14334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

enterprises, and governmental entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D of the Act do

not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Act, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of State

action. The Act forbids EPA from basing

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the EPA must select

the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new. Accordingly, no additional

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing this

rule and other required information to

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petition for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 27, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration of this final

rule by the Regional Administrator does

not affect the finality of this rule for

purposes of judicial review; nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, or

postpone the effectiveness of this rule.

This action may not be challenged later

in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

General conformity, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart GG—New Mexico

2. Section 52.1620 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(65) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(65) A revision to the New Mexico

State Implementation Plan: New Mexico

Administrative Code Title 20 Chapter 2

Part 98 ‘‘Conformity of General Federal

Actions to the State Implementation

Plan’’, as adopted on June 14, 1996, by

the New Mexico Environmental Board,

and filed with the State Records Center

on June 19, 1996, was submitted by the

Governor on July 18, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) New Mexico Administrative Code

Title 20 Chapter 2 Part 98 ‘‘Conformity

of General Federal Actions to the State

Implementation Plan’’, as adopted on

June 14, 1996, filed with the State

Records Center on June 19, 1996, and

effective on August 2, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97–7692 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 172, 173, and 178

[Docket No. HM–181H; Amdt. Nos. 172–150,

173–255, 178–117]

RIN 2137–AC80

Performance-Oriented Packaging

Standards; Final Transitional

Provisions; Revisions and Response

to Petitions for Reconsideration

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; editorial revisions

and response to petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: On September 26, 1996, RSPA

published a final rule which amended

the Hazardous Materials Regulations to

incorporate a number of changes based

on rulemaking petitions from industry,

RSPA initiatives and comments

received at public meetings, to the

classification of certain hazardous

materials which are poisonous by

inhalation and to provisions for the

manufacture, use, and reuse of

hazardous materials packagings. The

intended effect of the September 26,

1996 rule is to improve safety, reduce

compliance costs to offerors and

transporters of hazardous materials,

make the regulations easier to use and

correct errors. This final rule corrects

errors in the September 26, 1996 final

rule and responds to petitions for

reconsideration. This final rule also

publishes two letters denying petitions

for reconsideration of a provision in the

September 26, 1996 final rule.

DATES: The amendments in this final

rule are effective March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan

McIntyre, telephone (202) 366-8553,

Office of Hazardous Materials

Standards, Research and Special

Programs Administration, Washington

DC, 20590–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 21, 1990, RSPA

published a final rule [Docket HM–181;

55 FR 52402], which comprehensively

revised the HMR with respect to hazard

communication, classification, and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14335

packaging requirements based on the

United Nations (UN) Recommendations

on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

(UN Recommendations). A document

responding to petitions for

reconsideration and containing editorial

and substantive revisions to the final

rule was published on December 20,

1991 [56 FR 66124]. On October 1, 1992,

under Dockets HM–181 and HM–189,

RSPA issued editorial and technical

corrections to the regulations published

in 1991. On September 24, 1993, RSPA

issued a final rule under Docket HM–

181F [58 FR 50224] which made

changes to the HMR based on agency

initiative and petitions for rulemaking

received since the December 20, 1991

response to petitions for

reconsideration. That final rule

primarily revised requirements with a

mandatory compliance date of October

1, 1993, as provided in the transitional

provisions in § 171.14(b)(4).

RSPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on June 26, 1996,

under Docket HM–181H [61 FR 33216]

to address most remaining issues

associated with the implementation of

Docket HM–181 provisions and certain

other issues arising from a final rule

issued December 29, 1994, under Docket

HM–215A [59 FR 67390]. These issues

were raised through petitions for

rulemaking and agency initiative.

In the September 26, 1996 final rule,

RSPA adopted changes to numerous

requirements with a compliance date of

October 1, 1996. These changes

amended provisions concerning hazard

classification, the maintenance and use

of performance packaging, intermediate

bulk containers (IBC), portable tanks,

and regulated medical waste.

Following publication of the final

rule, RSPA received several petitions for

reconsideration, as well as other

correspondence identifying errors or

requesting clarification. This document

incorporates editorial and technical

revisions RSPA has determined are

necessary to correct or clarify the final

rule.

