Hazardous Material; Miscellaneous Packaging Amendments, 52017-52040 [06-7360]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52017-52040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7360]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, and 178

[Docket No. PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231)]
RIN 2137-AD89


Hazardous Material; Miscellaneous Packaging Amendments

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to make miscellaneous 
amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) based on 
changes to packaging requirements in the United Nations Recommendations 
on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, petitions for rulemaking received 
in accordance with requirements specified in 49 CFR

[[Page 52018]]

106.95, and PHMSA initiative. These proposed amendments are intended to 
clarify certain regulatory requirements specific to bulk and non-bulk 
packaging. The amendments proposed in this NPRM also include 
incorporation of requirements for construction, maintenance and use of 
Large Packagings, clarification of specification marking requirements, 
and revisions to packaging definitions.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number PHMSA-06-25736 
(HM-231) by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. If sent by mail, comments are to be 
submitted in two copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of 
receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed stamped 
postcard.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System; Room PL-401 on 
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to 
https://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. 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 https://dms.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and 
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur M. Pollack, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, or Donald Burger, Office of 
Hazardous Materials Technology, (202) 366-4545; Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 21, 1990, the Research and Special Programs 
Administration-- the predecessor agency to the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA; we) --published a final rule 
(Docket HM-181; 55 FR 52402) based on the UN Recommendations on the 
Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations). The final rule 
comprehensively revised the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 
CFR parts 171 to 180, for harmonization with international standards. 
Included in these amendments was a change to hazardous materials 
packaging standards from detailed design specifications to performance 
oriented standards. This NPRM is designed primarily to clarify 
requirements specific to packaging issues and to reduce regulatory 
burdens on industry by incorporating changes into the HMR based on 
PHMSA's own initiative and petitions for rulemaking submitted in 
accordance with 49 CFR 106.95. We are also proposing to add two new 
subparts to part 178: Subpart P--Large Packaging Performance-Oriented 
Standards and subpart Q--Testing of Large Packagings.
    In this NPRM, we are proposing the following revisions to the HMR:
    1. Revise, remove, and add definitions specific to packaging 
requirements.
    2. Amend export and import provisions in Sec.  171.12.
    3. Revise Sec.  172.101 Table entries for packaging requirements.
    4. Add and revise special provisions.
    5. Clarify shippers' responsibilities for complying with packaging 
standards.
    6. Clarify requirements for stacking of bulk packaging.
    7. Correct error in general IBC requirements related to gauge 
pressure.
    8. Authorize bromine residue in cargo tanks.
    9. Clarify closure instructions for specification packagings.
    10. Add exceptions for marking of steel drums.
    11. Add an exception for marking of UN symbol with a stencil.
    12. Amend packaging variations.
    13. Add standards and provision for the manufacture and use of 
Large Packagings.
    In this NPRM, we are proposing to address eight petitions for 
rulemaking. We propose changes to the HMR based on six petitions. We 
are denying two petitions. The petitions are discussed in more detail 
in the appropriate sections of this preamble. The following table 
identifies the petitions addressed in this NPRM:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Petition*                     Company               Section                Status of petition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1173.........................  Monsanto Company.......  Sec.   171.8.....  Amendments proposed based on
                                                                              petition.
P-1328.........................  Reusable Industrial      Sec.   173.28(b).  Denial.
                                  Packaging Association.
P-1337.........................  Steel Shipping           Sec.   178.601(g)  Amendments proposed based on
                                  Container Institute.                        petition.
P-1356.........................  Connelly Containers....  Sec.   178.703(a)  Denial.
P-1359.........................  Association of           Sec.   171.8.....  Amendments proposed based on
                                  Container                                   petition.
                                  Reconditioners.
P-1371.........................  Steel Shipping           Sec.  Sec.         Amendments proposed based on and
                                  Container Institute.     178.3(a) and       petition.
                                                           178.503(a).
P-1431.........................  Arch Chemicals, Inc....  Sec.   171.12....  Amendments proposed based on
                                                                              petition.
P-1455.........................  Dangerous Goods          Sec.   178.503...  Amendments proposed based on
                                  Advisory Council.                           petition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Each of these petitions can be viewed at the Dockets Management System Web site at: https://dms.dot.gov/
reports/rspa_report.cfm.


[[Page 52019]]

II. Summary of Proposed Regulatory Changes by Section

Part 171

    Section 171.8. We propose to remove the definition for ``strong 
outside container'' and add a new definition for ``strong outer 
packaging.'' Currently, the HMR use the terms ``strong outside 
container'' and ``strong outer packaging'' interchangeably; however, 
there is no definition for ``strong outer packaging'' in Sec.  171.8. 
Therefore, we are proposing to remove the definition for ``strong 
outside container'' and add a definition for ``strong outer 
packaging.'' The term ``strong outside container'' is used only once in 
the HMR in Sec.  173.338; therefore, we are also proposing to revise 
the reference to read ``strong outer packaging.'' Use of one defined 
term when referring to ``strong outer packaging'' will clarify related 
packaging requirements. The proposed definition states ``strong outer 
packaging'' is the outermost enclosure for a hazardous material. As 
proposed, a strong outer packaging must meet the requirements of part 
173, subpart B, but need not be tested in accordance with part 178 of 
the HMR. In addition, we propose a reference as a reminder to shippers 
intending to offer hazardous materials by air that Sec.  173.27 applies 
to strong outer packagings.
    The Association of Container Reconditioners (ACR) petitioned PHMSA 
(P-1359) to add definitions for ``Remanufactured packaging,'' ``Reused 
packaging,'' and ``Reconditioned packaging'' to Sec.  171.8. ACR 
contends that these definitions will be easier for the reader to find 
if they are in Sec.  171.8. The definitions of ``Remanufactured 
packaging'' and ``Reconditioned packaging'' contain regulatory 
requirements; therefore we are not proposing to move the definitions to 
Sec.  171.8. However, we agree that there should be a reference to the 
definitions for ``Remanufactured packaging'' and ``Reconditioned 
packaging'' in Sec.  171.8. Therefore, we are proposing to insert a 
reader's aid into Sec.  171.8 to make reference to the definitions and 
regulatory requirements in Sec.  173.28. The meaning of the term 
``reuse'' is evident based on its use in Sec.  173.28 and is not used 
in the HMR other than this section. Therefore we see no compelling need 
to add a definition for ``Reused packaging'' to Sec.  171.8 at this 
time.
    In this NPRM we are proposing to revise the definitions for ``Bulk 
packaging'' and ``Non-bulk packaging'' based on the particular 
packaging specification at issue and volumetric capacity. The current 
definitions read as follows:

    Bulk packaging means a packaging, other than a vessel or a 
barge, including a transport vehicle or freight container, in which 
hazardous materials are loaded with no intermediate form of 
containment and which has:
    (1) A maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a 
receptacle for a liquid;
    (2) A maximum net mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a 
maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle 
for a solid; or
    (3) A water capacity greater than 454 kg (1000 pounds) as a 
receptacle for a gas as defined in Sec.  173.115 of this subchapter.
    Non-bulk packaging means a packaging which has:
    (1) A maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a 
receptacle for a liquid;
    (1) A maximum net mass greater of 400 kg (882 pounds) or less 
and a maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a 
receptacle for a solid; or
    (2) A water capacity of 454 kg (1000 pounds) or less as a 
receptacle for a gas as defined in Sec.  173.115 of this subchapter.

    Monsanto Company petitioned PHMSA (P-1173) to revise the definition 
for ``Non-bulk packaging'' by changing ``and'' to ``or'' in paragraph 
(2) to read ``A maximum net mass of 400 kg (882 pounds) or less or a 
maximum capacity of 450 L (119 gallons) or less as a receptacle for a 
solid.'' If this change were to be made, packagings with a volume 
greater than 450 L (119 gallons) with a net mass of less than 400 kg 
(882 pounds) would be defined as non-bulk packagings. It has been our 
long-standing interpretation that such packagings are defined as bulk 
packagings. Through letters of interpretation issued from the Office of 
Hazardous Materials Standards, we have stated the bulk packaging 
definition is based on the capacity of the receptacle, not on the 
actual amount contained therein at the time of shipment. We are not 
proposing to change the meaning of bulk packaging or non-bulk packaging 
in this NPRM, only clarify how they are defined.
    However, we agree the definitions for ``Bulk packaging'' and ``Non-
bulk packaging'' should be revised to provide clarity in the HMR. For 
example, under the current language in the HMR, a person attempting to 
determine whether a UN 4G fiberboard box is a non-bulk packaging must 
first carefully read the definition for non-bulk packaging in Sec.  
171.8 and must also read the standards for fiberboard boxes in Sec.  
178.516. A packaging manufacturer must consult Sec. Sec.  171.8 and 
178.516 to determine the restrictions on size and capacity before 
designing, constructing, and testing a UN 4G fiberboard box.
    To reduce confusion and clarify the definitions for ``bulk 
packaging'' and ``non-bulk packaging,'' in this NPRM, we propose to 
define the terms as follows:

    Bulk packaging means:
    (1) Any specification cargo tank, tank car, or portable tank 
constructed and marked in accordance with part 178 of this 
subchapter;
    (2) Any Specification 3AX, 3AAX or 3T cylinder constructed, 
marked and certified in accordance with subpart C of part 178 of 
this subchapter.
    (3) Any Industrial Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk 
Container, Large Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has 
a volumetric capacity of greater than 450 L (119 gallons).
    Non bulk packaging means:
    (1) Any packaging constructed, marked, tested and certified as 
meeting the standards specified in Subparts L and M of Part 178 of 
this subchapter.
    (2) Except for Specifications 3AX, 3AAX and 3T, any 
Specification cylinder constructed, marked and certified in 
accordance with subpart C of part 178 of this subchapter.
    (3) Any Industrial Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk 
Container, Large Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has 
a volumetric capacity of 450 liters (119 gallons) or less.

    In addition to the revised definitions, we are proposing to amend 
subpart L of part 178 to include capacity limitations applicable to 
individual DOT specification packagings. For example, a plywood box 
would be limited to a maximum volumetric capacity of 450 L (119 
gallons). Using these proposed definitions, a person would determine 
that a UN 4G is a non-bulk packaging based on the definition in Sec.  
171.8 alone. Similarly, based on the proposed revisions to part 178, 
subpart L, a packaging manufacturer could determine the size and 
capacity restrictions in one section without referring back to Sec.  
171.8.
    The proposed revisions do not change the current thresholds under 
which packagings are defined as bulk or non-bulk. Rather, the intended 
effect of these revisions is to clarify the current definitions, 
thereby eliminating confusion and enhancing voluntary compliance.
    The definitions in this NPRM for ``bulk packaging'' and ``non-bulk 
packaging'' clarify packagings with a volume of 450 L (119 gallons) or 
less and with a gross mass of more than 400 kg are defined as ``Non-
bulk packagings.'' Packagings with a volume greater than 450 L (119 
gallons) and with a gross mass less than or equal to 400 kg are defined 
as ``Bulk packagings.'' We are currently reviewing these definitions to 
determine if we should revise or eliminate the volumetric capacity 
limits for individual packagings and the impact of such revisions. 
Specifically, we are

