facility must be from a single point of origin. RSPA believes that limiting the consolidation of discarded consumer commodities in one shipping unit from one offeror establishes an appropriate condition for such transportation, taking into account other requirements such as Secs. 173.24 and 173.24a. Section 173.158. Paragraph (d) is revised as proposed 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 is authorized. In addition, RSPA is revising paragraph (f)(1) as proposed to authorize 6HH1 and 6HA1 composite packagings with PFA Teflon inner receptacles for nitric acid concentrations of 70 percent or less. These composite packagings are authorized under the provisions of three exemptions and have demonstrated an equivalent level of safety. Section 173.170. RSPA is adding a new non-bulk packaging section for black powder for small arms when transported domestically and reclassed as Division 4.1. For consistency with comparable provisions for smokeless powder for small arms, RSPA is revising approval procedures as proposed in the NPRM by requiring that black powder must be examined and approved for Division 4.1 classification and the [[Page 50621]] complete package must be of the same type as that approved under Sec. 173.56. Section 173.183. As proposed, RSPA is adding a packaging authorization to allow the use of polypropylene inner packagings for nitrocellulose base film. Section 173.225. Paragraph (a) is amended as proposed to specify that inner plastic packagings of a combination packaging used for transporting organic peroxides must be constructed of new resin. The one commenter responding to this proposal, the Organic Peroxide Producers Safety Division of the Society of the Plastics Industry, petitioned for the change. RSPA agrees with the commenter that most regulated organic peroxides are too sensitive to contamination to be stored in packages manufactured from ``resin of unknown history.'' Section 173.306. Paragraph (i)(1) is removed as proposed and paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(4) are redesignated accordingly as paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3). In addition, RSPA is revising the introductory text of paragraph (i) to clarify that flammability of aerosols is based on obtaining a positive test result from any of the three methods contained in this paragraph. This approach is consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions. Section 173.314. RSPA is adopting a seasonal filling limit for tank cars containing anhydrous ammonia and liquefied petroleum gas based on winter filling reference temperatures of 29 deg.C (85 deg.F), 32 deg.C (90 deg.F), and 38 deg.C (100 deg.F), for insulated tanks, thermally- protected and jacketed tanks, and noninsulated tanks, respectively. These filling limits would authorize a winter filling limit greater than that authorized in the HM-181 final rule. RSPA believes that these filling limits will ensure safety in transit while providing economic relief from the requirements adopted in the HM-181 final rule. Commenters uniformly supported this proposed change. The National Industrial Transportation League stated this change strikes an appropriate balance between safety and efficiency by avoiding the necessity for increasing the number of tank car shipments (and corresponding risk of spills) in winter months to achieve the same overall volume. The National Propane Gas Association also supported this proposal for tank cars and indicated its intent to submit a proposal to RSPA later this year for adoption of seasonal filling limits for cargo tanks. Part 178 Sections 178.245 and 178.245-1. RSPA is making several editorial changes for clarity and one significant change to allow DOT Specification 51 portable tanks to have openings at locations other than the top or one end of the tank under certain circumstances. Commenters supported the proposal to allow bottom outlets on tank containers, citing safety and economic benefits. Section 178.245-4. As proposed, RSPA is adding a new paragraph (e) to require that a DOT 51 portable tank in an ISO framework for containerized transportation must meet the requirements specified in 49 CFR Parts 450-453. Section 178.245-6. The first sentence of paragraph (a) is amended as proposed to require the nameplate to be in close proximity to the ASME plate. Sect
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 88640