Because the amendments adopted

herein clarify and correct certain

provisions of the September 26, 1996

final rule, and impose no new

regulatory burden on any person, notice

and public procedure are unnecessary.

For these same reasons, these

amendments are being made effective

without the usual 30-day delay

following publication.

II. Summary of Regulatory Changes

Made by Section

Listed below is a section-by-section

summary of the changes.

Part 172

Section 172.101. Newly added

paragraph (c)(10)(iii) is revised for

consistency with newly revised

paragraph (c)(12)(iii).

Section 172.101; the Hazardous

Materials Table (HMT). In the Docket

HM–181H NPRM, a packaging

exception was proposed for

‘‘Magnesium powder or Magnesium

alloys, powder’’ in Packing Groups II

and III. However, the final rule did not

indicate this exception was limited to

Packing Groups II and III and it could

be inferred that a packaging exception is

authorized for Magnesium powder in

Packing Group I. This final rule clarifies

that no packaging exception is

authorized for this material in PG I by

revising Column (8A) of the HMT to

read ‘‘None’’.

Part 173

Section 173.28. The footnote to the

minimum thickness table in paragraph

(b)(4) is revised to clarify that drums

having a minimum thickness of 0.82

mm body and 1.09 mm heads which

were manufactured and marked prior to

January 1, 1997 may be reused.

Section 173.134. RSPA received two

petitions for reconsideration of a

provision to authorize certain discarded

cultures and stocks of infectious

substances to be described and

packaged as regulated medical waste

rather than infectious substances. On

February 11, 1997, RSPA denied a

petition for reconsideration from

Browning Ferris Industries and on

February 13, 1997, RSPA denied a

petition for reconsideration from the

Medical Waste Institute. This document

publishes verbatim the two letters as

follows:

February 11, 1997.

Ms. Mary Ellen Lynch,

Director of Environmental Policy, Browning

Ferris Industries, 1350 Connecticut

Avenue, NW., Suite 1101, Washington,

DC 20036.

Dear Ms. Lynch: This letter responds to

Browning Ferris Industries’’ (BFI) October 25,

1996 petition for reconsideration of the

provision in the Research and Special

Programs Administration’s (RSPA) final rule

(61 FR 50616; September 26, 1996) in Docket

HM–181H that expands the definition of

regulated medical waste to include waste

cultures and stocks of infectious substances.

RSPA denies BFI’s petition for

reconsideration for reasons set forth in the

following paragraphs.

Prior to the HM–181H final rule, 49 CFR

173.134(a)(4) limited the definition of

regulated medical waste to exclude waste

cultures and stocks of infectious substances.

The final rule in Docket HM–181H added a

new paragraph (b)(4) to Section 173.134

authorizing certain waste cultures and stocks

(i.e., those in Biosafety Levels 1, 2 and 3, as

defined in the Department of Health and

Human Services’ (HHS) Publication No.

(CDC) 93–8395, Biosafety in Microbiological

and Biomedical Laboratories, 3rd edition,

May 1993, Section II) to be described and

packaged as regulated medical waste rather

than infectious substances. This action

resulted in those materials being authorized

in non-bulk UN packagings that conform to

Packing Group II performance requirements.

In its October 25, 1996 petition, BFI

petitions RSPA to reconsider revisions to 49

CFR 173.134 in light of regulations proposed

on June 10, 1996 (61 FR 29327), by HHS’s

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC). The CDC issued its final rule, entitled

Additional Requirements for Facilities

Transferring or Receiving Select Agents, on

October 24, 1996 (61 FR 55190).

In its petition, BFI made three major

assertions, which are quoted, as follows:

RSPA failed to consider the pending CDC

regulations prior to promulgating a final

regulations (sic) for packaging and

transportation of cultures and stocks of

infectious substances.

Given the Congressionally mandated

regulatory scheme now pending before CDC,

it is neither reasonable nor in the public

interest for RSPA to impose another more

burdensome regulatory scheme on the same

materials and for the same purpose of

regulating the interstate (as well as intrastate)

transportation of infectious agents—

including discarded cultures and stocks of

infectious agents—that could have adverse

consequences for human health and safety.