[[Page 52020]]

considering eliminating the volumetric limit for boxes, IBC's, and 
portable tanks. We ask commenters to address the following questions, 
to the extent possible, when submitting comments to the NPRM:
    1. Should we eliminate the volumetric limit for boxes, IBC's, and 
portable tanks?
    2. What are the regulatory and/or cost impacts of eliminating the 
volumetric limit for boxes, IBC's, and portable tanks?
    3. Would this be more consistent with the UN Recommendations?
    4. How should marking, labeling and placarding issues be addressed 
if the volumetric limit is removed or changed?
    In this NPRM, we are proposing to add new standards for Large 
Packagings and to revise Sec.  178.801(i) to remove the requirement for 
approval before manufacture and use of Large Packagings. As a result, 
it is necessary to make minor revisions to the definition of Large 
Packaging. We are removing the reference to Sec.  178.801, inserting 
references to the proposed new subparts P and Q to part 178, and 
removing the reference to gross mass to be consistent with the proposed 
changes to the definitions for ``Bulk packaging'' and ``Non-bulk 
packaging.''
    Section 171.12. Arch Chemicals, Inc. (``Arch'') petitioned PHMSA 
(P-1431) to amend Sec.  171.12, which establishes requirements for 
import and export shipments, to reference the marking requirement in 
Sec.  172.313(b). Section 172.313, paragraph (b) requires plastic and 
composite non-bulk packagings containing Division 6.1 material to be 
marked ``POISON''. In its petition, Arch states that as a result of 
Sec.  171.12 having no provision for compliance with Sec.  172.313, 
import shipments need not have this marking. Arch suggests that this is 
an inconsistency in the HMR. We agree this is an oversight and are 
proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(13) to Sec.  171.12 to require 
import and export shipments transported under Sec.  171.12 to comply 
with Sec.  172.313(b).

Part 172

    The Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). In this NPRM, we are proposing 
to amend the entries for ``Azodicarbonamide'' and ``Isosorbide-5-
mononitrate.'' Because these materials pose similar hazards, they are 
best packaged in the same manner as Musk xylene (5-tert-Butyl-2,4,6-
trinitro-m-xylene); therefore we are changing their references for non-
bulk packaging to Sec.  173.223. In addition, we are proposing to 
authorize the transportation of certain explosives in Large Packagings 
consistent with the UN Recommendations. Therefore several entries for 
explosives are revised to read ``62'' rather than ``none'' in Column 
(8c). In addition, we are proposing to make editorial changes to the 
special provisions and vessel stowage requirements for these entries in 
the HMT.
    Section 172.102. In this NPRM, we are proposing to add two new 
subparts to Part 178 to authorize the construction of Large Packagings. 
To authorize the use of these Large Packagings, we are proposing to 
revise paragraph (c)(4) to include provisions for Large Packagings. The 
revised language will specify that Large Packagings are authorized when 
a table entry specifies Special Provision IB3 or IB8. In this section, 
we will also restrict the use of Large Packagings to Packing Group III 
materials, with the exception of the following PG II entries, which 
will be authorized via a new Special Provision 41: UN 2531, Methacrylic 
acid, stabilized and UN 3291, Regulated medical waste, n.o.s. We are 
proposing to authorize these two Packing Group II entries to be 
consistent with the UN Recommendations. We propose to insert a new 
Table 3 authorizing Large Packagings and to revise Table 1 so IB3 and 
IB8 reference the new Table 3.
    Section 172.514. We are proposing to add Large Packagings to the 
types of packagings that may be placarded on only two opposite sides or 
labeled instead of placarded.

Part 173

    Section 173.12. The Reusable Industrial Packaging Association 
(RIPA) petitioned PHMSA (P-1328) to amend Sec.  173.12(c), which 
establishes conditions for reuse of previously used packagings for the 
transportation of hazardous waste. In its petition, RIPA states that 
the minimum thickness criteria specified in Sec.  173.28(b)(4) for the 
reuse of metal and plastic drums and jerricans, should be applied to 
packagings reused for hazardous waste under the exception in Sec.  
173.12(c). RIPA believes this is an oversight and was inadvertently 
incorporated into the HMR as part of Docket HM-181 (December 21, 1990; 
55 FR 52401).
    The exception in Sec.  173.12(c) is not authorized for packaging 
intended to be used more than two times (initial use and the return 
shipment of the waste product). A package may only be shipped under 
this exception once and must meet the following conditions; (1) It may 
only be transported by highway; (2) it must be loaded by the shipper 
and unloaded by the consignee or shipped by a private motor carrier; 
and (3) the packaging may not be offered for transportation less than 
twenty four hours after it is finally closed for transportation and 
each package must be inspected for leakage and found to be free from 
leaks immediately prior to being offered for transportation. If the 
packaging is subsequently reused, it will be subject to the minimum 
thickness requirements in Sec.  173.28(b)(4). The significant 
restrictions of Sec.  173.12(c) and fact that the exception may only be 
used once per packaging make it unnecessary to require a shipper to 
comply with the minimum thickness criteria in Sec.  173.28(b)(4). 
Therefore, we do not believe that these packages that comply with the 
restrictions in Sec.  173.12(c) need to comply with the minimum 
thickness criteria in Sec.  173.28(b)(4). We do not believe that the 
costs associated with the impacts of RIPA's request are commensurate 
with the benefits.
    Section 173.22. We are proposing to revise the shipper's 
responsibilities in Sec.  173.22(a)(4) to include the requirement to 
maintain a copy of the manufacturer notification, closure instructions, 
and supporting documentation for variations in Sec.  178.601(g). 
Current requirements specify that the person transferring the package 
to the shipper or distributor must furnish a copy of the notification; 
however, there is no requirement for the shipper to retain the 
documentation. Within an organization, a person other than the person 
who will be closing the package may receive the written notification. 
In addition, a packaging might not be filled and closed for months or 
years after it has been transferred to an individual or company. In 
these circumstances the written notification may be lost or unavailable 
to the person closing the package. We are proposing these changes to 
ensure each shipper will properly close packagings.
    Section 173.24b. We are proposing a new paragraph to clarify that 
packages not designated and tested for stacking may not be stacked 
during transportation. In addition, we are proposing to clarify that 
packages intended for stacking may not have more weight superimposed 
upon them than is marked on the packaging.
    Section 173.28. We are proposing to add an additional sentence to 
paragraphs (a) and (f) to clarify that packagings not meeting minimum 
thickness criteria may not be reconditioned or remanufactured.
    Section 173.35. In paragraph (h)(2), we are proposing to correct an 
error in the pressure limitation for metal IBCs. Currently, paragraph 
(h)(2) prohibits the gauge pressure in a metal IBC from exceeding 110 
kPa (16 psig) at 50 [deg]C

