Hazardous Materials; Combination Packages Containing Liquids Intended for Transport by Aircraft, 38361-38372 [E8-15372]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
detector (FID), a photoionization detector
(PID) or a non-dispersive infrared
analyzer (NDIR)
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.8. Procedures for the direct
measurement of volatile organic
compounds using a gas chromatograph
(GC) with a flame ionization detector
(FID) or other suitable detector
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.9. Procedures for the
sampling and remote analysis of known
volatile organic compounds using a gas
chromatograph (GC) with a flame
ionization detector (FID) or other
suitable detector
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.10. Procedures for the
determination of volatile organic
compounds in surface coating
formulations
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.11. Procedures for the
determination of volatile organic
compounds emitted from transfer
operations using a flame ionization
detector (FID) or non-dispersive infrared
analyzer (NDIR)
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.12. Procedures for the
determination of volatile organic
compounds in cutback and emulsified
asphalts
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.13. Procedures for the
determination of leak tightness of
gasoline delivery vessels
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.14. Procedures for the direct
detection of fugitive volatile organic
compound leaks
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.15. Procedures for the direct
detection of fugitive volatile organic
compound leaks from gasoline tank
trucks and vapor collection systems
using a combustible gas detector
N.J.A.C. 7:27B–3.18. Test methods and
sources incorporated by reference
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–15352 Filed 7–3–08; 8:45 am]
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket Nos. 04–348 and
04–407, adopted June 11, 2008, and
released June 13, 2008. The full text of
this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center (Room
CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com.
The withdrawal of these rulemaking
petitions and counterproposal complies
with Section 1.420(j) of the
Commission’s rules because the
withdrawing parties are not receiving
any money or other consideration in
return for the withdrawals. See 69 FR
55547 (September 15, 2004) and 69 FR
67882 (November 22, 2004).
This document is not subject to the
Congressional Review Act. (The
Commission, is, therefore, not required
to submit a copy of this Report and
Order to GAO, pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A) because the petitions for
rulemaking and counterproposal were
dismissed).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E8–14639 Filed 7–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
[DA 08–1410; MB Docket Nos. 04–348, 04–
407; RM–10718, RM–11153, RM–11154, RM–
11106]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Radio Broadcasting Services; Bertram,
Blanket, Burnet, Cherokee, Cross
Plains, Granite Shoals, Junction,
Kempner, and Llano, TX
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
RIN 2137–AE32
The staff approves the
withdrawal of three petitions for
rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford
and a counterproposal filed by Munbilla
Broadcasting Properties, Ltd. in this
consolidated FM allotment proceeding.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, and 178
[Docket No. PHMSA–07–29364 (HM–231A)]
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Hazardous Materials; Combination
Packages Containing Liquids Intended
for Transport by Aircraft
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: PHMSA and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) are
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38361
considering changes to requirements in
the Hazardous Materials Regulations
applicable to non-bulk packagings used
to transport hazardous materials in air
transportation. To enhance aviation
safety, the two agencies are seeking to
identify cost-effective solutions that can
be implemented to reduce incident rates
and potentially detrimental
consequences without placing
unnecessary burdens on the regulated
community. We are soliciting comments
on how to accomplish these goals,
including measures to: (1) Enhance the
effectiveness of performance testing for
packagings used to transport hazardous
materials on aircraft; (2) more clearly
indicate the responsibilities of shippers
that offer packages for air transport in
the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR); and (3) authorize alternatives for
enhancing package integrity. We are
also considering ways to simplify
current requirements. Commenters are
also invited to present additional ideas
for improving the safe transportation of
hazardous materials by aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–07–29364 (HM–231A) by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
• Hand Delivery: To Docket
Operations, Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, 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 for this notice at the beginning
of the comment. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to the docket management system,
including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the dockets to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38362
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael G. Stevens, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001, telephone (202) 366–8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Background
II. Closures and Packages May Fail at High
Altitude
III. Analyses of the Problem
A. FAA Study
B. United Parcel Service (UPS) Study
C. Michigan State University (MSU) Study
for the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA/MSU Study)
D. MSU Study for PHMSA (PHMSA/MSU
Study)
E. PHMSA Review of Incident Data
IV. Purpose of This ANPRM
A. Design Qualification and Periodic
Retesting
(1) Pressure Differential Test
(2) Vibration Testing
(3) Combination (Simultaneous) Pressure
Differential/Vibration Testing
(4) Elimination of Selective Testing
Variations
B. Other Requirements
(1) Liners and Absorbent Material
(2) Secondary Means of Closure
V. Questions and Solicitation for Public
Comment
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive
Order 13272, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
E. Information Collection
VI. Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
I. Background
The Hazardous Materials Regulations
(49 CFR parts 171–180) authorize a
variety of packaging types for the
transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce. Combination packagings are
the most common type of packaging
used for the transportation of hazardous
materials by aircraft. A combination
packaging consists of one or more inner
packagings secured in a non-bulk outer
packaging. (A non-bulk outer packaging
is one that has a maximum capacity of
450 liters (119 gallons) as a receptacle
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
for a liquid or a maximum net mass of
400 kg (882 pounds) or less and a
maximum capacity of 450 liters (119
gallons) or less as a receptacle for a
solid; see 49 CFR 171.8.) Combination
packagings are used for the
transportation of both solid and liquid
hazardous materials, including
materials such as sodium hydroxide,
paint, and sulfuric acid and articles
such as lithium batteries.
When used to transport liquid
hazardous materials, a combination
packaging must conform to one of the
specifications (i.e., ‘‘Specification
Packaging’’) in part 178 of the HMR or
an authorized UN Standard; the
packaging must be tested to ensure that
it conforms to the applicable
specification or standard. Inner
packagings within a combination
packaging must be closed in preparation
for testing, and tests must be carried out
on the completed package in the same
manner as if prepared for transportation.
See 49 CFR 178.602.
Under the HMR, certain classes and
quantities of hazardous materials may
be transported in non-specification
combination packagings. A nonspecification packaging is not required
to meet specific performance
requirements. Rather, a nonspecification packaging must meet
general packaging requirements. For
example, a non-specification packaging
must be designed, constructed, filled,
and closed so that it will not release its
contents under conditions normally
incident to transportation. In addition,
the effectiveness of the packaging must
be maintained for temperature changes,
changes in humidity and pressure, and
shocks, loadings, and vibrations
normally encountered during
transportation. See 49 CFR 173.24. In
addition, a non-specification packaging
authorized for transportation by aircraft
must be designed and constructed to
prevent leakage that may be caused by
changes in altitude and temperature.
See 49 CFR 173.27. Non-specification
packagings need not be tested to
demonstrate that they conform to
applicable HMR requirements.
Incident data and testing indicate that
a number of combination packaging
designs authorized for the
transportation of liquid hazardous
materials are not able to withstand
conditions normally incident to air
transportation. The packagings of most
concern to PHMSA and FAA are nonspecification combination packagings
that must be ‘‘capable’’ of meeting
pressure differential requirements but
are not required to be certified as
meeting a specific performance test
method to verify compliance with
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pressure differential performance
standards.
We are aware that there are a number
of contributing factors that may cause
packaging failures and releases in air
transport, including non-compliance
with existing requirements and lack of
function specific training of hazmat
employees. In this ANPRM, we are
soliciting comments on cost-effective
measures that can be taken to reduce or
eliminate the number of liquid
hazardous materials releases from
combination packagings in air transport.
As discussed in more detail below,
PHMSA and FAA developed this
ANPRM, in part, utilizing data and
information provided by stakeholders in
a meeting on June 21, 2007. PHMSA’s
review of incident data is discussed in
section III.E. of this notice. A summary
of the meeting, including presentations
by participants, is available for review
in the public docket for this rulemaking.
In 1990, PHMSA’s predecessor
agency, the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA),
published a final rule under Docket
HM–181 (55 FR 52402; December 21,
1990), revisions and response to
petitions for reconsideration (56 FR
66124; December 20, 1991) to align the
HMR with international standards
applicable to hazardous materials
packagings. See 49 CFR part 178,
subparts L and M, adopted at 55 FR
52716–28. That final rule adopted nonbulk hazardous material packaging
standards based on performance criteria
rather than the detailed construction
specifications that applied prior to 1990
and were phased out in 1996. See
former 49 CFR 171.14(b)(1), adopted at
55 FR 52473–74. Under these
performance-oriented packaging
requirements, packaging strength and
integrity are demonstrated through a
series of performance tests that a
packaging must pass before it is
authorized for the transportation of
hazardous materials. The performance
criteria provide packaging design
flexibility that is not possible with
detailed design specifications.
In the HM–181 rulemaking, we
adopted requirements that all non-bulk
packaging ‘‘must be capable of
withstanding * * * the vibration test
procedure’’ set forth in 49 CFR 178.608
(55 FR at 52727) and that metal and
plastic and composite packagings
‘‘intended to contain liquids’’ must pass
a hydrostatic pressure test. 49 CFR
178.605 (55 FR at 52726). However, we
did not adopt our proposal in the notice
of proposed rulemaking to require a
hydrostatic pressure test to be
performed on all inner packagings of
combination packages containing
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
liquids intended for transportation by
aircraft, which would have addressed
pressure differentials potentially
encountered during air transportation.
(See 52 FR 16482, May 5, 1987). Instead,
consistent with the International Civil
Aviation Organization Technical
Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO
Technical Instructions), we adopted a
requirement that all packagings
intended to contain liquids ‘‘must be
capable of withstanding without
leakage’’ a specified internal pressure
depending on the hazard class/division
and packing group. 49 CFR
173.27(c)(2)(i), adopted at 55 FR 52612.
The ICAO Technical Instructions
include guidance that indicates in more
precise terms what is meant by ‘‘being
capable,’’ but specific test methods have
not been adopted. The ICAO Technical
Instructions suggest that the capability
of packaging to meet the pressure
differential performance standard
should be determined by testing, with
the appropriate test method selected
based on packaging type. See ‘‘Note’’
following 4.1.1.6.
The HMR, at 49 CFR 173.27(c),
specify that inner packagings of
combination packagings for which
retention of liquid is a basic function
must be capable of withstanding the
greater of: (1) An internal pressure
which produces a gauge pressure of not
less than 75 kPa for liquids in Packing
Group III of Class 3 or Division 6.1 or
95 kPa for other liquids; or (2) a
pressure related to the vapor pressure of
the liquid to be conveyed as determined
by formulae in subsequent paragraphs.
II. Closures and Packages May Fail at
High Altitude
When packages reach high altitudes
during transport, they experience low
pressure on the exterior of the package.
This results in a pressure differential
between the interior and exterior of the
package since the pressure inside
remains at the higher ground-level
pressure. Higher altitudes will create
lower external pressures and, therefore,
larger pressure differentials. This
condition is especially problematic for
packages containing liquids.
When a packaging, such as a glass
bottle or receptacle, is initially filled
and sealed, the cap must be tightened to
a certain level to obtain sealing forces
sufficient to contain the liquids in the
packaging. This will require certain
forces to be placed upon the bottle and
cap threads as well as the sealing
surface of the cap or cap liner to ensure
the packaging remains sealed
throughout transportation. Once at
altitude, due to the internal pressure of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
the liquid acting upon the closure,
combined with the reduced external air
pressure, the forces acting on the
threads and the forces acting on the
sealing surfaces may not be the same as
when the packaging was initially closed.
Under normal conditions encountered
in air transport (26 kPa @ 8000 ft),
conditions are not overly severe.
However, if the compartment is
depressurized at altitude or if the
compartment is not pressurized at all
(e.g., feeder aircraft), the pressure
differential (55 kPa–90 kPa) may be
severe enough to cause package failure
and release of contents.
When first closed, and if closed
properly, the typical cap and bottle do
not deform to the point where sealing
integrity is immediately compromised,
although studies have demonstrated that
plastic bottles and caps do begin to
exhibit stress relaxation and a reduction
in sealing force immediately after the
bottles are sealed. When the bottle is
closed in a manner that accounts for the
initial stress relaxation of the cap and
threads, and there is no altitude induced
pressure differential in the packaging,
no pressure change inside the bottle and
no change in the spacing between the
top of the cap and the rim of the bottle,
there will be no immediate change in
the sealing force that affects the bottle’s
ability to maintain a seal. An increase in
altitude will cause an increase in the
thread contact force, but no immediate
change in the sealing force. These
conditions persist for as long as the
pressure differential is maintained. Even
though the sealing force remains
unchanged, the increased thread forces
could distort the cap and cause the cap
threads to expand over the bottle
threads.