RSPA should reconsider the final Section

173.134 rule and promulgate a final rule that

is consistent with the final CDC rule

governing shipping and handling

requirements for facilities that transfer and

receive select infectious agents that have the

potential to pose a severe threat to public

health and safety. Discarded cultures and

stocks of infectious substances other than

those included on the CDC Appendix A list

should be regulated as regulated medical

waste pursuant to 49 CFR Part 173.134,

including the packaging regulations of that

provision.

With regard to the first assertion, when

RSPA published its final rule on September

26, 1996, the CDC had not yet issued its final

rule. At the time RSPA was developing its

final rule, CDC had issued only a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). RSPA was not

in a position to prejudge the provisions of the

CDC final rule. Because numerous changes

could have been made before the rule was

finalized, RSPA did not rely on the NPRM.

In fact, CDC solicited comments regarding

those agents to be added or deleted from the

proposed list and in its final rule changed the

list of select agents that BFI asserts RSPA

should have considered. In its final rule, CDC

added, revised, and removed numerous

entries from its proposed rule.

With regard to the second assertion, RSPA

has not imposed ‘‘another more burdensome

regulatory scheme on the same materials and

for the same purpose of regulating the

interstate (as well as intrastate) transportation

of infectious agents’’. CDC and RSPA have

jointly regulated infectious substances (or
14336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘etiologic agents’’) under different statutory

authority for many years and have taken

steps to ensure consistency between the two

agencies’ regulations and avoid unnecessary

overlap of requirements. The final CDC

regulations address different issues than the

HMR and focus on additional requirements

for facilities that transfer or receive specified

select agents that are capable of causing

substantial harm to human health. In its

preamble to its final rule, CDC states:

Several commenters were concerned about

shipping select agents and about acceptable

carriers and carrier responsibilities. Nothing

in this final rule is intended to preempt other

applicable regulations. Select agents

included under this final rule are required to

be packaged, labeled and shipped in

accordance with all applicable federal

regulations. CDC believes that compliance

with existing federal regulations on

packaging, labeling and shipping select

agents, in combination with the transfer

requirements of this final rule, provide

sufficient safeguards for safe and secure

transport.

In summary, the RSPA and CDC final rules

address different concerns and do not impose

an overlapping scheme on the same materials

for the same purpose. Compliance with both

rules is feasible.

Also pertaining to BFI’s second assertion,

RSPA has not imposed ‘‘a more burdensome

regulatory scheme’’. The June 26, 1996

NPRM for HM–181H proposed only to

incorporate provisions of an exemption,

DOT–E 11588, into the regulations. DOT–E

11588 authorized waste cultures and stocks

in Biosafety Levels 1, 2, and 3 (as defined in

HHS Publication No. 93–8395) to be

described and packaged as regulated medical

waste rather than infectious substances. The

HM–181 final rule is consistent with the

NPRM and represents a relaxation of the

regulatory scheme for these waste materials.

With regard to BFI’s third assertion, RSPA

believes that BFI’s concern is that select

agents could be transported as regulated

medical waste rather than as infectious

substances. RSPA agrees with BFI that it

would be inappropriate for these virulent

agents to be transported in the lower integrity

packagings which are permitted for regulated

medical waste. The CDC final rule makes it

clear (see preamble discussion on page

55193) that select agents must be destroyed

on-site and may not be transported for

disposal (i.e., as waste) unless they have first

been treated and destroyed. Therefore, it is

RSPA’s position that a culture or stock of a

select agent cannot become a regulated

medical waste under 49 CFR 173.134 because

the CDC regulations for destruction on-site

preclude its being offered for transportation

as a waste.

For the above reasons, your petition for

reconsideration is denied. If BFI has

additional information which it believes

would warrant further rulemaking action on

this issue, we recommend that it submit a

petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR 106.31

outlining the recommended changes it

believes should be made to the HMR, and

including the additional justification.

Sincerely,

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

February 13, 1997.

Richard S. Moskowitz, Esq.,

Medical Waste Institute, 4301 Connecticut

Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC

20008.