[[Page 52021]]

(122 [deg]F) or 130 kPa (18.9 psig) at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F). Use of 
the term ``gauge pressure'' is an error. We are proposing to correct 
this by changing ``gauge pressure'' to ``vapor pressure.''
    Section 173.36. In this NPRM we are proposing to add two new 
subparts to Part 178 to authorize the manufacture of large packagings. 
In this section, we are adding operational requirements for the use of 
Large Packagings. This new section would address the Large Packaging 
filling limits and procedures. Before being filled and offered for 
transportation, every Large Packaging would be visually inspected to 
ensure that it is free from corrosion, contamination, cracks, or other 
damage that would render the Large Packaging unsafe for transportation. 
We are proposing that inner paper or flexible plastic packagings must 
be replaced with new inner packagings prior to reuse of the Large 
Packaging. We are also proposing requirements for mixed content Large 
Packagings based on the current non-bulk combination packaging 
requirements specified in Sec.  173.24a.
    Section 173.62. In accordance with the UN Recommendations, we are 
proposing to authorize Large Packagings for the transportation of 
certain explosives. We are proposing to revise packaging instruction 
130 in the Table of Packing Methods to include certain Large 
Packagings.
    Section 173.223. We are proposing to revise this section for 
consistency with the proposed revised HMT entries for 
``Azodicarbonamide'' and ``Isosorbide-5-mononitrate.''
    Sections 173.240 through 173.242. We are proposing to amend these 
three generic bulk packaging sections to authorize Large Packagings and 
to reference Sec.  172.102, Table 2 for determining authorized Large 
Packagings. In these sections we are also proposing to clarify that 
Large Packagings are not authorized for Packing Group I or II hazardous 
materials.
    Section 173.249. Under Docket HM-215G (69 FR 76043), published on 
December 20, 2004, we revised paragraph (c) to authorize the return of 
portable tanks containing a residue of bromine. In this NPRM, we 
propose to revise paragraph (b) to authorize the transportation of 
bromine residue in cargo tanks to facilitate the return of empty cargo 
tanks with a bromine residue.
    Section 173.338. We are proposing to remove the reference to 
``strong outside container'' and replace it with ``strong outer 
packaging.''

Part 174

    Section 174.63. In Sec.  174.63, we are proposing to change the 
section title and paragraph (a) to reflect the addition of Large 
Packagings to the HMR.

Part 178

    Section 178.2. Current requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specify 
that closure instructions must be provided to whomever a packaging is 
transferred. However, the HMR do not specify how detailed the closure 
instructions must be or what they must include. As a result, shippers 
may not know how to properly close a package so it can be transported 
safely. Closure instructions generally must provide for a consistent 
and repeatable means of closure. To this end, the manufacturer's 
closure instructions could specify a range of torque values applicable 
to the closure. Similarly, the closure instructions could include a 
specific closure method (e.g., tighten the cap until the bottle 
contacts the cap gasket and then tighten an additional \3/4\ turn). As 
an alternative, the packaging and closure could be designed to ensure 
an effective closure. For example, the packaging could be designed with 
a stop feature or other indexing to indicate how the cap should be 
tightened. The manufacturer's closure instructions should be consistent 
with the language in the test report and must be written so the user is 
able to duplicate the closure method based on the instructions. In this 
NPRM, we are proposing to revise Sec.  178.2(c)(1)(ii) to clarify that 
closure instructions must provide for a measurable and repeatable means 
of closure consistent with the means of closure used for performance 
testing.
    Sections 178.3 and 178.503. The Steel Shipping Container Institute 
(SSI) petitioned PHMSA (P-1371) to modify marking requirements under 
Sec. Sec.  178.3(a)(5) and 178.503(a)(10) for packagings with a gross 
mass of more than 30 kg (66 pounds). Currently, packages with a gross 
mass of more than 30 kg (66 pounds) must be marked on the top or side. 
If the package marking is on the bottom, then a duplicate marking must 
be on the side or top. SSI's petition relates to this duplicate 
marking. In its petition, SSI requests a change in the language in 
Sec.  178.3(a)(5) to allow the duplicate marking, when applicable, to 
be a lesser design standard than is marked on the bottom of the 
package. For example, a package would be tested and marked on the 
bottom as meeting the Packing Group I performance standard and the 
duplicate marking on the side would indicate that the packaging is 
certified to the Packing Group II performance standard. In this NPRM, 
we are proposing to revise these two paragraphs to allow a lesser 
design standard on the side or top marking than that which is required 
on the bottom. This change would not impact safety and would allow drum 
manufacturers more flexibility when manufacturing and reusing drums.
    The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) petitioned PHMSA (P-
1455) to allow stenciling of the United Nations symbol. The HMR do not 
now prohibit stenciling of the UN symbol; however, the current marking 
requirements in Sec.  178.503 discourage stenciling because they do not 
tolerate even small gaps in the circle surrounding the letters ``u'' 
and ``n.'' The only way to stencil the UN symbol without leaving gaps 
in the circle is to use a two-step stenciling system. DGAC states that 
controlling a two-step process introduces variability, which often 
results in a smeared image. In response, we are proposing to revise 
Sec.  178.503 paragraphs (a)(1) and (e)(1) to include an objective 
standard under which small gaps in the United Nations symbol would be 
permitted. So that the symbol will remain readily identifiable, we are 
proposing to restrict the gaps to a size no greater than ten percent of 
the circumference of the circle and the number of gaps to no more than 
three. In addition, we are proposing to amend the language in paragraph 
(a)(1) to authorize this exception.
    Sections 178.512 through 178.521. We are proposing to amend 
Sec. Sec.  178.512 through 178.521 to specify volumetric capacity may 
not exceed 450 L (119 gallons) for the following packaging design 
types: aluminum boxes, natural wood boxes, plywood boxes, reconstituted 
wood boxes, fiberboard boxes, plastic boxes, woven plastic bags, 
plastic film bags, textile bags, and paper bags. We are proposing these 
revisions together with revisions to the definitions for ``Bulk 
packaging'' and ``Non-bulk packaging'' in an effort to eliminate 
uncertainty in determining if a package is a bulk package or a non-bulk 
package.
    Section 178.601. Under current requirements, Sec.  178.601(g)(1) 
provides an exception (Variation 1) that allows a person to substitute 
an inner receptacle if they determine that the inner packaging, 
including its closure, maintains an equivalent level of performance. As 
written, the current requirements allow substitution of the inner 
receptacle without any documentation of how the person making the 
substitution concluded the inner receptacle is equivalent. We are 
proposing to revise Sec.  178.601(g)(1) to