Vibration further complicates the
force on the bottle. The net effect of the
vibration force intermittently
compresses and decompresses the
closure in rapid succession. This can
temporarily reduce the sealing force to
zero. A rapid removal of the
compression force, which occurs
naturally during vibration, may not
allow the closure to recover quickly
enough to maintain a seal. It may take
several seconds, even minutes, for the
closure to return to its original
configuration, if it returns to the original
configuration at all. Thus, while the
bottle and cap are intermittently
compressing and decompressing, there
may be a gap, which could result in a
leak of material from the package.
Finally, the effect of internal pressure
and stress relaxation after initial closure
of the inner receptacle, particularly with
thermoplastic bottles and caps, can lead
to a reduction of sealing force on the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38363
inner receptacle and may also cause
failure of a packaging during air
transport. Studies reviewed in section
III of this notice demonstrate that when
a thermoplastic bottle and cap are
initially closed, stress relaxation can
account for a reduction of nearly 50%
in removal torque within minutes of
application and an 80% reduction of
removal torque over several days or
weeks. Loss of sealing force due to the
combination of creep and stress
relaxation can also contribute to
packages leaking in air transportation.
As can be understood, the combination
of stress relaxation, vibration, and low
pressure at high altitudes may reduce
the overall sealing force, thereby
compromising the closure integrity of a
packaging and resulting in leakage from
the packaging. The air transportation of
small parcels typically includes
multiple flights to reach destination.
Therefore, this stress cycle on the
closure systems of inner packagings
repeats itself multiple times from
origination to destination.
III. Analyses of the Problem
The following studies simulated the
stresses of low external pressure and
vibration on combination package
integrity and performance before,
during, and while in-flight. These same
stresses induced by low external
pressure and vibration are encountered
in-flight when cargo and feeder aircraft
transport combination packages in nonpressurized or partially-pressurized
cargo holds. These conditions result in
substantial changes in pressure when
compared to combination packages
being transported at or near sea level
and require a higher level of integrity as
a result.
A. FAA Study
In 1999, the FAA began a detailed
study of hazardous material package
failures in air transportation. FAA
analyzed incident data from the DOT
Hazardous Materials Information
System (HMIS) during 1998 and 1999
and focused on properly declared
hazardous material shipments. The
study concluded that of 1,583 air
incidents reported to PHMSA, a failure
of inner packagings in combination
packaging designs contributed to 333
spills or leaks. Further study of the spill
or leak incidents concluded that
package closure/seal failure rates were
as high as 65% for plastic and metal
inner packagings and 23% for glass
inner packagings. All failed inner
packagings were packaged in outer UN
4G marked fiberboard boxes. Based on
these study results, FAA concluded that
either the inner packagings were not
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38364
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
closed properly as specified in the
packaging manufacturer’s closure
instructions or that the inner packagings
were not capable of meeting the
pressure differential requirement or
vibration standard of the HMR or both.
In addition, because the majority (85%)
of the materials that spilled or leaked
during flight were toxic, corrosive or
flammable, they could have released
potentially harmful fumes or vapors into
the cabin posing a threat to passengers
and crew members. FAA determined
that further research on the actual
effects of vibration and pressure
differential in air transport was
warranted.
As a result of the conclusions of
FAA’s study of combination packaging
failures in 2000, FAA conducted
extensive laboratory research and public
outreach in multiple fora to analyze the
problem and develop potential
solutions. Conclusions reached as a
result of the following laboratory studies
indicate problems exist under the
current regulatory standards for which
solutions need to be developed and
implemented.
B. UPS Study
UPS presented a study in 2000 to the
American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) outlining the
conditions that packages experience in
the air transport environment. A copy of
the UPS study is available for review in
the public docket for this rulemaking.
The study resulted in the following key
observations related to air transport as
described in ASTM D 6653–01:
1. Aircraft cargo compartments are
typically pressurized to an altitude of
8,000 ft resulting in a pressure
differential of approximately 26kPa on
packages filled at or near sea level.
Temperature is maintained at
approximately 20°–23 °C (68 °–74 °F).
2. Non-pressurized ‘‘feeder aircraft’’
typically fly at approximately 13,000–
16,000 feet. The highest recorded
altitude in a non-pressurized feeder
aircraft was 19,740 ft. Temperatures
ranged from approximately 4° to 24 °C
(25 °–75 °F). Based on these findings, it
is evident that packaged products
transported by the feeder aircraft
network used by air cargo carriers may
experience potential altitudes as high as
20,000 feet, resulting in a pressure
differential of approximately 55 kPa. An
inadequate packaging design containing
liquids at this pressure differential can
fail in transportation.
C. Michigan State University Study for
FAA (FAA/MSU Study)
In 2002, the FAA initiated a study
with Michigan State University (MSU)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
to replicate actual air and pre- and posttruck transportation conditions to
determine which conditions contribute
to package failures. FAA examined the
effects of vibration alone, altitude alone,
and a combination of vibration and
altitude on the performance of UN
standard hazardous material
combination packages containing
liquids. In the study, the combination
packages were placed in various
orientations, not all of which are
authorized in the HMR. The study did
not include temperature effects because
the temperatures in cargo holds are not
unusual or extreme. Each test condition
in Table 1 represents a different
combination of low pressure and
vibration that packages may be exposed
to while in, or pre- or post-air transport:
TABLE 1.—RANKING OF CONDITIONS
Percentage of
failure of
packages
tested
Conditions
No vibration, 14,000 ft, 30
min ....................................
Truck and air vibration, 0 ft,
30 min ...............................
Truck only vibration, 8,000 ft,
180 min .............................
Truck and air vibration, 8,000
ft, 180 min .........................
Truck and air vibration (typical sequence for air transportation), 14,000 ft, 30
min ....................................
0
14
21
29
50
MSU procured 32 design samples of UN
standard liquid hazardous material
combination packagings from three
leading hazmat packaging suppliers. See
United Nations Recommendations on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods
Model Regulations, Volume II, Part 6.
The test combination packagings were
certified to meet current UN, ICAO, and
applicable HMR requirements. The
testing was designed to replicate actual
transportation conditions. A copy of this
report is available for review in the
public docket. Several key conclusions
can be drawn from the analysis:
• UN standard liquid hazardous
material combination packagings leaked
under a combined vacuum and
vibration test which simulated the
characteristics of air transportation and
high altitude.
• One study concluded laboratory
testing for pressure differential
capability without exposure to vibration
may not be a realistic replication of the
air transportation environment. When
both forces are applied to a package
simultaneously, the failure rate
increases to 50%.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Altitude is more important than the
length of time in flight; higher altitude
is more severe than lower altitude.
• Results of combined truck and air
vibration are more severe than truck
vibration alone.
• Vibration periodically reduces the
sealing force on a liner or gasket and
may produce intermittent gaps that
open and close at concentrated pressure
points.
• The study was based on the
conditions normally encountered by a
package in truck and air transport.
D. Michigan State University Study for
PHMSA (PHMSA/MSU Study)
In 2003, PHMSA also initiated a study
with MSU to compare the HMR
requirements and the testing used in the
FAA/MSU Study discussed previously.
To provide for a more thorough
evaluation of the performance of liquid
hazardous materials combination
packagings, this phase of testing was
conducted on a smaller number of
packaging designs; however, a much
greater number of packagings of each
design were tested in this study. In the
2002 FAA/MSU study, two packagings
of each design were tested; for this
study, PHMSA tested thirty packagings
from each of eleven designs. With the
exception of three packaging designs, all
of the packagings tested during this
phase had been tested for the 2002
FAA/MSU study. See Table 2 below. A
copy of this report is available for
review in the public docket.
TABLE 2.—RANKING OF CONDITIONS
Conditions
Random vibration and vacuum, vertical orientation
(conforming to HMR),
14,000 ft, one hour ...........
Random vibration and vacuum, horizontal orientation,
14,000 ft, one hour ...........
Vacuum only, 95 kPa for 30
min, inverted orientation ...
Random vibration, one hour
Average failure rate .......
Percentage of
failures of
packages
tested
12
18
13
11
13
The conclusions from this testing
supported MSU’s previous testing
conducted for FAA:
• Packages performed unsatisfactorily
when tested in the orientation required
by the HMR; when the packages were
oriented improperly, the leakage rate
was even greater.
• Proper package orientation is a
critical factor in reducing leaks from
packages.
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
• UN standard combination
packagings did not pass the combined
pressure differential and random
vibration while in the HMR required
orientation. Of the 99 bottles subjected
to this test, 87 successfully passed the
test.
• Laboratory package failure rate is
greater than 10% and would be
considered unacceptable based on
industry standards with a lower safety
risk (i.e., non-hazmat packagings).
Acceptable failure rates for consumer
products is less than 5%; electronics is
less than 1%; food/pharmaceutical less
than 3–5%; the average failure rate of
this controlled study was 13%.
• Packages that utilized a secondary
means of closure had a lower rate of
failure.
• Testing in a horizontal orientation
that simulated air transport combining
random vibration and a pressure
differential (vacuum) of 59.5 kPa
(14,000 ft), for one hour, resulted in an
18% failure rate.
E. PHMSA Review of Incident Data
During the first half of 2007, PHMSA
conducted a comprehensive assessment
of hazardous materials transportation
incidents occurring in air transportation
from 1997 through 2006. This study and
its corresponding data may be accessed
in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The study concluded that there has been
no appreciable reduction in package
failures over the past 10 years. It is
estimated that 191,429 tons of liquid
hazardous materials are transported by
aircraft annually contained in 7,657,152
combination packaging shipments. Of
that total, our analysis concluded that
out of approximately 483 failures
(.00006%) in air transportation
involving combination packagings
containing liquids each year, 20 are
reported as ‘‘serious.’’ An incident is
considered serious if it involves one or
more of the following: (1) A fatality or
major injury caused by the release of a
hazardous material; (2) the evacuation
of 25 or more persons as a result of
release of a hazardous material or
exposure to fire; (3) a release or
exposure to fire which results in the
closure of a major transportation artery;
(4) the alteration of an aircraft flight
plan or operation; (5) the release of
radioactive materials from Type B
packaging; (6) the release of over 45
liters (11.9 gallons) or 40 kilograms
(88.2 pounds) of a severe marine
pollutant; and (7) the release of a bulk
quantity (over 450 liters (119 gallons) or
400 kilograms (882 pounds)) of a
hazardous material. We want to
emphasize that any incident, such as a
package failure, involving hazardous
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
materials in air transportation is
unacceptable. In air transportation, any
incident could quickly escalate and
result in irreversible, possibly
catastrophic, consequences.
Accounting for approximately 80
percent of all packages transported by
air, combination packagings containing
liquids are involved in 44 percent (483)
of all package failures annually. Inner
packaging closure failures within a
combination outer packaging are the
primary cause of incidents involving
combination packagings in air
transportation. Such failures could be
the result of pressure differential
(packages closed at sea level subjected
to lower pressure on planes), ‘‘backing
off’’ of the closure (closures that appear
tight but loosen during transportation),
improper closures, or some other cause.
Our analysis also suggests that most
incidents involve combination
packagings that contain flammable
liquids (e.g., paint and paint related
material) of varying degrees of hazard.
Some additional statistical data from the
2007 incident review include:
• Incident trends are similar to earlier
FAA studies.
• Laboratory research validates the
conclusion that inner receptacles (e.g.,
bottles and caps) leak as indicated in the
incident data.
• Leaking (failing) closures and inner
receptacles are not the leading cause of
incidents in air transportation; however,
over 40% of combination packages
containing liquids that fail in air
transportation do involve closures and
inner receptacles.
• Flammable liquids are the most
common liquid hazardous materials
released from failed packages in air
transportation. Such materials or its
vapor would seek and could find an
ignition source resulting in fire or
explosion.
• In years 2005–2006, 18 of 953
incidents involving combination
packagings containing liquids, or 2%,
occurred on passenger-carrying aircraft.
Although low when compared to
incidents occurring on cargo-carrying
aircraft, this percentage of package
failure continues to be a troubling
statistic.
• Combination packages containing
liquids that fail in air transportation
release on average 0.5 gallons of liquid
hazardous materials.