Dear Mr. Moskowitz: This letter is in

response to the Medical Waste Institute’s (the

Institute) October 23, 1996 petition for

reconsideration of the provision in the

Research and Special Programs

Administration’s (RSPA) final rule (61 FR

50616; September 26, 1996) in Docket HM–

181H that authorizes discarded cultures and

stocks of infectious substances to be

described and packaged as regulated medical

waste. RSPA denies the Institute’s petition

for reconsideration of the final rule in Docket

HM–181H.

The Institute alleged that RSPA dismissed

two requests submitted by the Institute in its

comments to the June 26, 1996 notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The first

request was to allow discarded cultures and

stocks to be packaged in packagings (herein

referred to as ‘‘OSHA-authorized packaging’’)

conforming to bloodborne pathogen

standards of the Department of Labor’s

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), which are permitted

for other regulated medical waste under

Section 173.134(b)(3)(ii). The Institute also

requested that RSPA allow private carriers

transporting cultures and stocks of infectious

substances to backhaul non-food products in

trailers that are properly disinfected. The

Institute asserted that these two requests

were within the scope of the rulemaking in

Docket HM–181H and requested that RSPA

reconsider these ‘‘dismissals.’’

In support of its first request, the Institute

asserted that OSHA-authorized packaging has

a ‘‘proven track record’’ in ensuring that the

public is protected from exposure to

hazardous material and that it is aware of no

incident where a failure of an OSHAauthorized packaging resulted in a harmful

release of discarded cultures and stocks. The

Institute also maintained, in support of its

second request, that there is no evidence of

a health risk nor any recorded incident of

disease transmission resulting from

backhauling.

In a September 20, 1995 final rule on

infectious substances (Docket HM–181G),

waste cultures and stocks were excluded

from the definition of regulated medical

waste and were subject to requirements

applicable to non-waste cultures and stocks

of infectious substances. In the preamble to

that final rule, RSPA noted that several

commenters agreed that cultures and stocks

contain a high concentration of

microorganisms that have the potential to

cause disease in humans or animals and

require special handling. The final rule

required cultures and stocks of infectious

substances, including waste, to be in high

integrity packagings conforming to Section

178.609.

Subsequent to the Docket HM–181G final

rule, RSPA issued an exemption, DOT–E

11588, which authorized discarded cultures

and stocks in Biosafety Levels 1, 2, and 3 (as

defined in HHS Publication No. 93–8395) to

be described and packaged as regulated

medical waste rather than infectious

substances. As an alternative to more

stringent packagings for infectious substances

prescribed in Section 178.609, RSPA

authorized UN standard packagings meeting

Packing Group II performance levels, but

imposed additional safety controls by

requiring dedicated vehicles operated by

specialized (i.e., private and contract)

carriers. In granting this exemption, RSPA

intentionally excluded non-specification

OSHA-authorized packaging permitted for

other regulated medical waste under Section

173.134(b)(3)(ii), and specifically stated in

the exemption that this packaging was not

authorized because these packagings provide

a lower level of safety than other packagings

authorized for infectious substances. In

addition, RSPA evaluated modal

requirements prior to issuance of DOT–E

11588 and concluded that only private or

contract motor carriers using vehicles

dedicated to the transportation of medical

waste are authorized.

The June 26, 1996 NPRM proposed only to

incorporate the provisions of DOT–E 11588

into Section 173.134 of the regulations. The

NPRM did not propose, nor request

comments concerning, any further relaxation

of packaging requirements beyond that

provided in the exemption. There are no

regulatory provisions for use of packagings of

lesser integrity and RSPA is not aware of a

‘‘proven track record’’ for such packagings.

The Institute’s petition for a lower level of

packaging safety than adopted in the HM–

181H final rule is unjustified based on the

information provided by the Institute and

presents safety concerns that have not been

fully analyzed. Similarly, the request to allow

private carriers transporting discarded

cultures and stocks of infectious substances

to backhaul ‘‘non-food products’’ in trailers

that are ‘‘properly disinfected’’ raises

technical issues not addressed in the NPRM

(e.g., standards for cleaning and defining

criteria for ‘‘non-food products’’) and raises

safety concerns about the ‘‘proper’’

disinfection of trailers and allowing non-food

products, including consumer products, to

come into contact with medical waste

residue.

Both of these requested changes to the

HMR raise technical and safety issues that

have not been fully analyzed and resolved.

