[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22504-22509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8978]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 173
[Docket No. PHMSA-07-29364 (HM-231A)]
RIN 2137-AE32
Hazardous Materials; Packages Intended for Transport by Aircraft
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to
require closures of inner packagings containing liquids within a
combination packaging intended for transportation by aircraft to be
secured by a secondary means or, where a secondary closure cannot be
applied or it is impracticable to apply, permit the use of a leakproof
liner. These amendments are consistent with the 2011-2012 edition of
the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions
for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical
Instructions).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective July 1, 2012.
Voluntary Compliance Date: Voluntary compliance with all amendments
are authorized May 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Stevens, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, telephone (202) 366-8553, or
Janet McLaughlin, Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 490
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202)
385-4897.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Current Requirements in the HMR
B. Summary of Proposals in NPRM
[[Page 22505]]
1. Incorporation of Revised ICAO Technical Instructions
Packaging Provisions
2. Testing Requirements To Simulate Packages in the Air
Transport Environment
III. Discussion and Resolution of Comments Submitted in Response to
NPRM
A. Secondary Means of Closure
B. Pressure Differential Testing
C. Conclusion
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
C. Executive Order 13132
D. Executive Order 13175
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Environmental Assessment
J. Privacy Act
I. Executive Summary
In this final rule, PHMSA is adopting the requirement that, when
transported by air, the closure of an inner packaging containing a
liquid hazardous material must be secured by a secondary means of
closure. A Packing Group I liquid must be further packaged in a rigid
leakproof receptacle or rigid intermediate packaging containing
sufficient absorbent material to absorb the entire contents of the
inner packaging, before being placed in its outer package. For liquids
assigned to Packing Groups II or III, however, a leakproof liner may be
used where a secondary closure cannot be applied or it is impracticable
to apply. These amendments are consistent with the reformatted packing
instructions in the 2011-2012 edition of the International Civil
Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport
of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). Because most
shippers already prepare shipments in accordance with the ICAO
Technical Instructions, as a result, no new costs or benefits are
anticipated.
During the rulemaking process, PHMSA, in consultation with the FAA,
considered four possible alternatives to strengthen packaging
requirements for air shipments of liquid hazardous materials:
Alternative 1: Harmonize with the 2011-2012 edition of the ICAO
Technical Instructions by requiring that friction and screw type
closures (i.e., all closure types) of inner packagings intended to
contain liquids as part of a combination packaging be secured by a
secondary means of closure. Under this alternative, we would adopt
packaging amendments included in the 2011-2012 edition of the ICAO
Technical Instructions that require friction and screw type closures of
inner packagings intended to contain liquids as part of a combination
packaging to be secured by a secondary means of closure. For liquids
assigned to Packing Groups II or III, a leakproof liner could be used
to satisfy the secondary closure requirement where it could not be
applied or would be impracticable to apply. For liquids of Packing
Group I, a secondary means of closure, absorbent material and a
leakproof liner would be required. Alternative 1 would address most of
the safety issues associated with the transportation of liquid
hazardous materials by preventing releases or containing releases that
do occur within the packaging. It does not address problems associated
with the current pressure differential capability standard.
Alternative 2: Require enhanced pressure differential capability
requirements on all inner packagings intended to contain liquids as
part of a combination packaging. Current rules require that all
packages transported by air and for which retention of liquids is a
basic function must be capable of withstanding, without leakage, a
certain pressure differential, which is usually 95 kilopascals (kPa)
(Sec. 173.27[c]). This integrity standard applies to both
specification and non-specification packaging. Under this alternative,
PHMSA would require packaging manufacturers to conduct testing to
confirm that a combination packaging intended for the air
transportation of liquid hazardous materials is capable of withstanding
the pressures encountered on board aircraft and to maintain a
documented record of the test results.
Alternative 3: Adopt the provisions in both Alternatives 1 and 2.
Under this alternative, PHMSA would adopt the new and revised
regulatory provisions summarized in the discussion of Alternatives 1
and 2 above.