PHMSA presented the results of this
review at a June 21, 2007 meeting with
stakeholders to discuss air packaging
issues. The 44 participants included
cargo and passenger air carriers,
packaging manufacturers and testing
laboratories, FAA and PHMSA
personnel, and representatives of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38365
industry trade associations. The
shippers, air carriers, and enforcement
personnel present generally agreed that
the current capability requirements for
air packagings are difficult to comply
with and suggested that specific test
methods designed to demonstrate that
packagings will withstand the air
transportation environment should be
specified in the HMR.
Stakeholders at the meeting also
suggested that increased outreach
through industry partnership and
targeted enforcement for habitual
offenders would significantly enhance
achievement of PHMSA and FAA safety
goals without additional regulation.
IV. Purpose of This ANPRM
As previously noted, to enhance
aviation safety, PHMSA and FAA are
seeking to identify cost-effective
solutions that can be implemented to
reduce incident rates and potentially
detrimental consequences without
placing unnecessary burdens on the
regulated community. We are soliciting
comments on how to accomplish these
goals, including measures to: (1)
Enhance the effectiveness of
performance testing for packagings used
to transport hazardous materials on
aircraft; (2) more clearly indicate the
responsibilities of shippers that offer
packages for air transport in the HMR;
and (3) authorize alternatives for
enhancing package integrity. Based on
PHMSA and FAA analyses, it appears
that some combination packaging
designs used to transport hazardous
materials by aircraft may not meet the
pressure differential and vibration
capability standards mandated under
the HMR. Indeed, the testing suggests
that the capability standards themselves
may not be sufficiently rigorous to
ensure that packagings maintain their
integrity under conditions normally
incident to air transportation. Because
aircraft accidents caused by leaking or
breached hazardous materials packages
can have significant consequences, the
air transport of hazardous materials
requires exceptional care and attention
to detail. Therefore, we are considering
measures to reduce the incidence of
package failures and to minimize the
consequences of failures should they
occur.
The fact that specific test methods are
not specified in the HMR or the ICAO
Technical Instructions leads to
inconsistencies in package integrity and
results in varying levels of compliance
among shippers. For example, we
understand that, because the pressure
differential and vibration capability
standards for combination packagings
are not required to be verified by a test
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38366
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
protocol, some shippers (self-certifiers)
or manufacturers have used historical
shipping data, computer modeling,
analogies to tested packagings,
engineering studies, or similar methods
to determine that their packagings meet
pressure differential and vibration
capability standards. Further, some less
experienced shippers or manufacturers
may not understand that their
packagings must withstand pressure
differential and vibration requirements.
In addition, some shippers or
manufacturers may not realize that both
UN Standard packaging and packagings
that are not required to be certified as
meeting a specification or standard are
subject to the pressure differential
capability requirement. This would
include packagings for products, such as
limited quantities and consumer
commodities, where non-specification
packagings are authorized. A significant
percentage of aircraft incidents
involving hazardous materials appear to
result from failures of non-specification
packagings.
As indicated above, a nonspecification packaging is not required
to meet specific performance
requirements. Rather, a nonspecification packaging must meet
general packaging requirements and, for
air transportation, must be capable of
withstanding pressures encountered at
altitude. We invite comments on how to
enforce this ‘‘capability’’ standard for
non-specification packagings and ask
whether a test of some sort should be
required to verify packaging integrity.
A complicating factor that appears to
be contributing to packaging failures
and non-compliance is that assembly of
packages in some cases is not consistent
with the design type that was originally
tested. In some cases, manufacturers
change components without informing
the shipper; in other cases, shippers
specify or change components without
appropriate verification and testing to
determine compliance with the
applicable performance standard. The
numerous variables that exist in the
interaction of closures, liners, and
container neck finishes preclude the use
and validity of general assumptions
about equivalent pressure performance
capabilities of similar containers.
As an alternative to regulation, the
FAA implemented an aggressive public
outreach program over the past seven
years targeted at specific stakeholder
audiences, including thousands of
shippers, packaging laboratories,
industry research and training
institutes, airline operators, and
chemical manufacturers. In addition,
several voluntary industry standards
(test protocols) were either created or
revised as a result of the public
(independent) and private funding of
the studies detailed in the previous
sections above. A copy of the report
listing the specific public outreach
efforts conducted by FAA on this issue
can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Some regulatory solutions under
consideration in this rulemaking
process are explained in more detail in
the following sections.
A. Design Qualification and Periodic
Retesting
(1) Pressure differential test. Currently
in the HMR, all packagings containing
liquids and intended for transport by air
must be capable of withstanding,
without leakage, an internal gauge
pressure of at least 75 kPa for liquids in
Packing Group III of Class 3 or 6.1 or 95
kPa for all other liquids, or a pressure
related to the vapor pressure of the
liquid to be conveyed, whichever is
greater (see 49 CFR 173.27(c)). This
requirement is also applicable to liquids
excepted from specification or UN
Standard packaging, such as those
authorized for limited quantities and
consumer commodities. This would
include eligible liquids of Classes 3
(flammable) and 8 (corrosive), and
Divisions 5.1 (oxidizer), 5.2 (organic
peroxide), and 6.1 (poisonous). Liquids
contained in inner receptacles that do
not meet the minimum pressure
requirements in the current § 173.27(c)
may be overpacked into receptacles that
do meet the pressure requirements.
In this ANPRM, we are soliciting
comments on whether we should
require mandatory pressure differential
testing for all specification or UN
Standard combination packaging
designs containing liquids transported
or intended for transportation aboard
aircraft. In addition, because many
incidents are attributed to nonspecification package failures, we are
soliciting comments on potential
solutions to this problem that may or
may not include the mandatory pressure
differential testing of inner receptacles
intended to contain liquids. One
approach would be to incorporate by
reference a number of acceptable test
methods and to simplify the regulations
by removing the requirement for
calculating the test pressure in
§ 173.27(c). Shippers (offerors) would be
responsible for using inner receptacles
that have been certified as passing one
of the following test methods:
Test
Equipment
Time under pressure
(a) 49 CFR 178.605 .......................
Pressure fitting, pump ..................
(b) ASTM D6653–01 ......................
Vacuum chamber and associated
gages and pumps.
5 minutes for metal and composite (including glass, porcelain, or stoneware); 30 minutes for plastic.
60 minutes ....................................
(c) ASTM D4991–94 ......................
Transparent vessel capable of
withstanding 11⁄2 atmospheres,
inlet tube and vacuum pump,
moisture trap, solution of ethylene glycol in water.
Inlet tube .......................................
(d) ASTM F1140 or Part 178 Appendix D for flexible packaging.
1 If
Pressure differential
30 minutes for plastic, 10 minutes
for everything else.
30 minutes ....................................
60 kPa differential.
14,000 ft (41.8 kPa differential) 1
or 16,000 ft (46.4 kPa differential).2
60 kPa pressure differential.
60 kPa pressure differential.
it is not possible to use the atmospheric and temperature pre-conditioning specified.
test specimens where the atmospheric and temperature pre-conditioning is followed.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
2 For
(a) 49 CFR 178.605—Low Pressure
Hydrostatic Pressure Test Method
Suitable for Air Inner Packages. This
test is currently required for all single
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
and composite packagings intended to
contain liquid, but it is not currently
required for inner packagings of
combination packaging. This test, which
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
uses the hydrostatic test method, pumps
high-pressure water into a packaging to
create a pressure differential. Failure is
determined if there is leakage of liquid
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38367
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
from the package during the test. This
could be observed as a stream of liquid
exiting the package or rupture of the
package.
(b) ASTM D6653–01—Standard Test
Methods for Determining the Effects of
High Altitude on Packaging Systems by
Vacuum Method. This method uses a
vacuum chamber to determine the
effects of pressure differential on
packages. Upon completion of the test,
the package is removed and checked for
damage in the form of package failure,
closure failure, material failure, internal
packaging failure, product failure, or
combinations thereof. If these are all
free of damage, then the packaging
should be reassembled for testing in
accordance with an industry accepted
packaged product performance test,
such as Practice D 4169. This will help
determine if the pressure differential
conditioning had an effect on the
performance of the packaging system.
(c) ASTM D4991–94 (Re-approved
1999) Standard Test Method for Leakage
Testing of Empty Rigid Containers by
Vacuum Method. This test is applied to
empty packagings to check for
resistance to leakage under differential
pressure conditions, such as those that
can occur during air transport. Instead
of pumping high-pressure air into the
packaging, the air pressure on the
exterior of the packaging is reduced
Test
using a vacuum. The package is
considered to fail if it leaks a
continuous stream or recurring
succession of bubbles or if fluid is found
within the test specimen after the test.
(d) ASTM F 1140—Standard Test
Methods for Internal Pressurization
Failure Resistance of Unrestrained
Packages for Medical Applications. This
test applies to flexible packaging (e.g.,
bags).
(2) Vibration testing. When packages
travel through the transportation and
distribution environment, they are
subject to vibration by automated
sorting systems and during transit
aboard aircraft, railcars, or trucks. As
packages move on conveyor systems
during automated sorting, they
experience a low level of vibration at a
constant frequency. Aircraft-induced
vibration typically is very high
frequency and low amplitude for 30
minutes to 12 hours on domestic
shipments, depending on origin,
destination, and the carrier’s network.
Vibration on trucks occurs at lower
frequencies, but at much higher
amplitudes than on aircraft. This
duration can last anywhere from 5
minutes to several days depending upon
the route and the distance from origin
to destination. Vibrations from these
various sources can result in damage,
including scuffing, abrasion, loosening
Title
Equipment
of fasteners and closures, and package
fatigue. There are two main types of
vibration testing used for packages:
Fixed frequency vibration and random
vibration. Random vibration provides
the most realistic representation of
actual transport conditions, but requires
equipment that is more expensive.
The HMR require non-bulk
packagings to be capable of
withstanding, without rupture or
leakage, the vibration test in 49 CFR
178.608. In this ANPRM, we are
soliciting comments concerning
whether the HMR should be revised to
require all specification or UN Standard
combination packaging design types
containing liquids transported or
intended to be transported aboard
aircraft to be vibration tested and
whether alternative vibration test
methods should be authorized for nonbulk packagings. We invite comments
on whether the random vibration
encountered during the ‘‘sorting’’
process and multiple flight segments of
today’s expedited shipping environment
contributes to package failure and
whether more representative vibration
test methods should be specified in the
HMR.
Alternative test methods for
determining package vibration
capability are described in the following
table:
Frequency
Time
Vertical Linear Test at Fixed Frequency
Repetitive Shock Test
(Vertical Motion).
ASTM D999–01 Method
A2.
Repetitive Shock Test (Rotary Motion).
ASTM 4169–04a Paragraph 13.1 (Schedule F).
Loose Load Vibration (Repetitive Shocks).
49 CFR 178.608 ................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
ASTM D999–01 Method
A1.
Repetitive Shock Test
(Vertical or Rotary Motion).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Vibration test machine with
horizontal surface and
mechanism for vertical
sinusoidal input; fences,
barricades or other restraints.
Vibration test machine with
horizontal surface and
mechanism for rotational
input with a vertical
component approximately sinusoidal;
fences, barricades or
other restraints.
Use Test Method ASTM
D999, Method A1 or A2.
Start vibration at 2 Hz and
steadily increase until
the test specimen repeatedly leaves the test
surface.
Predetermined time, as
stated in applicable
specification, or until
predetermined amount
of damage is detected.
Start vibration at 2 Hz and
steadily increase until
the test specimen repeatedly leaves the test
surface.
Predetermined time, as
stated in applicable
specification, or until
predetermined amount
of damage is detected.
Use Test Method ASTM
D999, Method A1 or A2.
Vibration platform that has
a vertical or rotary double-amplitude (peak-topeak displacement) of
one inch.
A frequency that causes
the package to be raised
from the vibrating platform to such a degree
that a piece of material
of approximately 1.6 mm
thickness can be passed
between the bottom of
any package and the
platform.
Assurance Level I: 60 min
dwell time; Assurance
Level II: 40 min dwell
time; Assurance Level
III: 30 min dwell time.
60 minutes.
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38368
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Test
Title
Equipment
Frequency
Time
Vertical Linear Test at Variable Frequency
ASTM D999–01 Methods
B & C.
Resonance Tests ..............
Vibration test machine with Find the resonant frehorizontal surface and
quency of the package
mechanism for vertical
using either the sine
sinusoidal input; suitable
sweep method or the
fixtures and attachment
random vibration input
points to rigidly attach
method. The minimum
the test packaging to the
frequency range should
platform; instrumentation.
be from 3 to 100 Hz.