[[Page 52022]]

specify that the person making a change to a packaging design under the 
provisions of a selective testing variation must document in writing 
the methodology used.
    The Steel Shipping Container Institute (SSCI) petitioned PHMSA (P-
1337) to make several changes to the provisions in Sec.  178.601(g)(8), 
which apply to the approval of selective testing of steel drums that 
differ in minor respects from a tested type of drum. The changes 
proposed by SSCI would allow drums with capacities between twelve and 
fifty liters to be excepted from re-testing design types found under 
Sec.  178.601(g)(8). We are proposing to revise Sec.  178.601(g)(8) to 
include drums with a capacity of 12 liters (3 gallons) or more. 
However, we do not agree with SSCI that Sec.  178.601(g)(8)(viii) 
should be changed to allow increased thickness of 1.35 mm before being 
considered a ``different packaging.'' When a drum's thickness is 
altered, the properties of the drum are changed, and further testing 
must be conducted. Therefore, we are not proposing this provision in 
SSCI's petition.
    We are proposing to revise Sec.  178.601(k) to authorize a lesser 
quantity of test samples used in testing of stainless steel drums. 
PHMSA has issued numerous approvals to manufacturers authorizing the 
use of fewer than eighteen test samples. We are proposing to add the 
provisions found in these approvals to Sec.  178.601(k).
    Section 178.700. We propose to revise the lower volumetric limit 
for flexible IBCs (FIBCs). In Docket HM-181E (59 FR 38068), published 
July 26, 1994, we defined ``Body'' as having a lower limit of 450 
liters, thus precluding the manufacture of IBCs with a volume of less 
than 450 L. In reviewing the HMR, we have identified a gap in the 
allowable packaging specifications for flexible packagings with a 
capacity between 50 kg and 400 kg. To remedy this gap, we are proposing 
to allow bags between 50 kg and 400 kg to be manufactured and tested 
under IBC standards in subparts N and O of part 178. We are currently 
reviewing the HMR to determine if we should eliminate the lower limit 
for other IBCs as well. To facilitate this review, we request comments 
addressing the following questions, to the extent possible, when 
submitting comments to the NPRM:
    1. Is it necessary to address flexible packagings/bags between 50 
kg and 450 kg or is there little or no practical application for such 
packagings?
    2. Should we remove the lower limit for all IBC design types?
    3. Is it necessary to add further testing requirements for IBCs 
with a capacity of 450 liters (119 gallons) or less due to difference 
in the way non-bulk packages are handled in transportation?
    4. Are the re-testing provisions for IBCs in part 180 sufficient 
for a packaging with a capacity less than 450 liters (119 gallons)?
    Section 178.703. In Sec.  178.503 we are proposing to revise 
language to authorize small gaps in the United Nations symbol. This 
would allow stenciling of the symbol. To make this change, it is also 
necessary to propose amended language to paragraph (a)(1)(i) to 
authorize stenciling of the United Nations symbol for IBCs.
    Connelly Containers petitioned PHMSA (P-1356) to change the marking 
requirements for rigid fiberboard IBCs (11G). Specifically, Connelly 
Containers requests a change in the wording in Sec.  178.703(a)(iv) to 
except packagings of type 11G from the requirement to mark the month of 
manufacture. Connelly Containers states in its petition that non-bulk 
fiberboard boxes (4G) are only required to mark the year of manufacture 
while IBCs (11G) must have both month and year marked on the packaging.
    We are not proposing to adopt such changes. The reuse requirements 
for IBCs are different than those for non-bulk packagings such as 4G 
fiberboard boxes. It is necessary for a person who intends to reuse an 
IBC to know both the month and year of manufacture before refilling the 
packaging because these markings are used to determine if a retest is 
due. If a retest is due, the re-filler must retest the packaging prior 
to filling.
    Sections 178.705 through 178.710. We are proposing to move the 
lower limit for IBCs currently in the definition of ``Body'' in Sec.  
178.700 to the individual standards in Sec. Sec.  178.705 through 
178.710. These are more appropriate sections for the lower limit and 
will result in better understanding of the individual IBC 
specifications. In addition, we are proposing to authorize smaller 
flexible IBCs in Sec.  178.710 by decreasing the limit to 50 kilograms. 
We are retaining the 400 kilogram lower limit for rigid IBCs; however, 
as previously stated, we invite your comments on this issue.
    Section 178.801. In this NPRM, we propose to add new standards for 
Large Packagings. Therefore, the reference to UN standards for Large 
Packagings in Sec.  178.801(i) will no longer be necessary to authorize 
the use of Large Packagings. We propose to remove the third and fourth 
sentences in paragraph (i) of this section.
    Section 178.810. We are proposing a second drop test for IBCs with 
a capacity of 0.45 cubic meters (15.9 cubic feet) or less. In this 
NPRM, we are proposing to remove the lower limit of 450 liters (119 
gallons) and 0.45 cubic meters (15.9 cubic feet) from the 
specifications for FIBCs. Non-bulk packaging are handled in 
transportation in a different manner than IBC's. Often loading and 
unloading of a transport vehicle is performed without the use of a 
mechanical handling device like a fork lift or hoist. Non-bulk packages 
are more likely to be dropped while in transportation. Therefore, over 
the past ten years, when issuing an approval issued in accordance with 
Sec.  178.801(i) we have imposed an additional drop test for non-bulk 
capacity IBCs. We propose to incorporate this additional drop test in 
Sec.  178.810.
    Section 178.815. We propose to revise Sec.  178.815 by adding a new 
paragraph (e)(4) to describe the passing criteria for the dynamic 
compression test. This revision clarifies existing requirements.
    Section 178.819. We are proposing to revise subparagraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) to clarify testing provisions and provide additional options 
when performing the vibration test. In paragraph (b)(1), we would 
clarify that water is a suitable test filler material for the vibration 
test. In paragraph (b)(2), we would clarify that a vibrating platform 
may be used that will produce rotary double-amplitude.
    Subparts P and Q to Part 178. Under Docket HM-215D (66 FR 33316), 
published June 21, 2001, we added a provision to authorize Large 
Packagings under approval from the Associate Administrator to Sec.  
178.801. In this NPRM, we are proposing to remove the approval 
requirement and add two new subparts (P and Q) to part 178 for the 
design, construction, and testing of Large Packagings. Adding the 
manufacture, testing and use requirements into the HMR provides 
additional flexibility and effectively removes the need to apply for an 
approval to manufacture and use these packagings in the United States. 
The design, construction and testing requirements are based on the UN 
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Thirteenth Revised 
Edition (2003); Chapter 6.6 Requirements for the Construction and 
Testing of Large Packagings. The regulatory layout and language is 
modeled on the current requirements for IBCs and includes:
    Section 178.900. This section discusses the general purpose and 
scope of Subpart P.
    Section 178.902. This section designates Large Packaging codes. For