Alternative 4: Do nothing. Under this alternative, the current
domestic regulatory scheme applicable to air shipment of hazardous
liquids would continue in place and the U.S. standards would not be
harmonized with the international community. Because most countries and
international air carrier organizations have already adopted the
changes in this rulemaking, a do-nothing approach could result in
complications in the movement of these materials and the U.S. will not
meet its obligations outlined in the Convention on International Civil
Aviation--also known as the Chicago Convention. Future inconsistencies
with international transport standards may result in foreign
authorities refusing to accept hazardous material shipments prepared in
accordance with the HMR. To successfully participate in international
markets, U.S. companies would be required to conform to dual
regulations. Inconsistent domestic and international regulations can
also have an adverse safety impact by making it more difficult for
shippers and carriers to understand and comply with all applicable
requirements.
II. Background
A. Current Requirements in the HMR
Currently under the HMR, stoppers, corks, or other such friction-
type closures must be held securely, tightly, and effectively in place
by positive means. See Sec. 173.27(d). However, a screw-type closure
on any packaging must only be secured to prevent the closure from
loosening due to ``vibration or substantial change in temperature.'' We
have stated in letters of clarification that a secured closure should
incorporate a secondary means of maintaining a seal, such as a shrink-
wrap band or heat-sealed liner. Additionally, laboratory studies
conducted on behalf of PHMSA and FAA concluded that a simple
application of tape on a screw-type closure prevented ``back-off''
under even extreme conditions.
B. Summary of Proposals in NPRM
1. Incorporation of Certain ICAO Technical Instructions Reformatted
Packing Provisions
In the May 14, 2010 [75 FR 27273] NPRM, we proposed to amend the
HMR by adopting certain packaging provisions that were inclusive of
what was adopted in the 2011-2012 ICAO Technical Instructions. We
proposed to amend Sec. 173.27(d) by requiring that all friction and
screw type closures must be secured by a secondary means. A Packing
Group I liquid would also be required to be further packaged in a
rigid, leakproof receptacle or intermediate packaging containing
sufficient absorbent material to absorb the entire contents of the
inner packaging. We also proposed that, for liquids assigned to Packing
Groups II or III, a leakproof liner or bag may be used to satisfy the
secondary closure requirement where it could not be applied or it would
be impracticable to apply. Additionally, we noted:
[dec221] A liner or secondary means of positive closure should not
affect an existing UN standard packaging design because it would not
ordinarily be considered a new design type.
[[Page 22506]]
[dec221] Liners typically must be manually inserted into a
packaging before filling. Because most packaging systems can be
automated or are already automated with some form of secondary closure
being applied, costs and regulatory burden to shippers should be
minimal.
[dec221] The HMR and ICAO Technical Instructions already require a
leakproof receptacle for most Packing Group I liquids through special
provisions and packing instructions, respectively.
Lastly, because organic peroxide liquids are no longer required to
be packaged with absorbent material under the newly reformatted packing
instructions of the ICAO Technical Instructions, we proposed to remove
the reference to Division 5.2 materials from the Sec. 173.27(e)
introductory text.
2. Testing Requirements To Simulate Packages in the Air Transport
Environment
In the May 14, 2010 [75 FR 27273] NPRM, we also proposed to
establish new testing standards for packaging, relative to pressure
differential requirements in Sec. Sec. 173.27(c) and 178.605. Some of
the recommended test methods proposed were intended to provide an
equivalent alternative to current HMR test requirements, and ultimately
reduce the overall failure rate of packages by ensuring packaging
capable of withstanding the pressure differentials and vibrations
encountered in air transport.
Current HMR test requirements for air transport packaging are based
on a 50-year old regulatory regime. Compared to the air transportation
environment 50 years ago, today's air cargo transportation environment
has become more automated, relies on a more complex cargo feeder
system, and utilizes aircraft traveling longer distances without
suitable airports to land in the event of an emergency.
For these reasons, DOT will continue with its comprehensive review
of air packaging standards as appropriate. In this review, data will be
collected on the pressure differential, vibration, ground handling
characteristics, temperature fluctuations, and other environmental
characteristics typically experienced by packages in air transport.
This data will also be analyzed to describe the cumulative impact that
today's operational environment may have on packaging systems. As a
result, DOT will assess whether such review merits further action.