Dwell for specified length
of time at each resonant
frequency determined
earlier or until damage
to the packaging is
noted. If no dwell time is
specified, 15 minutes is
recommended.
Random Vibration Test
ASTM 4728–01 .................
Random Vibration Testing
ASTM 4169–04a Paragraph 12.4 (Schedule D
and E).
Random Test Option .........
(a) ASTM D999–01: Standard Test
Methods for Vibration Testing of
Shipping Containers
(b) ASTM D4169 04a Paragraph 12.4
or Paragraph 13.1: Standard Practice for
Performance Testing of Shipping
Containers and Systems
(c) ASTM D4728–01: Standard Test
Method for Random Vibration Testing of
Shipping Containers
(3) ‘‘Combination’’ Pressure
Differential and Vibration Tests. In this
ANPRM, we are soliciting comments
concerning whether sequential pressure
and vibration testing are sufficient to
Vibration table supported
by a mechanism capable of producing single
axis vibration; inputs at
controlled levels of continuously variable amplitude throughout the desired range of frequencies; suitable fixtures to restrict
undesired movement;
closed loop controller or
data storage media
open loop control systems; instrumentation.
See Test Method ASTM
4728 Method A or B.
(b) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle
12.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Individual
packaged
products
weighing 150 lbs. or less; air or
ground transportation.
Air (intercity) and motor freight
(local), over 100 lb., unitized.
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
Predetermined time, as
stated in applicable
specification, or until
predetermined amount
of damage is detected.
Frequency is determined
by power spectral density (PSD) profile. Frequency ranging from 2–
300 Hz for air mode.
For Distribution Cycles 12
and 13, a 60-minute
truck test followed by a
120-minute air test.
ensure packaging integrity, i.e., a
‘‘combination’’ of both pressure and
vibration testing. The vibration testing
would be followed by pressure testing,
which is considered less severe than
simultaneous testing, which subjects a
packaging to vibration and pressure at
the same time. Simultaneous testing
under the combination test standards
involves rather sophisticated, extensive,
and expensive equipment, and
relatively skilled operators. In this
ANPRM we are soliciting comment on
whether these methods should be
(a) ISTA 3A ....................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Frequency is determined
by power spectral density (PSD) profile.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
authorized, given our understanding
that a number of companies are already
voluntarily applying these tests. We
invite commenters to address successful
completion of these tests as an
alternative means of compliance with
existing pressure differential and
vibration capability requirements.
The following three combination tests
are voluntary industry standards that we
may consider as alternatives for
conducting vibration testing and
pressure differential testing on the same
inner packaging:
• Atmospheric Preconditioning ....
• Shock (drop).
• Vibration (random with and
without top load).
• Vibration (random under vacuum).
• Shock (drop).
• Handling ....................................
• Stacked Vibration.
• Low-Pressure.
• Vehicle Vibration and Handling.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
The section for random vibration
under pressure is optional.
When conducted, the pressure
and vibration are simultaneous.
A pressure approximately equal
to an altitude of 10,000 ft. is
used for 60 minutes.
Low-pressure section instructs
packages to be tested at pressure of expected altitudes. If
not known, refer to ASTM
D6653, which specifies 14,000
ft. for 60 minutes. See ASTM
4169 for vibration details.
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
(c) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle
13.
Air (intercity) and motor freight
(local), single package up to
100 lb.
(a) ISTA 3A—This is part of a series
of general simulation tests that are
meant to recreate the hazards of a
distribution environment. It is similar to
ASTM 4169 because it requires rather
sophisticated, extensive, and expensive
equipment (such as a random vibration
table with appropriate instrumentation)
and relatively skilled operators. Unlike
D4169, however, there are a number of
specific procedures, covering a number
of packaged products and distribution
systems, so much less interpretation is
required. This procedure includes shock
and vibration testing with an option to
include simultaneous pressure testing
during one of the random vibration
phases.
(b) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle
12—This is the only ASTM standard
devoted to packaged product
performance in distribution. It is a preshipment general simulation test
covering a range of packaging types and
distribution scenarios. For example, it
lists 18 distribution cycles that each
represents a different mode or
environment. There is a prescribed
sequence of performance tests for each
of these distribution cycles. Air
transportation is covered in Distribution
Cycles 12 and 13. These cycles include
several types of vibration and pressure
testing. However, these are performed
sequentially, unlike ISTA 3A, which has
the option to perform vibration and
pressure testing simultaneously.
Distribution Cycle 12 tests are for
unitized freight that weighs over 100
lbs. More details on the sequence of
testing can be found in the previous
table.
(c) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle
13—Distribution Cycle 13 tests are for
loose-load freight weighing under 100
lbs. The prescribed tests specify an
additional vibration test to simulate the
more aggressive shipping environment.
More details on the sequence of testing
can be found in the previous table.
(4) Elimination of Selective Testing
Variations. The HMR currently provide
selective testing variations—that is,
inner packagings that differ in only
minor respects from a tested inner
packaging design type may be used
without further testing under the
conditions specified in 49 CFR
178.601(g) (selective testing variation 1).
In this ANPRM, we invite commenters
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
•
•
•
•
•
Handling ....................................
Vehicle Stacking.
Loose-Load Vibration.
Low-Pressure.
Vehicle Vibration and Handling.
to address whether this variation should
be revised, restricted or eliminated for
packagings intended for air
transportation. In addition, we are
concerned that the use of different
components (e.g., bottle, cap, liner) than
what were originally tested may result
in less than effective closure systems
and may result in packagings that are
not representative of the originally
tested design type. The numerous
variables that exist in the interaction of
closures, liners and container neck
finishes are complex and the use and
validity of general assumptions about
equivalent pressure performance
capabilities of similar containers is not
straightforward. On the basis of
compliance reviews and incident
investigations, we believe that this
selective testing provision may result in
the use of packaging systems that are
not capable of withstanding conditions
encountered in air transport and at high
altitude. Changes in quality control
measures and materials may also
adversely affect packaging performance.
For example, changing the type of resin
used in plastic bottle manufacturing can
significantly contribute to the ability of
the packaging system to perform as
intended. Packaging manufacturers may
not readily recognize the complexity
and importance of controlling
component and manufacturing
variations. We invite comments on how
best to address this issue and whether
certain changes in packaging
components or variations in materials of
construction should be reevaluated or
tested and retested as a new design.
B. Other Requirements
(1) Liners and Absorbent Material.
Packages containing liquid hazardous
materials must include a method for
containing the liquid, whether it is a
leak-proof liner, plastic bag, absorbent
material or other equally effective
means. Liners are currently required in
the following circumstances:
• Packages containing certain types of
hazardous materials liquids (e.g., Class
3, 4, or 8, or Division 5.1, 5.2, or 6.1)
when absorbent materials are required
and the outer packagings are not liquidtight and transported by aircraft (49 CFR
173.27(e)).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38369
Low-pressure section instructs
packages to be tested at pressure of expected altitudes. If
not known, refer to ASTM
D6653, which specifies 14,000
ft. for 60 minutes. See ASTM
4169 for vibration details.
• Either the inner or outer packagings
when mercury is transported by aircraft
(49 CFR 173.164).
It is our understanding, based on
discussions with shippers, that many
shippers already use protective liners
with liquid hazardous materials
packages. These shippers suggest that
liners are included only if the packages
are intended for transportation by air.
However, many of these shippers do not
have automated processes for
assembling combination packagings
and, therefore, manually insert liners
when needed.
As an alternative to testing, we are
considering requiring the use of a liner
for packagings that are not liquid-tight
(e.g., fiberboard), whether absorbent
material is required or not (for all liquid
hazardous materials, regardless of
hazard class). We are soliciting
comments on whether the use of liners
with or without absorbent material
would be an effective means of
preventing leaks from packages. In
addition, we invite commenters to
provide data and information
concerning the costs that may be
associated with the use of liners for
various hazardous materials packaging
configurations.
(2) Secondary Means of Closure.
Currently, the HMR require a secondary
means of closure only when inner
packagings are closed with stoppers,
corks or other such friction-type
closures. This secondary means of
closure must be held securely, tightly
and effectively in place by positive
means. We are soliciting comment on
the types of secondary closures
currently being used and their relative
effectiveness in preventing leaks. We are
interested in whether requiring a
secondary means of closure for certain
packaging configurations has merit. We
are also aware the ICAO Technical
Instructions, beginning in January 2011,
will require a secondary means of
closure on all inner packagings
containing liquids in a combination
packaging design. As an alternative to
this requirement, the ICAO Technical
Instructions will allow a leakproof liner
in its place. Commenters are invited to
provide data and information
concerning the costs that may be
associated with a requirement to apply
a secondary means of closure for inner
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38370
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
packagings containing liquids intended
for transportation by aircraft.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
IV. Questions for Public Comment
We invite comments, data, and
information that will help PHMSA and
FAA determine the degree to which the
packaging problems outlined in this
ANRPM pose a transportation safety risk
and the parameters of that risk.
Commenters are also invited to suggest
strategies that would help enhance the
safe transportation of hazardous
materials, particularly by air, including
regulatory amendments, systems risk
analysis, enhanced outreach and
training efforts, aggressive enforcement,
and combinations of these measures. In
reviewing the public comments on these
measures, PHMSA and FAA will
consult with the Transportation
Security Administration on securityrelated hazardous materials
transportation requirements to ensure
that any proposed amendments would
be consistent with the overall security
policy goals and objectives established
by the Department of Homeland
Security and would not confront the
regulated community with inconsistent
security guidance or requirements
promulgated by multiple agencies. In
addition, we ask commenters to address
the following questions:
General
1. The air transportation environment
has changed considerably since the
current packaging requirements were
adopted. For example, overnight and
second day parcel delivery has become
a common shipping method. Do the
current transportation conditions (e.g.,
multiple flight segments) need to be
reevaluated and regulations updated
accordingly to accommodate the current
conditions experienced during normal
transportation?
2. Does a combination packaging
design problem exist unique to air
transportation? Are inner packagings of
combination packaging designs used to
transport hazardous materials in air
transportation adequate? Are the
requirements clearly understood, and if
not, how could this be improved?
3. Are current ‘‘capability’’
requirements in the HMR sufficient to
prevent or mitigate combination
package failures in air transportation?
4. Should we strengthen the structure
and wording of the regulations to more
clearly specify the applicability of the
general packaging requirements in 49
CFR 173.22, 173.24, 173.24a, and 173.27
to both specification and nonspecification packagings?
5. Would incorporation of the more
explicit language that is used in ICAO
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
TI clarify some of the relevant test
methods and responsible parties?
Should the respective responsibilities of
packaging manufacturers and shippers
be clarified?
Pressure Differential Testing
1. Should a standardized test regimen
be adopted in the HMR for combination
packaging intended for air transport in
addition to what is already required?
2. Should new test methods be
considered for vibration and pressure
differential as part of the design
qualification test sequence? Are there
alternative cost-effective test methods
for ensuring combination packaging
integrity in air transportation?
3. Are the 95 kPa and 75 kPa pressure
requirements sufficient or should the
vapor pressure calculation specified in
49 CFR 173.27(c) continue to be
required? Would simplifying the
requirements enhance compliance?
Alternatives to Testing
1. Would a liner or similar approach
be an acceptable alternative to required
testing for pressure differential or
vibration capability?
2. Would approaches such as new test
methods, secondary closure methods,
and cap/bottle design be possible
solutions for reducing package leaks?
3. Should the 49 CFR 178.601(g)(1)
Selective Testing Variation 1 be
eliminated or restricted for combination
packagings containing liquids and
offered for transportation by air? If not,
how could uniform compliance and an
appropriate level of safety be addressed
while continuing to allow this
variation?
4. Should a secondary means of
closure be mandated for all inner
packagings or specific types of inner
packagings containing liquids in
combination packagings intended for
transportation by aircraft?
5. Should current package marking
requirements be expanded to include a
shipper verification and certification
that a packaging conforms to applicable
air packaging requirements?
6. Should inner receptacles that are
proven to meet pressure differential
requirements be required to bear an
indicative mark?
Risk-Based Actions
1. Should changes to test protocols in
the HMR apply to packagings used for
the air transportation of all liquids
including those in non-specification
packagings (e.g., paint, adhesives, and
consumer commodities)?
2. Should high-risk/high-consequence
liquid hazardous materials be restricted
even further than currently required? Is
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
there a better risk-based approach not
yet developed?