At the present time, RSPA does not have the

information required to analyze and address

these issues. Any further relaxation of

packaging performance level or revisions to

authorize private carriers transporting

cultures and stocks of infectious substances

to backhaul non-food products in the same

vehicles would necessitate additional notice

and opportunity for comment, as required by

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553 (b) and (c). Therefore, RSPA is denying

the petition for reconsideration of the final

rule in Docket HM–181H.

A petition for rulemaking may be a more

appropriate means to address the two

changes to the HMR proposed by the

Institute. The Institute may submit a petition
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14337

for rulemaking under Section 106.31

outlining any specific changes it believes

should be made to the HMR, and include

information sufficient to warrant further

rulemaking action.

Sincerely,

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

Section 173.170. The first sentence in

paragraph (c) is amended by changing

the maximum net capacity of each inner

metal or plastic receptacle from 450 g

(15.9 ounces) to 454 g (16 ounces).

Part 178

Section 178.2. A new paragraph (f) is

added to clarify that packagings may no

longer be manufactured and marked to

old DOT specifications which were

removed in the final rule under Docket

HM–181. This new paragraph replaces a

similar prohibition that was removed

from the transitional provisions in

§ 171.14 in the September 26, 1996 final

rule.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is not considered a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and therefore, was not reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget. The

rule is not considered a significant rule

under the Regulatory Policies and

Procedures of the Department of

Transportation [44 FR 11034].

The economic impact of this rule is

expected to result in only minimal costs

to certain persons subject to the HMR

and may result in modest cost savings

to a small number of persons subject to

the HMR and to the agency. Because of

the minimal economic impact of this

rule, preparation of a regulatory impact

analysis or a regulatory evaluation is not

warranted.

B. Executive Order 12612

The September 26, 1996 final rule, as

amended herein, was analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 (‘‘Federalism’’). Federal law

expressly preempts State, local, and

Indian tribe requirements applicable to

the transportation of hazardous material

that cover certain subjects and are not

substantively the same as Federal

requirements. 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1).

These subjects are:

(1) The designation, description, and

classification of hazardous material;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling,

labeling, marking, and placarding of

hazardous material;

(3) The preparation, execution, and

use of shipping documents pertaining to

hazardous material, and requirements

respecting the number, content, and

placement of such documents;

(4) The written notification,

recording, and reporting of the

unintentional release in transportation

of hazardous material; or

(5) The design, manufacturing,

fabrication, marking, maintenance,

reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a

package or container which is

represented, marked, certified, or sold

as qualified for use in the transportation

of hazardous material.

This final rule preempts State, local,

or Indian tribe requirements concerning

these subjects unless the non-Federal

requirements are ‘‘substantively the

same’’ (see 49 CFR 107.202(d)) as the

Federal requirements. RSPA lacks

discretion in this area, and preparation

of a federalism assessment is not

warranted.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2))

provides that if DOT issues a regulation

concerning any of the covered subjects,

DOT must determine and publish in the

Federal Register the effective date of

Federal preemption. The effective date

may not be earlier than the 90th day

following the date of issuance of the

final rule and not later than two years

after the date of issuance. RSPA has

determined that the effective date of

Federal preemption for these

requirements in the September 26, 1996

final rule will be January 1, 1997.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule responds to petitions

for reconsideration and agency review.

It is intended to make editorial and

technical corrections, provide

clarification of the regulations and relax

certain requirements. Therefore, I certify

that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no new information

collection requirements in this final

rule.

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN)

is assigned to each regulatory action

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal

Regulations. The Regulatory Information

Service Center publishes the Unified

Agenda in April and October of each

year. The RIN number contained in the

heading of this document can be used

to cross-reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 172

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Labels, Markings,

Packaging and containers, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

Hazardous materials transportation,

Packaging and containers, Radioactive

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Uranium.

49 CFR Part 178

Hazardous materials transportation,

Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and

containers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 172—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS,

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY

RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

1. The authority citation for Part 172

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR

1.53.