III. Discussion and Resolution of Comments Submitted in Response to
NPRM
In response to the NPRM, we received comments from the following:
1. Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC)
2. Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials Articles,
Inc. (COSTHA)
3. Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. (AHS)
4. Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp)
5. Saf-T-Pak
6. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA)
7. High Q Testing, LLC
8. Lonnie Jaycox
9. European Chemistry Industry Council (CEFIC)
A. Secondary Means of Closure
Three major trade associations (COSTHA, DGAC and AHS) who commented
support the amendments proposed in the NPRM primarily due to their
alignment with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the minimal economic
and regulatory burden placed on their members. The bulk of their
membership, however, appears to consist of large companies who most
likely already comply with some or all of the proposals made in the
NPRM. Additionally, these trade associations request that PHMSA, at the
earliest possible date, bring any regulatory differences to the
international standards bodies' attention to ensure a level playing
field exists among domestic and international shippers and carriers. We
will continue to propose international alignment with the HMR to the
ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel when appropriate.
COSTHA, DGAC and AHS request that PHMSA consider automated closure
systems as an acceptable alternative to applying a secondary means of
closure to an inner packaging with a screw-type closure. In their
comments, they assert because modern automated closure systems provide
a consistent level of integrity, the time it takes to individually
apply another means of closure (e.g., tape) is not economically viable
when compared to simply using some form of secondary containment such
as a leakproof liner. LabCorp also opposes the secondary means of
closure requirement as it would be manually accomplished--a major
burden. LabCorp and the two DOT-approved testing laboratories (High Q
Testing, LLC and Lonnie Jaycox) request that PHMSA allow the use of a
leakproof liner to satisfy the ``impractical'' secondary means of
closure requirement proposed in the NPRM.
In response to comments submitted by LabCorp and the two DOT-
approved testing laboratories (High Q Testing, LLC and Lonnie Jaycox),
in the final rule, we are doing so and providing that for liquids of
Packing Groups II and III, the use of a leakproof liner, bag or other
form of secondary containment will satisfy the secondary means of
closure requirement. However, Packing Group I liquids on passenger-
carrying and cargo-carrying aircraft must be contained in an inner
packaging with a secondary means of closure applied that is further
packaged in a rigid leakproof receptacle or intermediate packaging
containing sufficient absorbent material to absorb the entire contents
of the inner packaging before being placed in its outer package. This
requirement is consistent with current air-related Sec. 172.102
Special provisions in the HMR (A3, A6), and Packing Instructions 360
and 361 in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Unless otherwise specified
through a Sec. 172.102 Special provision, absorbent material is not
required for liquids of Packing Groups II and III. It should be noted,
however, that although not required under these provisions, absorbent
material would remain a requirement if included as part of an assembled
package during design testing and is also permitted as an additional
mitigation procedure if desired.
We accept the suggestions to ``improve'' upon the proposed
amendments in the NPRM by allowing certain closures of high integrity
(e.g., acid cap) to meet the secondary means of closure requirements of
this final rule. The methods indicated in proposed Sec. 173.27(d) are
some examples of ways in which to satisfy the closure requirements and
are not intended to be all-inclusive. We do not accept, however, the
recommendations that successful pressure differential testing itself
should satisfy the secondary means of closure or liner requirement.
Some commenters state it would not be needed (and is overly redundant)
if a packaging successfully meets the performance standard for pressure
differential capability as proposed in the NPRM. We disagree and
contend that the air transport environment is unique in that a certain
amount of redundancy is necessary to maintain or enhance the safe
transportation of hazardous materials.
B. Pressure Differential Testing
PHMSA received comments on the pressure differential testing
aspects of the NPRM from Saf-T-Pak, AHS, and CEFIC. Saf-T-Pak supports
the proposals
[[Page 22507]]
in the NPRM to require pressure differential testing and requests that
PHMSA: (1) Allow any acceptable test method that achieves the proposed
goal of the rule; (2) require similar testing requirements for
biological substances in Sec. 173.199 as proposed in Sec. 173.27; and
(3) lower the duration for flexible packagings used primarily in
medical and pharmaceutical industries. AHS requests that PHMSA allow
reduced pressure differential capability (75 kPa) for all consumer
commodities in the ORM-D-AIR hazard class. CEFIC represents national
chemical federations and chemical companies in Europe. In its comments,
CEFIC states that it supports global harmonization of hazardous
materials transport standards and regulations, but actual testing of
packagings to verify pressure differential capability as proposed in
the NPRM is inconsistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions. As a
result, PHMSA has elected to not adopt the pressure differential
proposals published in the NPRM at this time. DOT will continue to
assess the pressure differential and vibration test proposals published
in the NPRM in a broader context once additional data has been
collected and considered.