3. Is there a way to reduce risk by
focusing on the interrelation between
packaging components and evaluating
the relationship between the packaging
design and preparation of the package
from a systems perspective?
4. Would a combination of regulatory
solutions, including a systems-wide risk
analysis based on package design,
package volume and transportation
methods, be an effective approach as a
means of reducing package leaks?
5. Are there opportunities to reduce
risk through government-private
industry partnership?
Closure Systems
1. What can be done to reduce the
number of package failures due to
human factors such as over-tightening
or under-tightening of closures?
Closures loosened during long shelf
storage due to both liner set and finish
or closure relaxation may be a cause of
a significant number of leaking bottles.
Should a method be developed for a
distributor to open a sealed
specification package, check and retorque closures then re-close the
package for shipment in a manner that
is consistent with the regulations? This
would also allow inspection for other
degradation caused by storage.
2. Are production tolerances of bottle
caps and neck finishes suitable to
ensure packages will not leak when the
tolerances are at the opposite extremes,
i.e., a large bottle cap on a small bottle?
3. Are the common bottles and caps
currently used for the transportation of
hazardous materials manufactured with
sufficient quality control to ensure that
all components meet the requirements
for effective sealing?
4. Should the bottle threads, caps and
cap liners be considered a system and,
as such, a single component of the
design type? Should testing be required
if the system is changed? If not, what
component or components of a closure
system should be allowed to be changed
without testing and under what
conditions?
5. If actual testing is needed, what
standard or standards should be
adopted or allowed?
6. Should ‘‘capability’’ be clearly
defined in the HMR to improve
compliance and reduce package
failures?
Outreach/Enforcement
1. Would additional outreach or
training be helpful in reducing the
number of package failures? Should
specific outreach brochures be
developed?
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
2. What is the best way to reach those
hazmat employees that have the greatest
need for this information?
3. Are there other enforcement
strategies that could be used to ensure
compliance with ‘‘capability’’
requirements in order to reduce package
failures?
Miscellaneous
1. Are packages containing liquid
hazardous materials being loaded in
unit load devices according to their
orientation markings? If not, should this
practice be considered a condition
normally incident to transportation? Is
better enforcement of this requirement
necessary?
2. Should an article (e.g., electric
storage battery containing acid or alkali)
be required to be successfully tested for
pressure differential capability? What
articles, if any, should be excepted from
such a requirement?
3. To what extent are there similar
issues in international air commerce
related to the package failures discussed
in this notice? What steps have been
taken to eliminate or reduce such
failures?
4. How many small business entities
would be impacted by a regulation that
requires actual vibration and pressure
differential testing rather than the
current capability standard in the HMR?
How many small business entities
would be impacted by a regulation that
requires actual testing to verify pressure
differential capability only?
5. What costs to small business
entities would be associated with
required testing for vibration and
pressure differential capability? What
costs to small business entities would be
associated with required testing for
pressure differential capability only?
6. What alternatives, regulatory or
otherwise, should PHMSA consider
with regard to impact on small business
entities while meeting its goal to reduce
or eliminate incidents involving
combination packagings in air
transportation?
PHMSA and FAA will base any
proposed changes on both suggestions
and comments provided by interested
persons in response to this ANRPM as
well as the initiative of the agencies.
These include the analyses required
under the following statutes and
executive orders in the event we
determine that rulemaking is
appropriate:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review. E.O. 12866, as
amended by E.O. 13258, requires
agencies to identify the specific market
failure (such as externalities, market
power, lack of information) that warrant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
new agency action, as well as assess the
significance of that problem, to enable
assessment of whether any new
regulation is warranted. When an
agency determines that a regulation is
the best available method of achieving
the regulatory objective, E.O. 12866 also
directs agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most
cost-effective manner,’’ to make a
‘‘reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs,’’ and to develop
regulations that ‘‘impose the least
burden on society.’’ We therefore
request comments, including specific
data if possible, concerning the costs
and benefits that may be associated with
revisions to the HMR on air packaging
integrity. A rule that is considered
significant under E.O. 12866 must be
reviewed and cleared by the Office of
Management and Budget before it can be
issued.
The number of affected combination
package design types requiring
certification under any required testing
regimen is estimated as a function of the
number of package manufacturers
producing pre-certified designs, the
number of shippers using self-certified
designs, and the number of designs
certified by each group. PHMSA
estimates that 75 to 85 percent of air
shippers exclusively purchase and use
pre-certified combination packaging
designs, that is, combination packaging
designs that have been tested to existing
regulatory standards. The remaining 15
to 25 percent of air shippers have
sufficient shipment volumes to make it
economical for them to use combination
packaging designs that they have
certified themselves. Combination
packaging designs that are pre-certified
for air transportation should already
reflect any costs associated with testing
performed on them to verify integrity.
For self-certifiers who choose not to
invest in equipment to verify
combination packaging design integrity
and outsource that function, the cost is
approximately $300 for a standard
vibration test and $200 for a standard
pressure differential test. Multiple
designs may be certified from a single
test. There may be as many as 21,000–
36,000 different UN specification
combination packaging designs for
liquids that would require testing if
PHMSA adopts new or enhanced testing
requirements for combination
packagings. Total costs for testing could
amount to $10.5M–$18.0M if both tests
are required. Benefits under any
rulemaking action would be assessed
based on incident avoidance and the
consideration of consequences
involving a high-consequence/low
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38371
probability accident. We invite
commenters to address the potential
costs of new or enhanced testing
requirements, including the number of
designs that would be affected and the
total costs associated with such testing.
Additional regulatory options under
consideration include requiring a
secondary means of closure applied to
inner packagings or receptacles
containing liquid hazardous materials
within a combination package or the
required use of a liner in all
combination packages containing liquid
hazardous materials intended for air
transportation when the outer
packagings are not liquid tight. For the
liner alternative, the economic impacts
of this requirement would stem from the
cost of inclusion of a liner for all
combination packagings containing
liquids. Shippers would absorb the costs
of including a liner; however, many
shippers already include a liner in these
types of packagings. Informal industry
surveys indicate that shippers use a
protective liner with an estimated 70 to
90 percent of all liquid hazardous
materials combination packages; prices
for a standard 1 mm or thinner Poly Bag
line range from $0.06 to $0.08 per liner.
Because of the uncertainty regarding the
potential designs for secondary means
of closure and the costs associated with
them, we invite comments on the
efficacy of such an alternative and
whether it should be considered in
addition to, or as an alternative to, the
required use of a liner.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure
meaningful and timely input by state
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have a
substantial, direct effect on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We invite state
and local governments with an interest
in this rulemaking to comment on any
effect that revisions to the HMR relative
to air packaging will cause.
C. Executive Order 13175:
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments. E.O. 13175
requires agencies to assure meaningful
and timely input from Indian tribal
government representatives in the
development of rules that ‘‘significantly
or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities
and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct
compliance costs’’ on such
communities. While we do not
anticipate an impact on Indian tribal
governments if we move forward with a
regulatory action, we invite Indian tribal
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
38372
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
governments to provide comments if
they believe there will be an impact.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we must consider
whether a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
‘‘Small entities’’ include small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations under 50,000. If you
believe that revisions to the HMR
relative to air packaging integrity could
have a significant economic impact on
small entities, please provide
information on such impacts.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
It is possible that a rulemaking action
could impose new or revised
information collection requirements.
V. Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This ANPRM is considered a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and, therefore, was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. This
ANPRM is considered significant under
the Regulatory Policies and Procedures
of the Department of Transportation (44
FR 11034).
B. 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.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 1, 2008
under authority delegated in 49 CFR part
106.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. E8–15372 Filed 7–3–08; 8:45 am]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Jul 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0124]
RIN 2127–AK13
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 219,
‘‘Windshield zone intrusion.’’ This
proposed action results from NHTSA’s
periodic review of its regulations to
determine whether a continuing safety
need exists for the standard under
review. NHTSA tentatively concludes
that the windshield zone intrusion
standard is no longer necessary because
other FMVSSs are now in place to meet
the safety need that the standard had
addressed.
You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
the Docket receives them not later than
September 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the docket identified in the heading
of this document by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: DOT Docket Management
Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2551.
Regardless of how you submit your
comments, you should use the docket
number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management
Facility at 202–366–9826.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy
Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to: https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr. David
Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division
at (202) 366–3273. His fax number is
(202) 493–2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief
Counsel at (202) 366–2992. Her Fax
number is (202) 366–3820.
You may send mail to both of these
officials at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Periodic Review of Federal Regulations
NHTSA has long recognized the
importance of regularly reviewing its
existing regulations to determine
whether they need to be revised or
revoked. NHTSA undertakes reviews of
its regulations under, inter alia, the
Department’s 1979 Regulatory Policies
and Procedures, under Executive Order
12866 ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ and under section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
section 501 et seq.). In addition, NHTSA
conducts reviews pursuant to internal
operating procedures. During a periodic
review of its regulations, NHTSA has
identified FMVSS No. 219, Windshield
Zone Intrusion, as a regulation that
could possibly be removed as
unnecessary.
Background of FMVSS No. 219
The purpose of FMVSS No. 219 is to
reduce crash injuries and fatalities that
result from occupants contacting vehicle
components displaced near or through
the windshield. The standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms
(kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, except for
forward control vehicles, walk-in vantype vehicles or to open-body-type
vehicles with fold-down or removable
windshields. The final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 219 was published on June
16, 1975 (40 FR 25462), and took effect
on September 1, 1976.
FMVSS No. 219 specifies limits on
the displacement of vehicle parts from
outside the occupant compartment into
the windshield area during a 48
kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per
hour (mph)) frontal barrier crash test.
The standard establishes a protected
zone at the daylight opening (DLO)
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 130 (Monday, July 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38361-38372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15372]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, and 178
[Docket No. PHMSA-07-29364 (HM-231A)]
RIN 2137-AE32
Hazardous Materials; Combination Packages Containing Liquids
Intended for Transport by Aircraft
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are
considering changes to requirements in the Hazardous Materials
Regulations applicable to non-bulk packagings used to transport
hazardous materials in air transportation. To enhance aviation safety,
the two agencies are seeking to identify cost-effective solutions that
can be implemented to reduce incident rates and potentially detrimental
consequences without placing unnecessary burdens on the regulated
community. We are soliciting comments on how to accomplish these goals,
including measures to: (1) Enhance the effectiveness of performance
testing for packagings used to transport hazardous materials on
aircraft; (2) more clearly indicate the responsibilities of shippers
that offer packages for air transport in the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR); and (3) authorize alternatives for enhancing package
integrity. We are also considering ways to simplify current
requirements. Commenters are also invited to present additional ideas
for improving the safe transportation of hazardous materials by
aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-07-29364 (HM-231A) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, 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 for this notice at the beginning of the comment. Note
that all comments received will be posted without change to the docket
management system, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the
[[Page 38362]]
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Stevens, Office of
Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, telephone (202) 366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Background
II. Closures and Packages May Fail at High Altitude
III. Analyses of the Problem
A. FAA Study
B. United Parcel Service (UPS) Study
C. Michigan State University (MSU) Study for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA/MSU Study)
D. MSU Study for PHMSA (PHMSA/MSU Study)
E. PHMSA Review of Incident Data
IV. Purpose of This ANPRM
A. Design Qualification and Periodic Retesting
(1) Pressure Differential Test
(2) Vibration Testing
(3) Combination (Simultaneous) Pressure Differential/Vibration
Testing
(4) Elimination of Selective Testing Variations
B. Other Requirements
(1) Liners and Absorbent Material
(2) Secondary Means of Closure
V. Questions and Solicitation for Public Comment
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
E. Information Collection
VI. Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Background
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180)
authorize a variety of packaging types for the transportation of
hazardous materials in commerce. Combination packagings are the most
common type of packaging used for the transportation of hazardous
materials by aircraft. A combination packaging consists of one or more
inner packagings secured in a non-bulk outer packaging. (A non-bulk
outer packaging is one that has a maximum capacity of 450 liters (119
gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid or a maximum net mass of 400 kg
(882 pounds) or less and a maximum capacity of 450 liters (119 gallons)
or less as a receptacle for a solid; see 49 CFR 171.8.) Combination
packagings are used for the transportation of both solid and liquid
hazardous materials, including materials such as sodium hydroxide,
paint, and sulfuric acid and articles such as lithium batteries.