[[Page 52023]]

example, ``50'' would designate rigid Large Packagings and ``G'', like 
other specification packagings, would designate fiberboard.
    Section 178.903. In this section we are proposing to specify 
requirements for certification marking of Large Packagings. The Large 
Packaging certification mark would be comprised of the following 
elements: the ``UN'' symbol specified in Sec.  178.503(e)(1), code 
numbers designating the Large Packaging design type, performance level 
achieved by the package (i.e., Packing Group), month and year of 
manufacture, country where the packaging was authorized (e.g., USA), 
name and address or symbol of the manufacturer, stacking test load in 
kilograms, and maximum permissible gross mass (for flexible Large 
Packagings, the maximum permissible load in kilograms). The NPRM 
provides three examples of Large Packaging certification marking.
    Sections 178.904 through 178.909. Sections 178.904 through 178.909 
contain performance standards for Large Packagings.
    Section 178.1000. This section describes the general purpose and 
scope of the new Subpart Q.
    Section 178.1001. In this section, we propose general testing, 
inspection, and recordkeeping requirements for Large Packagings. We 
propose to require design qualification testing to be conducted at the 
start of production of each new or different Large Packaging design 
type and to require production testing and inspection for each newly 
manufactured Large Packaging. In addition, Large Packaging 
manufacturers would be required to keep records for the qualification 
of each Large Packaging design type and for each periodic design re-
qualification. Records would be maintained at each location where a 
Large Packaging is manufactured and at each location where Large 
Packaging design qualification and periodic design re-qualification 
testing is performed. Records would be required to be maintained for as 
long as Large Packagings are manufactured in accordance with each 
qualified design type and for at least two years thereafter.
    Section 178.1002. In this section, we propose requirements for the 
preparation of Large Packagings for testing. Preparation of packages, 
as required for non-bulk packagings and IBCs, includes requirements for 
filling and conditioning of packagings prior to conducting testing.
    Section 178.1010. This section establishes the drop test 
requirements for Large Packagings. The test requirements would be 
similar to those for IBCs and non-bulk packagings in Sec. Sec.  178.603 
and 178.810. Large Packagings intended to contain liquids would be 
required to be filled to at least ninety-eight percent of their 
capacity, and ninety-five percent for solids, in preparation for the 
drop test. Rigid Plastic Large Packagings and Large Packagings with 
plastic inner receptacles would be drop tested when samples and 
components have been conditioned to -18 [deg]C (0 [deg]F). Samples of 
Large Packaging design types would be dropped onto a non-resilient, 
smooth, flat surface. The point of impact would be the most vulnerable 
part of the base of the Large Packaging being tested.
    Section 178.1011. This section contains provisions for a bottom 
lift test for Large Packagings design types designed to be lifted from 
the base.
    Section 178.1012. This section contains provisions for a top lift 
test for Large Packaging design types that are designed to be lifted 
from the top and Flexible Large Packagings designed to be lifted from 
the side.
    Section 178.1015. We propose to require a stacking test for all 
Large Packaging design types designed to be stacked. Rigid plastic 
Large Packagings that bear the stacking load would be subject to the 
stacking test for twenty-eight days; fiberboard and wooden Large 
Packagings would be subject to the stacking test for twenty-four hours; 
and all other Large Packagings intended to be stacked would be subject 
to the stacking test for five minutes. In this NPRM, we are proposing 
to make minor changes to Sec.  178.815 for clarity and to define 
passing criteria for the dynamic compression test. The proposed new 
Sec.  178.1015 is modeled after the proposed revision to Sec.  178.815.
    Section 178.1019. This section provides a vibration test for the 
qualification of all Large Packaging design types. Flexible Large 
Packagings would have to be capable of passing the vibrations test; all 
other Large Packaging design types would be subject to the vibration 
test.

III. Sunset Provision

    In an effort to maintain up-to-date regulations and minimize 
regulatory burdens, PHMSA is considering including ``sunset'' 
provisions in some or all of the amendments proposed in this NPRM. The 
inclusion of sunset provisions in new regulatory requirements would 
cause those requirements to expire 10 years after the publication date 
of the final rule, unless repealed or extended sooner by the agency. 
Such a ``sunset'' provision would require us to initiate a future 
rulemaking proceeding, and to take account of intervening developments 
and data, in order to retain the regulation beyond its sunset date. A 
future rulemaking could extend the sunset date, revise or rewrite the 
changes to the HMR proposed in this NPRM, or completely revise the HMR. 
If we choose to do nothing, after the sunset date, the subject 
regulation would revert back to the language and requirements in effect 
before the issuance of the final rule. We are inviting comments 
regarding the inclusion of a sunset provision for any or all of the 
requirements proposed in this NPRM. We ask that commenters address the 
safety, economic, and other policy considerations favoring or 
disfavoring sunsetting.