C. Conclusion
In this rulemaking action, PHMSA is adopting, consistent with
packaging amendments made to the 2011-2012 edition of the ICAO
Technical Instructions, the requirement that closures of inner
packagings be secured by a secondary means of closure. The effective
date of the amendments adopted in this final rule is July 1, 2012. This
delayed compliance date will assist shippers in assessing their
packaging stock for integrity and is consistent with amendments
recently adopted under Docket HM-215K (76 FR 3308, January 19, 2011)
that align the HMR with certain amendments adopted in the 2011-2012
ICAO Technical Instructions.
This final rule adopts the requirements that friction and screw
type closures (i.e., all closures) of inner packagings intended to
contain liquids, as part of a combination packaging, must be secured by
a secondary means of closure. For liquids assigned to Packing Groups II
or III, a leakproof liner may be used to satisfy the secondary closure
requirement where it cannot be applied or it is impracticable to apply.
For liquids of Packing Group I, a secondary means of closure, absorbent
material, and a rigid and leakproof receptacle or intermediate
packaging is required. We believe the amendments adopted in this final
rule will achieve our objective of prescribing a cost-effective systems
approach to aviation safety that provides redundancy where necessary
and promotes compliance.
PHMSA and FAA will continue to focus on enforcement of the current
air packaging requirements. We will also build on our efforts to better
understand and characterize the environmental conditions that packages
are subjected to in today's air transport system.
IV. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This final rule is published under authority of Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.) Section 5103(b) of Federal hazmat law requires the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate,
and foreign commerce.
B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This notice is not considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is not considered a
significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Additionally, E.O. 13563
supplements and reaffirms E.O. 12866, stressing that, to the extent
permitted by law, an agency rulemaking action must be based on benefits
that justify its costs, impose the least burden, consider cumulative
burdens, maximize benefits, use performance objectives, and assess
available alternatives.
During the rulemaking process, PHMSA, in consultation with the FAA,
considered four possible alternatives to strengthen packaging
requirements for air shipments of liquid hazardous materials:
Alternative 1: Harmonize with the 2011-2012 edition of the ICAO
Technical Instructions by requiring that friction and screw type
closures (i.e., all closure types) of inner packagings intended to
contain liquids as part of a combination packaging be secured by a
secondary means of closure. Under this alternative, we would adopt
packaging amendments included in the 2011-2012 edition of the ICAO
Technical Instructions that require friction and screw type closures of
inner packagings intended to contain liquids as part of a combination
packaging to be secured by a secondary means of closure. For liquids
assigned to Packing Groups II or III, a leakproof liner could be used
to satisfy the secondary closure requirement where it could not be
applied or would be impracticable to apply. For liquids of Packing
Group I, a secondary means of closure, absorbent material and a rigid
leakproof receptacle or intermediate packaging would be required.
Alternative 1 would address most of the safety issues associated with
the transportation of liquid hazardous materials by preventing releases
or containing releases that do occur within the packaging. It does not
address problems associated with the current pressure differential
capability standard.
Alternative 2: Require enhanced pressure differential capability
requirements on all inner packagings intended to contain liquids as
part of a combination packaging. Current rules require that all
packages transported by air and for which retention of liquids is a
basic function must be capable of withstanding, without leakage, a
certain pressure differential, which is usually 95 kilopascals (kPa)
(Sec. 173.27[c]). This integrity standard applies to both
specification and non-specification packaging. Under this alternative,
PHMSA would require packaging manufacturers to conduct testing to
confirm that a combination packaging intended for the air
transportation of liquid hazardous materials is capable of withstanding
the pressures encountered on board aircraft and to maintain a
documented record of the test results.