When used to transport liquid hazardous materials, a combination
packaging must conform to one of the specifications (i.e.,
``Specification Packaging'') in part 178 of the HMR or an authorized UN
Standard; the packaging must be tested to ensure that it conforms to
the applicable specification or standard. Inner packagings within a
combination packaging must be closed in preparation for testing, and
tests must be carried out on the completed package in the same manner
as if prepared for transportation. See 49 CFR 178.602.
Under the HMR, certain classes and quantities of hazardous
materials may be transported in non-specification combination
packagings. A non-specification packaging is not required to meet
specific performance requirements. Rather, a non-specification
packaging must meet general packaging requirements. For example, a non-
specification packaging must be designed, constructed, filled, and
closed so that it will not release its contents under conditions
normally incident to transportation. In addition, the effectiveness of
the packaging must be maintained for temperature changes, changes in
humidity and pressure, and shocks, loadings, and vibrations normally
encountered during transportation. See 49 CFR 173.24. In addition, a
non-specification packaging authorized for transportation by aircraft
must be designed and constructed to prevent leakage that may be caused
by changes in altitude and temperature. See 49 CFR 173.27. Non-
specification packagings need not be tested to demonstrate that they
conform to applicable HMR requirements.
Incident data and testing indicate that a number of combination
packaging designs authorized for the transportation of liquid hazardous
materials are not able to withstand conditions normally incident to air
transportation. The packagings of most concern to PHMSA and FAA are
non-specification combination packagings that must be ``capable'' of
meeting pressure differential requirements but are not required to be
certified as meeting a specific performance test method to verify
compliance with pressure differential performance standards.
We are aware that there are a number of contributing factors that
may cause packaging failures and releases in air transport, including
non-compliance with existing requirements and lack of function specific
training of hazmat employees. In this ANPRM, we are soliciting comments
on cost-effective measures that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the
number of liquid hazardous materials releases from combination
packagings in air transport. As discussed in more detail below, PHMSA
and FAA developed this ANPRM, in part, utilizing data and information
provided by stakeholders in a meeting on June 21, 2007. PHMSA's review
of incident data is discussed in section III.E. of this notice. A
summary of the meeting, including presentations by participants, is
available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking.
In 1990, PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA), published a final rule under Docket HM-
181 (55 FR 52402; December 21, 1990), revisions and response to
petitions for reconsideration (56 FR 66124; December 20, 1991) to align
the HMR with international standards applicable to hazardous materials
packagings. See 49 CFR part 178, subparts L and M, adopted at 55 FR
52716-28. That final rule adopted non-bulk hazardous material packaging
standards based on performance criteria rather than the detailed
construction specifications that applied prior to 1990 and were phased
out in 1996. See former 49 CFR 171.14(b)(1), adopted at 55 FR 52473-74.
Under these performance-oriented packaging requirements, packaging
strength and integrity are demonstrated through a series of performance
tests that a packaging must pass before it is authorized for the
transportation of hazardous materials. The performance criteria provide
packaging design flexibility that is not possible with detailed design
specifications.
In the HM-181 rulemaking, we adopted requirements that all non-bulk
packaging ``must be capable of withstanding * * * the vibration test
procedure'' set forth in 49 CFR 178.608 (55 FR at 52727) and that metal
and plastic and composite packagings ``intended to contain liquids''
must pass a hydrostatic pressure test. 49 CFR 178.605 (55 FR at 52726).
However, we did not adopt our proposal in the notice of proposed
rulemaking to require a hydrostatic pressure test to be performed on
all inner packagings of combination packages containing
[[Page 38363]]
liquids intended for transportation by aircraft, which would have
addressed pressure differentials potentially encountered during air
transportation. (See 52 FR 16482, May 5, 1987). Instead, consistent
with the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical
Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO
Technical Instructions), we adopted a requirement that all packagings
intended to contain liquids ``must be capable of withstanding without
leakage'' a specified internal pressure depending on the hazard class/
division and packing group. 49 CFR 173.27(c)(2)(i), adopted at 55 FR
52612.
The ICAO Technical Instructions include guidance that indicates in
more precise terms what is meant by ``being capable,'' but specific
test methods have not been adopted. The ICAO Technical Instructions
suggest that the capability of packaging to meet the pressure
differential performance standard should be determined by testing, with
the appropriate test method selected based on packaging type. See
``Note'' following 4.1.1.6.
The HMR, at 49 CFR 173.27(c), specify that inner packagings of
combination packagings for which retention of liquid is a basic
function must be capable of withstanding the greater of: (1) An
internal pressure which produces a gauge pressure of not less than 75
kPa for liquids in Packing Group III of Class 3 or Division 6.1 or 95
kPa for other liquids; or (2) a pressure related to the vapor pressure
of the liquid to be conveyed as determined by formulae in subsequent
paragraphs.
II. Closures and Packages May Fail at High Altitude
When packages reach high altitudes during transport, they
experience low pressure on the exterior of the package. This results in
a pressure differential between the interior and exterior of the
package since the pressure inside remains at the higher ground-level
pressure. Higher altitudes will create lower external pressures and,
therefore, larger pressure differentials. This condition is especially
problematic for packages containing liquids.
When a packaging, such as a glass bottle or receptacle, is
initially filled and sealed, the cap must be tightened to a certain
level to obtain sealing forces sufficient to contain the liquids in the
packaging. This will require certain forces to be placed upon the
bottle and cap threads as well as the sealing surface of the cap or cap
liner to ensure the packaging remains sealed throughout transportation.
Once at altitude, due to the internal pressure of the liquid acting
upon the closure, combined with the reduced external air pressure, the
forces acting on the threads and the forces acting on the sealing
surfaces may not be the same as when the packaging was initially
closed. Under normal conditions encountered in air transport (26 kPa @
8000 ft), conditions are not overly severe. However, if the compartment
is depressurized at altitude or if the compartment is not pressurized
at all (e.g., feeder aircraft), the pressure differential (55 kPa-90
kPa) may be severe enough to cause package failure and release of
contents.
When first closed, and if closed properly, the typical cap and
bottle do not deform to the point where sealing integrity is
immediately compromised, although studies have demonstrated that
plastic bottles and caps do begin to exhibit stress relaxation and a
reduction in sealing force immediately after the bottles are sealed.
When the bottle is closed in a manner that accounts for the initial
stress relaxation of the cap and threads, and there is no altitude
induced pressure differential in the packaging, no pressure change
inside the bottle and no change in the spacing between the top of the
cap and the rim of the bottle, there will be no immediate change in the
sealing force that affects the bottle's ability to maintain a seal. An
increase in altitude will cause an increase in the thread contact
force, but no immediate change in the sealing force. These conditions
persist for as long as the pressure differential is maintained. Even
though the sealing force remains unchanged, the increased thread forces
could distort the cap and cause the cap threads to expand over the
bottle threads.
Vibration further complicates the force on the bottle. The net
effect of the vibration force intermittently compresses and
decompresses the closure in rapid succession. This can temporarily
reduce the sealing force to zero. A rapid removal of the compression
force, which occurs naturally during vibration, may not allow the
closure to recover quickly enough to maintain a seal. It may take
several seconds, even minutes, for the closure to return to its
original configuration, if it returns to the original configuration at
all. Thus, while the bottle and cap are intermittently compressing and
decompressing, there may be a gap, which could result in a leak of
material from the package.
Finally, the effect of internal pressure and stress relaxation
after initial closure of the inner receptacle, particularly with
thermoplastic bottles and caps, can lead to a reduction of sealing
force on the inner receptacle and may also cause failure of a packaging
during air transport. Studies reviewed in section III of this notice
demonstrate that when a thermoplastic bottle and cap are initially
closed, stress relaxation can account for a reduction of nearly 50% in
removal torque within minutes of application and an 80% reduction of
removal torque over several days or weeks. Loss of sealing force due to
the combination of creep and stress relaxation can also contribute to
packages leaking in air transportation. As can be understood, the
combination of stress relaxation, vibration, and low pressure at high
altitudes may reduce the overall sealing force, thereby compromising
the closure integrity of a packaging and resulting in leakage from the
packaging. The air transportation of small parcels typically includes
multiple flights to reach destination. Therefore, this stress cycle on
the closure systems of inner packagings repeats itself multiple times
from origination to destination.
III. Analyses of the Problem
The following studies simulated the stresses of low external
pressure and vibration on combination package integrity and performance
before, during, and while in-flight. These same stresses induced by low
external pressure and vibration are encountered in-flight when cargo
and feeder aircraft transport combination packages in non-pressurized
or partially-pressurized cargo holds. These conditions result in
substantial changes in pressure when compared to combination packages
being transported at or near sea level and require a higher level of
integrity as a result.
A. FAA Study
In 1999, the FAA began a detailed study of hazardous material
package failures in air transportation. FAA analyzed incident data from
the DOT Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) during 1998 and
1999 and focused on properly declared hazardous material shipments. The
study concluded that of 1,583 air incidents reported to PHMSA, a
failure of inner packagings in combination packaging designs
contributed to 333 spills or leaks. Further study of the spill or leak
incidents concluded that package closure/seal failure rates were as
high as 65% for plastic and metal inner packagings and 23% for glass
inner packagings. All failed inner packagings were packaged in outer UN
4G marked fiberboard boxes. Based on these study results, FAA concluded
that either the inner packagings were not
[[Page 38364]]
closed properly as specified in the packaging manufacturer's closure
instructions or that the inner packagings were not capable of meeting
the pressure differential requirement or vibration standard of the HMR
or both. In addition, because the majority (85%) of the materials that
spilled or leaked during flight were toxic, corrosive or flammable,
they could have released potentially harmful fumes or vapors into the
cabin posing a threat to passengers and crew members. FAA determined
that further research on the actual effects of vibration and pressure
differential in air transport was warranted.
As a result of the conclusions of FAA's study of combination
packaging failures in 2000, FAA conducted extensive laboratory research
and public outreach in multiple fora to analyze the problem and develop
potential solutions. Conclusions reached as a result of the following
laboratory studies indicate problems exist under the current regulatory
standards for which solutions need to be developed and implemented.
B. UPS Study
UPS presented a study in 2000 to the American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) outlining the conditions that packages experience
in the air transport environment. A copy of the UPS study is available
for review in the public docket for this rulemaking. The study resulted
in the following key observations related to air transport as described
in ASTM D 6653-01:
1. Aircraft cargo compartments are typically pressurized to an
altitude of 8,000 ft resulting in a pressure differential of
approximately 26kPa on packages filled at or near sea level.
Temperature is maintained at approximately 20[deg]-23 [deg]C (68 [deg]-
74 [deg]F).
2. Non-pressurized ``feeder aircraft'' typically fly at
approximately 13,000-16,000 feet. The highest recorded altitude in a
non-pressurized feeder aircraft was 19,740 ft. Temperatures ranged from
approximately 4[deg] to 24 [deg]C (25 [deg]-75 [deg]F). Based on these
findings, it is evident that packaged products transported by the
feeder aircraft network used by air cargo carriers may experience
potential altitudes as high as 20,000 feet, resulting in a pressure
differential of approximately 55 kPa. An inadequate packaging design
containing liquids at this pressure differential can fail in
transportation.
C. Michigan State University Study for FAA (FAA/MSU Study)
In 2002, the FAA initiated a study with Michigan State University
(MSU) to replicate actual air and pre- and post-truck transportation
conditions to determine which conditions contribute to package
failures. FAA examined the effects of vibration alone, altitude alone,
and a combination of vibration and altitude on the performance of UN
standard hazardous material combination packages containing liquids. In
the study, the combination packages were placed in various
orientations, not all of which are authorized in the HMR. The study did
not include temperature effects because the temperatures in cargo holds
are not unusual or extreme. Each test condition in Table 1 represents a
different combination of low pressure and vibration that packages may
be exposed to while in, or pre- or post-air transport:
Table 1.--Ranking of Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
failure of
Conditions packages
tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No vibration, 14,000 ft, 30 min......................... 0
Truck and air vibration, 0 ft, 30 min................... 14
Truck only vibration, 8,000 ft, 180 min................. 21
Truck and air vibration, 8,000 ft, 180 min.............. 29
Truck and air vibration (typical sequence for air 50
transportation), 14,000 ft, 30 min.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSU procured 32 design samples of UN standard liquid hazardous material
combination packagings from three leading hazmat packaging suppliers.