IV. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This notice is published under authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), 
which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of 
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. 
This notice adopts regulations to enhance the safe and secure 
transportation of hazardous materials by aircraft in intrastate, 
interstate, and foreign commerce. To this end, as discussed in detail 
earlier in this preamble, this notice revises miscellaneous HMR 
requirements applicable to hazardous materials packaging.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was 
not subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget. 
This proposed rule is not considered significant under the Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 
11034).
    The cost impacts of the changes proposed in this rulemaking are 
expected to be minimal. Many of the proposed amendments in this 
rulemaking are intended to clarify current regulatory requirements 
specific to the construction and use of non-bulk and bulk packagings 
and do not impose any additional costs on the regulated community. The 
most significant proposals in the NPRM relate to: (1) The manufacture, 
testing and use of a new packaging category called ``Large packagings'' 
(2) the information

[[Page 52024]]

required to be contained in a packaging test report prepared by the 
person certifying compliance with the HMR; (3) requiring shippers to 
maintain a copy of the manufacture notification already under current 
requirements provided to them by the packaging manufacture; and (4) 
providing guidance to packaging manufacturers on how to instruct 
shippers to effectively assemble and close packagings.
    A ``Large packaging'' is a type of packaging design authorized by 
the UN Recommendations but currently only authorized in the HMR through 
an approval. Adding the manufacture, testing and use requirements into 
the HMR provides additional flexibility and effectively removes the 
need to apply for an approval to manufacture and use these packagings 
in the United States. This proposal will lead to a reduction in cost to 
the regulated community. This NPRM includes proposals to require Large 
Packaging manufacturers to keep records for the qualification of each 
design type and for each design requalification. We expect this 
recordkeeping requirement will apply to fewer than 10 regulated 
entities. Thus, the overall impact of this requirement will be minimal 
and will be more than offset by the additional flexibility provided by 
eliminating the current approval provisions.
    Currently under the HMR, a person certifying that a packaging meets 
the construction and testing requirements for UN standard packaging 
must retain documentation relative to the: (1) Name and address of the 
packaging manufacture and testing facility; (2) material of 
construction; (3) capacity, dimensions, closures, and method of 
closures; and (4) test results. However, all of the record retention 
requirements associated with UN standard packaging certification are 
currently spread out throughout the HMR. This NPRM proposes to locate 
all of the record retention requirements associated with UN standard 
packaging certification into a clear and concise location in the HMR. 
This proposal should not result in any additional cost impacts on the 
regulated community.
    We propose to require shippers to maintain a copy of the 
manufacture's notification for one year. Current requirements specify 
that the packaging manufacturer must provide the notification. Our 
proposal to require the shipper to maintain a copy of a document 
already provided to it should result in minimal, if any, additional 
cost.
    We are also proposing to revise the HMR by providing guidance to 
packaging manufacturers on how to instruct shippers to effectively 
assemble and close packagings. Currently packaging manufacturers must 
provide closure instructions. There is still some confusion as to what 
closure methods are acceptable. We are proposing to revise the HMR to 
ensure that the manufacturer's closure instructions are consistent with 
the language in the test report and are written so the user is able to 
duplicate the closure method based on the instructions. The rewording 
of this requirement will not result in any additional cost to industry.
    This NPRM is designed to increase the clarity of the HMR, thereby 
enhancing voluntary compliance with existing regulatory requirements 
while reducing compliance costs. Enhanced voluntary compliance by the 
regulated community improves overall safety. In addition, we anticipate 
many proposals contained in this rule will have economic benefits. For 
example, the NPRM proposes to broaden the scope of several packaging 
exceptions, which manufacturers and shippers may use to reduce 
transportation costs. Moreover, the incorporation of Large Packaging 
specifications into the HMR will eliminate the need for shippers to 
obtain an approval from PHMSA in order to use Large Packagings, thus 
increasing flexibility and reducing transportation costs. Finally, 
incorporation of the Large Packaging specifications into the HMR and 
adoption of other provisions intended to align the HMR with 
international standards will promote better understanding of the 
regulations, increased industry compliance, and the smooth flow of 
hazardous materials in transportation.

C. Executive Order 13132

    This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
notice 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 proposed rule addresses subject areas 1, 2, 3, and 5 above. If 
adopted as final, this rule would preempt any state, local, or Indian 
tribe requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal 
requirements are ``substantively the same'' as the Federal 
requirements.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at Sec. 
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. 
PHMSA proposes that the effective date of Federal preemption will be 90 
days from publication of a final rule in this matter in the Federal 
Register.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this proposed 
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 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities. 
An agency must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it 
determines and certifies that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule would amend miscellaneous packaging provisions in the HMR 
to clarify

[[Page 52025]]

provisions based on our own initiatives and also on petitions for 
rulemaking. While maintaining safety, it would relax certain 
requirements. Many of the proposed amendments in this rulemaking are 
intended to clarify current regulatory requirements specific to the 
construction and use of non-bulk and bulk packagings and do not impose 
any additional costs on small entities.
    This proposed 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 that potential impacts of 
draft rules on small entities are properly considered. The changes 
proposed in this Notice will enhance safety, and I certify that this 
proposal, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This notice does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $120.7 
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