Alternative 3: Adopt the provisions in both Alternatives 1 and 2.
Under this alternative, PHMSA would adopt the new and revised
regulatory provisions summarized in the discussion of Alternatives 1
and 2 above.
Alternative 4: Do nothing. Under this alternative, the current
domestic regulatory scheme applicable to air shipment of hazardous
liquids would continue in place and the U.S. standards would not be
harmonized with the international community. Because most countries and
international air carrier organizations have already adopted the
changes in this rulemaking, a do-nothing approach could result in
complications in the movement of these materials and the U.S. will not
meet its obligations outlined in the Convention on International Civil
Aviation--also known as the Chicago Convention. Future inconsistencies
with international transport standards may result in foreign
authorities refusing to accept hazardous material shipments prepared in
accordance with the HMR. To successfully participate in
[[Page 22508]]
international markets, U.S. companies would be required to conform to
dual regulations. Inconsistent domestic and international regulations
can also have an adverse safety impact by making it more difficult for
shippers and carriers to understand and comply with all applicable
requirements.
C. Executive Order 13132
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule preempts State, local and Indian tribe requirements but does
not propose any regulation with substantial direct effects on the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-
5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b))
preempting State, local and Indian tribe requirements on the following
subjects:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
This final rule addresses covered subject items (2) and (5)
described above and preempts State, local, and Indian tribe
requirements not meeting the ``substantively the same'' standard.
Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at 49
U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of
the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of
the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance.
The effective date of Federal preemption of this final rule will be 90
days from publication in the Federal Register.
D. Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order
13175 do not apply.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each
agency to analyze proposed regulations and assess their impact on small
businesses and other small entities to determine whether the proposed
rule is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. A regulatory evaluation for this final rule, which
includes a detailed small business impact analysis, is in the public
docket for this rulemaking. Based on the analysis in the public docket,
I certify that the requirements adopted in this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive
Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure potential impacts of
draft rules on small entities are properly considered.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following:
State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private
sector.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB
and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested
members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment
on information and recordkeeping requests. This final rule does not
identify a new or revised information collection request that PHMSA
will be required to submit to OMB for approval.
H. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Sec. Sec. 4321-4375,
requires Federal Agencies to analyze regulatory actions to determine
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
require Federal Agencies to conduct an environmental review considering
(1) the need for the action, (2) alternatives to the action, (3)
environmental impacts of the action and alternatives, and (4) the
agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process. 40 CFR
1508.9(b).
Purpose and Need. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, PHMSA is
amending requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations to enhance
the integrity of inner packagings or receptacles of combination
packagings containing liquid hazardous material by ensuring they remain
intact when subjected to the reduced pressure and other forces
encountered in air transportation. In order to substantially decrease
the likelihood of an unintentional hazardous materials release to the
environment, the amendments adopted in this final rule require that
closures of inner packagings be secured by a secondary means of
closure.
Alternatives: PHMSA considered four possible alternatives to
strengthen packaging requirements for air shipments of liquid hazardous
materials:
Alternative 1: Require that friction and screw type closures of
inner packagings intended to contain liquids as part of a combination
packaging to be secured by a secondary means of closure. Under this
alternative, we would adopt the packaging amendments included in the
2011-2012 edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions. Specifically, we
would require friction and screw type closures of inner packagings
intended to contain liquids as part of a combination packaging to be
secured by a secondary means of closure. For liquids assigned to
Packing Groups II or III, a leakproof liner could be used to satisfy
the secondary closure requirement where it could not be applied or
would be impracticable to apply. For liquids of Packing Group I, a
secondary means of closure, absorbent material, and a rigid and
leakproof receptacle or intermediate packaging would be required. This
regulatory alternative was selected. This
[[Page 22509]]
alternative harmonizes domestic packaging requirements with
international standards, thereby reducing confusion, promoting safety,
and facilitating efficient transportation.