See United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
Model Regulations, Volume II, Part 6. The test combination packagings
were certified to meet current UN, ICAO, and applicable HMR
requirements. The testing was designed to replicate actual
transportation conditions. A copy of this report is available for
review in the public docket. Several key conclusions can be drawn from
the analysis:
UN standard liquid hazardous material combination
packagings leaked under a combined vacuum and vibration test which
simulated the characteristics of air transportation and high altitude.
One study concluded laboratory testing for pressure
differential capability without exposure to vibration may not be a
realistic replication of the air transportation environment. When both
forces are applied to a package simultaneously, the failure rate
increases to 50%.
Altitude is more important than the length of time in
flight; higher altitude is more severe than lower altitude.
Results of combined truck and air vibration are more
severe than truck vibration alone.
Vibration periodically reduces the sealing force on a
liner or gasket and may produce intermittent gaps that open and close
at concentrated pressure points.
The study was based on the conditions normally encountered
by a package in truck and air transport.
D. Michigan State University Study for PHMSA (PHMSA/MSU Study)
In 2003, PHMSA also initiated a study with MSU to compare the HMR
requirements and the testing used in the FAA/MSU Study discussed
previously. To provide for a more thorough evaluation of the
performance of liquid hazardous materials combination packagings, this
phase of testing was conducted on a smaller number of packaging
designs; however, a much greater number of packagings of each design
were tested in this study. In the 2002 FAA/MSU study, two packagings of
each design were tested; for this study, PHMSA tested thirty packagings
from each of eleven designs. With the exception of three packaging
designs, all of the packagings tested during this phase had been tested
for the 2002 FAA/MSU study. See Table 2 below. A copy of this report is
available for review in the public docket.
Table 2.--Ranking of Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
failures of
Conditions packages
tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random vibration and vacuum, vertical orientation 12
(conforming to HMR), 14,000 ft, one hour...............
Random vibration and vacuum, horizontal orientation, 18
14,000 ft, one hour....................................
Vacuum only, 95 kPa for 30 min, inverted orientation.... 13
Random vibration, one hour.............................. 11
Average failure rate................................ 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusions from this testing supported MSU's previous testing
conducted for FAA:
Packages performed unsatisfactorily when tested in the
orientation required by the HMR; when the packages were oriented
improperly, the leakage rate was even greater.
Proper package orientation is a critical factor in
reducing leaks from packages.
[[Page 38365]]
UN standard combination packagings did not pass the
combined pressure differential and random vibration while in the HMR
required orientation. Of the 99 bottles subjected to this test, 87
successfully passed the test.
Laboratory package failure rate is greater than 10% and
would be considered unacceptable based on industry standards with a
lower safety risk (i.e., non-hazmat packagings). Acceptable failure
rates for consumer products is less than 5%; electronics is less than
1%; food/pharmaceutical less than 3-5%; the average failure rate of
this controlled study was 13%.
Packages that utilized a secondary means of closure had a
lower rate of failure.
Testing in a horizontal orientation that simulated air
transport combining random vibration and a pressure differential
(vacuum) of 59.5 kPa (14,000 ft), for one hour, resulted in an 18%
failure rate.
E. PHMSA Review of Incident Data
During the first half of 2007, PHMSA conducted a comprehensive
assessment of hazardous materials transportation incidents occurring in
air transportation from 1997 through 2006. This study and its
corresponding data may be accessed in the public docket for this
rulemaking. The study concluded that there has been no appreciable
reduction in package failures over the past 10 years. It is estimated
that 191,429 tons of liquid hazardous materials are transported by
aircraft annually contained in 7,657,152 combination packaging
shipments. Of that total, our analysis concluded that out of
approximately 483 failures (.00006%) in air transportation involving
combination packagings containing liquids each year, 20 are reported as
``serious.'' An incident is considered serious if it involves one or
more of the following: (1) A fatality or major injury caused by the
release of a hazardous material; (2) the evacuation of 25 or more
persons as a result of release of a hazardous material or exposure to
fire; (3) a release or exposure to fire which results in the closure of
a major transportation artery; (4) the alteration of an aircraft flight
plan or operation; (5) the release of radioactive materials from Type B
packaging; (6) the release of over 45 liters (11.9 gallons) or 40
kilograms (88.2 pounds) of a severe marine pollutant; and (7) the
release of a bulk quantity (over 450 liters (119 gallons) or 400
kilograms (882 pounds)) of a hazardous material. We want to emphasize
that any incident, such as a package failure, involving hazardous
materials in air transportation is unacceptable. In air transportation,
any incident could quickly escalate and result in irreversible,
possibly catastrophic, consequences.
Accounting for approximately 80 percent of all packages transported
by air, combination packagings containing liquids are involved in 44
percent (483) of all package failures annually. Inner packaging closure
failures within a combination outer packaging are the primary cause of
incidents involving combination packagings in air transportation. Such
failures could be the result of pressure differential (packages closed
at sea level subjected to lower pressure on planes), ``backing off'' of
the closure (closures that appear tight but loosen during
transportation), improper closures, or some other cause. Our analysis
also suggests that most incidents involve combination packagings that
contain flammable liquids (e.g., paint and paint related material) of
varying degrees of hazard. Some additional statistical data from the
2007 incident review include:
Incident trends are similar to earlier FAA studies.
Laboratory research validates the conclusion that inner
receptacles (e.g., bottles and caps) leak as indicated in the incident
data.
Leaking (failing) closures and inner receptacles are not
the leading cause of incidents in air transportation; however, over 40%
of combination packages containing liquids that fail in air
transportation do involve closures and inner receptacles.
Flammable liquids are the most common liquid hazardous
materials released from failed packages in air transportation. Such
materials or its vapor would seek and could find an ignition source
resulting in fire or explosion.
In years 2005-2006, 18 of 953 incidents involving
combination packagings containing liquids, or 2%, occurred on
passenger-carrying aircraft. Although low when compared to incidents
occurring on cargo-carrying aircraft, this percentage of package
failure continues to be a troubling statistic.
Combination packages containing liquids that fail in air
transportation release on average 0.5 gallons of liquid hazardous
materials.
PHMSA presented the results of this review at a June 21, 2007
meeting with stakeholders to discuss air packaging issues. The 44
participants included cargo and passenger air carriers, packaging
manufacturers and testing laboratories, FAA and PHMSA personnel, and
representatives of industry trade associations. The shippers, air
carriers, and enforcement personnel present generally agreed that the
current capability requirements for air packagings are difficult to
comply with and suggested that specific test methods designed to
demonstrate that packagings will withstand the air transportation
environment should be specified in the HMR.
Stakeholders at the meeting also suggested that increased outreach
through industry partnership and targeted enforcement for habitual
offenders would significantly enhance achievement of PHMSA and FAA
safety goals without additional regulation.
IV. Purpose of This ANPRM
As previously noted, to enhance aviation safety, PHMSA and FAA are
seeking to identify cost-effective solutions that can be implemented to
reduce incident rates and potentially detrimental consequences without
placing unnecessary burdens on the regulated community. We are
soliciting comments on how to accomplish these goals, including
measures to: (1) Enhance the effectiveness of performance testing for
packagings used to transport hazardous materials on aircraft; (2) more
clearly indicate the responsibilities of shippers that offer packages
for air transport in the HMR; and (3) authorize alternatives for
enhancing package integrity. Based on PHMSA and FAA analyses, it
appears that some combination packaging designs used to transport
hazardous materials by aircraft may not meet the pressure differential
and vibration capability standards mandated under the HMR. Indeed, the
testing suggests that the capability standards themselves may not be
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that packagings maintain their
integrity under conditions normally incident to air transportation.
Because aircraft accidents caused by leaking or breached hazardous
materials packages can have significant consequences, the air transport
of hazardous materials requires exceptional care and attention to
detail. Therefore, we are considering measures to reduce the incidence
of package failures and to minimize the consequences of failures should
they occur.
The fact that specific test methods are not specified in the HMR or
the ICAO Technical Instructions leads to inconsistencies in package
integrity and results in varying levels of compliance among shippers.
For example, we understand that, because the pressure differential and
vibration capability standards for combination packagings are not
required to be verified by a test
[[Page 38366]]
protocol, some shippers (self-certifiers) or manufacturers have used
historical shipping data, computer modeling, analogies to tested
packagings, engineering studies, or similar methods to determine that
their packagings meet pressure differential and vibration capability
standards. Further, some less experienced shippers or manufacturers may
not understand that their packagings must withstand pressure
differential and vibration requirements. In addition, some shippers or
manufacturers may not realize that both UN Standard packaging and
packagings that are not required to be certified as meeting a
specification or standard are subject to the pressure differential
capability requirement. This would include packagings for products,
such as limited quantities and consumer commodities, where non-
specification packagings are authorized. A significant percentage of
aircraft incidents involving hazardous materials appear to result from
failures of non-specification packagings.
As indicated above, a non-specification packaging is not required
to meet specific performance requirements. Rather, a non-specification
packaging must meet general packaging requirements and, for air
transportation, must be capable of withstanding pressures encountered
at altitude. We invite comments on how to enforce this ``capability''
standard for non-specification packagings and ask whether a test of
some sort should be required to verify packaging integrity.
A complicating factor that appears to be contributing to packaging
failures and non-compliance is that assembly of packages in some cases
is not consistent with the design type that was originally tested. In
some cases, manufacturers change components without informing the
shipper; in other cases, shippers specify or change components without
appropriate verification and testing to determine compliance with the
applicable performance standard. The numerous variables that exist in
the interaction of closures, liners, and container neck finishes
preclude the use and validity of general assumptions about equivalent
pressure performance capabilities of similar containers.
As an alternative to regulation, the FAA implemented an aggressive
public outreach program over the past seven years targeted at specific
stakeholder audiences, including thousands of shippers, packaging
laboratories, industry research and training institutes, airline
operators, and chemical manufacturers. In addition, several voluntary
industry standards (test protocols) were either created or revised as a
result of the public (independent) and private funding of the studies
detailed in the previous sections above. A copy of the report listing
the specific public outreach efforts conducted by FAA on this issue can
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Some regulatory solutions under consideration in this rulemaking
process are explained in more detail in the following sections.
A. Design Qualification and Periodic Retesting
(1) Pressure differential test. Currently in the HMR, all
packagings containing liquids and intended for transport by air must be
capable of withstanding, without leakage, an internal gauge pressure of
at least 75 kPa for liquids in Packing Group III of Class 3 or 6.1 or
95 kPa for all other liquids, or a pressure related to the vapor
pressure of the liquid to be conveyed, whichever is greater (see 49 CFR
173.27(c)). This requirement is also applicable to liquids excepted
from specification or UN Standard packaging, such as those authorized
for limited quantities and consumer commodities. This would include
eligible liquids of Classes 3 (flammable) and 8 (corrosive), and
Divisions 5.1 (oxidizer), 5.2 (organic peroxide), and 6.1 (poisonous).
Liquids contained in inner receptacles that do not meet the minimum
pressure requirements in the current Sec. 173.27(c) may be overpacked
into receptacles that do meet the pressure requirements.
In this ANPRM, we are soliciting comments on whether we should
require mandatory pressure differential testing for all specification
or UN Standard combination packaging designs containing liquids
transported or intended for transportation aboard aircraft. In
addition, because many incidents are attributed to non-specification
package failures, we are soliciting comments on potential solutions to
this problem that may or may not include the mandatory pressure
differential testing of inner receptacles intended to contain liquids.
One approach would be to incorporate by reference a number of
acceptable test methods and to simplify the regulations by removing the
requirement for calculating the test pressure in Sec. 173.27(c).
Shippers (offerors) would be responsible for using inner receptacles
that have been certified as passing one of the following test methods:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Equipment Time under pressure Pressure differential
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) 49 CFR 178.605................... Pressure fitting, pump. 5 minutes for metal and 60 kPa differential.
composite (including
glass, porcelain, or
stoneware); 30 minutes
for plastic.
(b) ASTM D6653-01.................... Vacuum chamber and 60 minutes............. 14,000 ft (41.8 kPa
associated gages and differential) \1\ or
pumps. 16,000 ft (46.4 kPa
differential).\2\
(c) ASTM D4991-94.................... Transparent vessel 30 minutes for plastic, 60 kPa pressure
capable of 10 minutes for differential.
withstanding 1\1/2\ everything else.
atmospheres, inlet
tube and vacuum pump,
moisture trap,
solution of ethylene
glycol in water.
(d) ASTM F1140 or Part 178 Appendix D Inlet tube............. 30 minutes............. 60 kPa pressure
for flexible packaging. differential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If it is not possible to use the atmospheric and temperature pre-conditioning specified.