    PHMSA currently has approved information collections under OMB 
Control No. 2137-0018, ``Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and 
Intermediate Bulk Containers,'' expiring on July 31, 2007; OMB Control 
No. 2137-0557, ``Approvals for Hazardous Materials,'' expiring on March 
31, 2008; and OMB Control No. 2137-0572, ``Testing Requirements for 
Non-Bulk Packaging (Formerly: Testing Requirements for Packaging),'' 
expiring on July 31, 2007. We estimate an additional increase in burden 
as a result of this proposed rulemaking.
    Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires 
PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies 
an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping 
requests. This notice identifies proposed new requirements regarding 
large packagings to the current information collections under OMB 
Control No. 2137-0018 and the incorporation of existing approvals into 
the HMR under OMB Control No. 2137-0557. Under OMB Control No. 2137-
0572, we anticipate an increase in burden resulting from new testing 
requirements for non-bulk packaging. PHMSA will submit revised 
information collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for approval based on the requirements in this proposed rule. We 
estimate that the additional information collection burden as proposed 
under this rulemaking is as follows:
    OMB Control No. 2137-0572, ``Testing Requirements for Non-Bulk 
Packaging (Formerly: Testing Requirements for Packaging).''
    Total Annual Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Total Annual Responses: 15,000.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 40,000.
    Total Annual Burden cost: $941,250.00.
    PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection 
and recordkeeping burden associated with developing, implementing, and 
maintaining these requirements for approval under this proposed rule.
    Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the 
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. We must receive your comments 
prior to the close of the comment period identified in the DATES 
section of this rulemaking. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it 
displays a valid OMB control number. If these proposed requirements are 
adopted in a final rule with any revisions, PHMSA will resubmit any 
revised information collection and recordkeeping requirements to the 
OMB for re-approval.
    Please direct your requests for a copy of this proposed revised 
information collection to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of 
Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Room 8430, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

H. 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 may be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

I. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the 
consequences of major federal actions and prepare a detailed statement 
on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. There are no significant environmental impacts associated 
with this notice. We are proposing clarifications and changes to 
certain HMR requirements for the packaging standards for hazardous 
materials.

J. 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 
https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

    Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, 
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 172

    Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, 
Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, 
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Uranium.

49 CFR Part 174

    Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad 
safety.

49 CFR Part 178

    Hazardous materials transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging 
and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR 
Chapter I as follows:

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53; 
Pub. L. 101-410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub L. 104-134 
section 31001.

    2. In Sec.  171.8:

[[Page 52026]]

    a. The definitions for ``Reconditioned packaging,'' 
``Remanufactured packaging,'' and ``Strong outer packaging'' are added.
    b. The definition for ``Strong outside container'' is removed.
    c. The definitions for ``Bulk packaging,'' ``Large packaging,'' and 
``Non-bulk packaging'' are revised.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  171.8  Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *
    Bulk packaging means:
    (1) Any specification cargo tank, tank car, or portable tank 
constructed and marked in accordance with part 178 of this subchapter;
    (2) Any Specification 3AX, 3AAX or 3T cylinder constructed, marked 
and certified in accordance with subpart C of part 178 of this 
subchapter.
    (3) Any Industrial Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk 
Container, Large Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has a 
volumetric capacity of greater than 450 L (119 gallons).
* * * * *
    Large packaging means a packaging:
    (1) Consisting of an outer packaging which contains articles or 
inner packagings;
    (2) Designated for mechanical handling; and
    (3) Conforming to the requirements for the use, construction, 
testing, and marking of Large Packagings as specified in Sec. Sec.  
173.36, and subparts P & Q of part 178 of this subchapter, 
respectively.
* * * * *
    Non bulk packaging means:
    (1) Any packaging constructed, marked, tested and certified as 
meeting the standards specified in subparts L and M of Part 178 of this 
subchapter.
    (2) Except for Specifications 3AX, 3AAX and 3T, any Specification 
cylinder constructed, marked and certified in accordance with subpart C 
of part 178 of this subchapter.
    (3) Any Industrial Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk 
Container, Large Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has a 
volumetric capacity of 450 liters (119 gallons) or less.
* * * * *
    Reconditioned packaging. See Sec.  173.28 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
    Remanufactured packagings. See Sec.  173.28 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
    Strong outer packaging means the outermost enclosure which provides 
protection against the unintentional release of its contents. It is a 
packaging, which is sturdy, durable, and constructed so that it will 
retain its contents under normal conditions of transportation, 
including rough handling. In addition, a strong outer packaging must 
meet the general packaging requirements of subpart B of part 173 of 
this subchapter but need not comply with the specification packaging 
requirements in part 178 of this subchapter. For transport by aircraft, 
a strong outer packaging is subject to Sec.  173.27 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  171.12, paragraph (b)(13) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  171.12  Import and export shipments.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (13) Non-bulk plastic outer packaging used as a single or composite 
packaging for materials meeting the definition of Division 6.1 (in 
Sec.  173.132 of this subchapter) must be marked in accordance with 
Sec.  172.313(b) of this subchapter.
* * * * *

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS 
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND 
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

    4. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101'5127, 44701; 49 CFR 1.53.


Sec.  172.101  [Amended]

    5. Section 172.101, the Hazardous Materials Table is amended to 
read as follows:
    a. The entry ``Azodicarbonamide,'' Column (8B) the reference 
``212'' is removed and ``223'' is added in its place, and in Column 
(10B) ``12'' is removed and ``2'' is added in its place.
    b. The entry ``Isosorbide-5-mononitrate,'' Column (7) Special 
Provision 159 is added in the correct numeric order and Column (8B) the 
reference ``213'' is removed and ``223'' is added in its place.
    c. In Column (8c), for the following entries, the word ``None'' is 
revised to read ``62'':

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Column (2) entry                     Column (4) entry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammunition smoke, white phosphorus with        UN0245
 burster, expelling charge, or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition smoke, white phosphorus with        UN0246
 burster, expelling charge, or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, illuminating with or without       UN0171
 burster, expelling charge or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, illuminating with or without       UN0254
 burster, expelling charge or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, illuminating with or without       UN0297
 burster, expelling charge or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, incendiary with or without         UN0300
 burster, expelling charge or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, incendiary with or without         UN0009
 burster, expelling charge, or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, incendiary with or without         UN0010
 burster, expelling charge, or propelling
 charge.
Ammunition, incendiary, white pho