Alternative 2: Require enhanced pressure differential capability
requirements on all inner packagings intended to contain liquids as
part of a combination packaging. Current rules require that all
packages transported by air and for which retention of liquids is a
basic function must be capable of withstanding, without leakage, a
certain pressure differential, which is usually 95 kilopascals (kPa)
(Sec. 173.27[c]). This integrity standard applies to both
specification and non-specification packaging. Under this alternative,
PHMSA would require packaging manufacturers to conduct testing to
confirm that a combination packaging intended for the air
transportation of liquid hazardous materials is capable of withstanding
the pressures encountered on board aircraft and to maintain a
documented record of the test results.
Alternative 3: Adopt the provisions in both Alternatives 1 and 2.
Under this alternative, PHMSA would adopt the new and revised
regulatory provisions summarized in the discussion of Alternatives 1
and 2 above.
Alternative 4: Do nothing. Under this alternative, the current
regulatory scheme applicable to air shipment of hazardous liquids would
continue in place. We did not select this alternative because clearly-
identified safety risks would not be addressed.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Hazardous materials are
substances that may pose a threat to public safety or the environment
during transportation because of their physical, chemical, or nuclear
properties. The hazardous material regulatory system is a risk
management system that is prevention-oriented and focused on
identifying a safety hazard and reducing the probability and quantity
of a hazardous material release. Releases of hazardous materials can
result in explosions or fires, while radioactive, toxic, infectious, or
corrosive hazardous materials can have short- or long-term exposure
effects on humans or the environment.
We have reviewed the risks associated with transporting combination
packages containing liquid hazardous materials by aircraft and by
surface transportation to and from aircraft. The amount of liquid
hazardous material contained in air-eligible combination packages to
which this rulemaking applies is minimal and ranges anywhere from 0.5L
to 450L. However, hazardous materials that pose the highest risk to
humans and the environment are packaged in much smaller quantities when
transported by aircraft, or are not authorized transportation by
aircraft at all, thereby minimizing any consequences to both should a
package fail and release its contents. For these reasons, we conclude
the amendments adopted in this final rule will result in little or no
impact on the environment.
I. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
``http://dms.dot.gov''.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 173
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Uranium.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR chapter I is amended as
follows:
PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS
0
1. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.
0
2. In Sec. 173.27, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 173.27 General requirements for transportation by aircraft.
(a) The requirements of this section are in addition to
requirements prescribed elsewhere under this part and apply to packages
offered or intended for transportation aboard aircraft. Except for
materials not subject to performance packaging requirements in subpart
E of this part, a packaging containing a Packing Group III material
with a primary or subsidiary risk of Division 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, or
Class 8 must meet the Packing Group II performance level when offered
for transportation by aircraft.
* * * * *
(d) Closures. The body and closure of any packaging must be
constructed to be able to adequately resist the effects of temperature
and vibration occurring in conditions normally incident to air
transportation. Inner packaging or receptacle closures of combination
packages containing liquids must be held securely, tightly and
effectively in place by secondary means. Examples of such secondary
methods include: Adhesive tape, friction sleeves, welding or soldering,
locking wires, locking rings, induction heat seals, and child-resistant
closures. The closure device must be designed so that it is unlikely
that it can be incorrectly or incompletely closed. Closures must be as
follows:
(1) Packing Group I. An inner packaging containing liquids of
Packing Group I must have a secondary means of closure applied and
packed in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Packing Groups II and III. When a secondary means of closure
cannot be applied or is impracticable to apply to an inner packaging
containing liquids of Packing Groups II and III, this requirement may
be satisfied by securely closing the inner packaging and placing it in
a leakproof liner or bag before placing the inner packaging in its
outer packaging.
(e) Absorbent materials. Except as otherwise provided in this
subchapter, Packing Group I liquid hazardous materials of Classes 3, 4,
or 8, or Divisions 5.1 or 6.1 that are packaged in combination
packagings and offered for air transport in glass, earthenware,
plastic, or metal inner packagings must be packed using absorbent
material as follows:
(1) Inner packagings must be packed in a rigid and leakproof
receptacle or intermediate packaging containing sufficient absorbent
material to absorb the entire contents of the inner packaging before
packing the inner packaging in its outer package.
(2) Absorbent material must not react dangerously with the liquid
(see Sec. Sec. 173.24 and 173.24a.).
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2012 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-8978 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P