\2\ For test specimens where the atmospheric and temperature pre-conditioning is followed.
(a) 49 CFR 178.605--Low Pressure Hydrostatic Pressure Test Method
Suitable for Air Inner Packages. This test is currently required for
all single and composite packagings intended to contain liquid, but it
is not currently required for inner packagings of combination
packaging. This test, which uses the hydrostatic test method, pumps
high-pressure water into a packaging to create a pressure differential.
Failure is determined if there is leakage of liquid
[[Page 38367]]
from the package during the test. This could be observed as a stream of
liquid exiting the package or rupture of the package.
(b) ASTM D6653-01--Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Effects of High Altitude on Packaging Systems by Vacuum Method. This
method uses a vacuum chamber to determine the effects of pressure
differential on packages. Upon completion of the test, the package is
removed and checked for damage in the form of package failure, closure
failure, material failure, internal packaging failure, product failure,
or combinations thereof. If these are all free of damage, then the
packaging should be reassembled for testing in accordance with an
industry accepted packaged product performance test, such as Practice D
4169. This will help determine if the pressure differential
conditioning had an effect on the performance of the packaging system.
(c) ASTM D4991-94 (Re-approved 1999) Standard Test Method for
Leakage Testing of Empty Rigid Containers by Vacuum Method. This test
is applied to empty packagings to check for resistance to leakage under
differential pressure conditions, such as those that can occur during
air transport. Instead of pumping high-pressure air into the packaging,
the air pressure on the exterior of the packaging is reduced using a
vacuum. The package is considered to fail if it leaks a continuous
stream or recurring succession of bubbles or if fluid is found within
the test specimen after the test.
(d) ASTM F 1140--Standard Test Methods for Internal Pressurization
Failure Resistance of Unrestrained Packages for Medical Applications.
This test applies to flexible packaging (e.g., bags).
(2) Vibration testing. When packages travel through the
transportation and distribution environment, they are subject to
vibration by automated sorting systems and during transit aboard
aircraft, railcars, or trucks. As packages move on conveyor systems
during automated sorting, they experience a low level of vibration at a
constant frequency. Aircraft-induced vibration typically is very high
frequency and low amplitude for 30 minutes to 12 hours on domestic
shipments, depending on origin, destination, and the carrier's network.
Vibration on trucks occurs at lower frequencies, but at much higher
amplitudes than on aircraft. This duration can last anywhere from 5
minutes to several days depending upon the route and the distance from
origin to destination. Vibrations from these various sources can result
in damage, including scuffing, abrasion, loosening of fasteners and
closures, and package fatigue. There are two main types of vibration
testing used for packages: Fixed frequency vibration and random
vibration. Random vibration provides the most realistic representation
of actual transport conditions, but requires equipment that is more
expensive.
The HMR require non-bulk packagings to be capable of withstanding,
without rupture or leakage, the vibration test in 49 CFR 178.608. In
this ANPRM, we are soliciting comments concerning whether the HMR
should be revised to require all specification or UN Standard
combination packaging design types containing liquids transported or
intended to be transported aboard aircraft to be vibration tested and
whether alternative vibration test methods should be authorized for
non-bulk packagings. We invite comments on whether the random vibration
encountered during the ``sorting'' process and multiple flight segments
of today's expedited shipping environment contributes to package
failure and whether more representative vibration test methods should
be specified in the HMR.
Alternative test methods for determining package vibration
capability are described in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Title Equipment Frequency Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical Linear Test at Fixed Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM D999-01 Method A1.......... Repetitive Shock Vibration test Start vibration at Predetermined
Test (Vertical machine with 2 Hz and steadily time, as stated
Motion). horizontal increase until in applicable
surface and the test specimen specification, or
mechanism for repeatedly leaves until
vertical the test surface. predetermined
sinusoidal input; amount of damage
fences, is detected.
barricades or
other restraints.
ASTM D999-01 Method A2.......... Repetitive Shock Vibration test Start vibration at Predetermined
Test (Rotary machine with 2 Hz and steadily time, as stated
Motion). horizontal increase until in applicable
surface and the test specimen specification, or
mechanism for repeatedly leaves until
rotational input the test surface. predetermined
with a vertical amount of damage
component is detected.
approximately
sinusoidal;
fences,
barricades or
other restraints.
ASTM 4169-04a Paragraph 13.1 Loose Load Use Test Method Use Test Method Assurance Level I:
(Schedule F). Vibration ASTM D999, Method ASTM D999, Method 60 min dwell
(Repetitive A1 or A2. A1 or A2. time; Assurance
Shocks). Level II: 40 min
dwell time;
Assurance Level
III: 30 min dwell
time.
49 CFR 178.608.................. Repetitive Shock Vibration platform A frequency that 60 minutes.
Test (Vertical or that has a causes the
Rotary Motion). vertical or package to be
rotary double- raised from the
amplitude (peak- vibrating
to-peak platform to such
displacement) of a degree that a
one inch. piece of material
of approximately
1.6 mm thickness
can be passed
between the
bottom of any
package and the
platform.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38368]]
Vertical Linear Test at Variable Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM D999-01 Methods B & C...... Resonance Tests... Vibration test Find the resonant Dwell for
machine with frequency of the specified length
horizontal package using of time at each
surface and either the sine resonant
mechanism for sweep method or frequency
vertical the random determined
sinusoidal input; vibration input earlier or until
suitable fixtures method. The damage to the
and attachment minimum frequency packaging is
points to rigidly range should be noted. If no
attach the test from 3 to 100 Hz. dwell time is
packaging to the specified, 15
platform; minutes is
instrumentation. recommended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random Vibration Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM 4728-01.................... Random Vibration Vibration table Frequency is Predetermined
Testing. supported by a determined by time, as stated
mechanism capable power spectral in applicable
of producing density (PSD) specification, or
single axis profile. until
vibration; inputs predetermined
at controlled amount of damage
levels of is detected.
continuously
variable
amplitude
throughout the
desired range of
frequencies;
suitable fixtures
to restrict
undesired
movement; closed
loop controller
or data storage
media open loop
control systems;
instrumentation.
ASTM 4169-04a Paragraph 12.4 Random Test Option See Test Method Frequency is For Distribution
(Schedule D and E). ASTM 4728 Method determined by Cycles 12 and 13,
A or B. power spectral a 60-minute truck
density (PSD) test followed by
profile. a 120-minute air
Frequency ranging test.
from 2-300 Hz for
air mode.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) ASTM D999-01: Standard Test Methods for Vibration Testing of
Shipping Containers
(b) ASTM D4169 04a Paragraph 12.4 or Paragraph 13.1: Standard
Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems
(c) ASTM D4728-01: Standard Test Method for Random Vibration
Testing of Shipping Containers
(3) ``Combination'' Pressure Differential and Vibration Tests. In
this ANPRM, we are soliciting comments concerning whether sequential
pressure and vibration testing are sufficient to ensure packaging
integrity, i.e., a ``combination'' of both pressure and vibration
testing. The vibration testing would be followed by pressure testing,
which is considered less severe than simultaneous testing, which
subjects a packaging to vibration and pressure at the same time.
Simultaneous testing under the combination test standards involves
rather sophisticated, extensive, and expensive equipment, and
relatively skilled operators. In this ANPRM we are soliciting comment
on whether these methods should be authorized, given our understanding
that a number of companies are already voluntarily applying these
tests. We invite commenters to address successful completion of these
tests as an alternative means of compliance with existing pressure
differential and vibration capability requirements.
The following three combination tests are voluntary industry
standards that we may consider as alternatives for conducting vibration
testing and pressure differential testing on the same inner packaging:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) ISTA 3A.......................... Individual packaged Atmospheric The section for random
products weighing 150 Preconditioning. vibration under
lbs. or less; air or Shock (drop).. pressure is optional.
ground transportation. Vibration When conducted, the
(random with and pressure and vibration
without top load). are simultaneous. A
Vibration pressure approximately
(random under vacuum). equal to an altitude
Shock (drop).. of 10,000 ft. is used
for 60 minutes.
(b) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle 12.. Air (intercity) and Handling...... Low-pressure section
motor freight (local), Stacked instructs packages to
over 100 lb., unitized. Vibration.. be tested at pressure
Low-Pressure.. of expected altitudes.
Vehicle If not known, refer to
Vibration and ASTM D6653, which
Handling.. specifies 14,000 ft.
for 60 minutes. See
ASTM 4169 for
vibration details.
[[Page 38369]]
(c) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle 13.. Air (intercity) and Handling...... Low-pressure section
motor freight (local), Vehicle instructs packages to
single package up to Stacking.. be tested at pressure
100 lb. Loose-Load of expected altitudes.
Vibration.. If not known, refer to
Low-Pressure.. ASTM D6653, which
Vehicle specifies 14,000 ft.
Vibration and for 60 minutes. See
Handling.. ASTM 4169 for
vibration details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) ISTA 3A--This is part of a series of general simulation tests
that are meant to recreate the hazards of a distribution environment.
It is similar to ASTM 4169 because it requires rather sophisticated,
extensive, and expensive equipment (such as a random vibration table
with appropriate instrumentation) and relatively skilled operators.
Unlike D4169, however, there are a number of specific procedures,
covering a number of packaged products and distribution systems, so
much less interpretation is required. This procedure includes shock and
vibration testing with an option to include simultaneous pressure
testing during one of the random vibration phases.
(b) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle 12--This is the only ASTM standard
devoted to packaged product performance in distribution. It is a pre-
shipment general simulation test covering a range of packaging types
and distribution scenarios. For example, it lists 18 distribution
cycles that each represents a different mode or environment. There is a
prescribed sequence of performance tests for each of these distribution
cycles. Air transportation is covered in Distribution Cycles 12 and 13.
These cycles include several types of vibration and pressure testing.
However, these are performed sequentially, unlike ISTA 3A, which has
the option to perform vibration and pressure testing simultaneously.
Distribution Cycle 12 tests are for unitized freight that weighs over
100 lbs. More details on the sequence of testing can be found in the
previous table.
(c) ASTM 4169 Distribution Cycle 13--Distribution Cycle 13 tests
are for loose-load freight weighing under 100 lbs. The prescribed tests
specify an additional vibration test to simulate the more aggressive
shipping environment. More details on the sequence of testing can be
found in the previous table.
(4) Elimination of Selective Testing Variations. The HMR currently
provide selective testing variations--that is, inner packagings that
differ in only minor respects from a tested inner packaging design type
may be used without further testing under the conditions specified in
49 CFR 178.601(g) (selective testing variation 1). In this ANPRM, we
invite commenters to address whether this variation should be revised,
restricted or eliminated for packagings intended for air
transportation. In addition, we are concerned that the use of different
components (e.g., bottle, cap, liner) than what were originally tested
may result in less than effective closure systems and may result in
packagings that are not representative of the originally tested design
type. The numerous variables that exist in the interaction of closures,
liners and container neck finishes are complex and the use and validity
of general assumptions about equivalent pressure performance
capabilities of similar containers is not straightforward. On the basis
of compliance reviews and incident investigations, we believe that this
selective testing provision may result in the use of packaging systems
that are not capable of withstanding conditions encountered in air
transport and at high altitude. Changes in quality control measures and
materials may also adversely affect packaging performance. For example,
changing the type of resin used in plastic bottle manufacturing can
significantly contribute to the ability of the packaging system to
perform as intended. Packaging manufacturers may not readily recognize
the complexity and importance of controlling component and
manufacturing variations. We invite comments on how best to address
this issue and whether certain changes in packaging components or
variations in materials of construction should be reevaluated or tested
and retested as a new design.
B. Other Requirements
(1) Liners and Absorbent Material. Packages containing liquid
hazardous materials must include a method for containing the liquid,
whether it is a leak-proof liner, plastic bag, absorbent material or
other equally effective means. Liners are currently required in the
following circumstances:
Packages containing certain types of hazardous materials
liquids (e.g., Class 3, 4, or 8, or Division 5.1, 5.2, or 6.1) when
absorbent materials are required and the outer packagings are not
liquid-tight and transported by aircraft (49 CFR 173.27(e)).
Either the inner or outer packagings when mercury is
transported by aircraft (49 CFR 173.164).
It is our understanding, based on discussions with shippers, that
many shippers already use protective liners with liquid hazardous
materials packages. These shippers suggest that liners are included
only if the packages are intended for transportation by air. However,
many of th