2. In § 172.101, paragraph (c)(10)(iii)

is revised to read as follows:

§ 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous

materials table.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(10) * * *

(iii) A mixture or solution not

identified in the Table specifically by

name, comprised of two or more

hazardous materials in the same hazard

class, shall be described using an

appropriate shipping description (e.g.,

‘‘Flammable liquid, n.o.s.’’). The name

that most appropriately describes the

material shall be used; e.g., an alcohol

not listed by its technical name in the

Table shall be described as ‘‘Alcohol,

n.o.s.’’ rather than ‘‘Flammable liquid,

n.o.s.’’. Some mixtures may be more

appropriately described according to

their application, such as ‘‘Coating

solution’’ or ‘‘Extracts, flavoring liquid’’

rather than by an n.o.s. entry. Under the

provisions of subparts C and D of this

part, the technical names of at least two

components most predominately

contributing to the hazards of the

mixture or solution may be required in

association with the proper shipping

name.

* * * * *

§ 172.101 [Amended]

3. In § 172.101, in the Hazardous

Materials Table, for the entry
14338 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘Magnesium powder or Magnesium

alloys, powder’’ in PG I, in column 8A,

the entry ‘‘151’’ is revised to read

‘‘None’’.

PART 173—SHIPPERS—GENERAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS

AND PACKAGINGS

4. The authority citation for Part 173

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5102–5127; 49 CFR

1.53.

5. In § 173.28, in the table in

paragraph (b)(4)(i), the footnote is

revised to read as follows:

§ 173.28 Reuse, reconditioning and

remanufacture of packagings.

* * * * * 1Metal drums or jerricans with a minimum

thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.09 mm

heads which are manufactured and marked

prior to January 1, 1997 may be reused. Metal

drums or jerricans manufactured and marked

on or after January 1, 1997, and intended for

reuse, must be constructed with a minimum

thickness of 0.82 mm body and 1.11 mm

heads.

* * * * *

§ 173.170 [Amended]

6. In § 173.170, in the first sentence of

paragraph (c), the wording ‘‘450 g (15.9

ounces)’’ is revised to read ‘‘454 g (16

ounces)’’.

PART 178—SPECIFICATIONS FOR

PACKAGINGS

7. The authority citation for part 178

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127; 49 CFR

1.53.

8. In § 178.2, a new paragraph (f) is

added to read as follows:

§ 178.2 Applicability and responsibility.

* * * * *

(f) No packaging may be

manufactured or marked to a packaging

specification that was in effect on

September 30, 1991, and that was

removed from this part 178 by a rule

published in the Federal Register on

December 21, 1990 and effective

October 1, 1991.

Issued in Washington, DC on March 20,

1997, under authority delegated in 49 CFR

part 1.

Kelley S. Coyner,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7558 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC00

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for Three Plants

and Threatened Status for Five Plants

From Vernal Pools in the Central Valley

of California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines endangered status

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act) for three

plants, Orcuttia pilosa (hairy Orcutt

grass), Orcuttia viscida (Sacramento

Orcutt grass), and Tuctoria greenei

(Greene’s tuctoria); and threatened

status for five plants, Castilleja

campestris ssp. succulenta (fleshy

owl’s-clover), Chamaesyce hooveri

(Hoover’s spurge), Neostapfia colusana

(Colusa grass), Orcuttia inaequalis (San

Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass), and

Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass).

Between publication of the proposed

and final rules for these species, the

Service determined that Orcuttia

inaequalis, which was originally

proposed as endangered, should be

listed as threatened due to lesser

immediacy and magnitude of threats to

its existence. These species grow in the

basins and margins of vernal pools of

the Central Valley of California. Habitat

loss and degradation due to

urbanization, agricultural land

conversion, livestock grazing, offhighway vehicle use, a flood control

project, a highway project, altered

hydrology, landfill projects, and

competition from weedy nonnative

plants imperil the continued existence

of these species. This rule implements

Federal protection and recovery

provisions afforded by the Act for these

eight plants.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the Sacramento Field Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El

Camino Avenue, Suite #130,

Sacramento, California 95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken

Fuller at the above address or by

telephone at 916/979–2120 or facsimile

at 916/979–2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Vernal pools in the Central Valley of

California were a common and

widespread feature in pre-European

times (Holland and Jain 1977). Although

historic amounts of vernal pool habitat

losses and annual loss rates have been

disputed, Holland estimated that

urbanization and other factors had

eliminated 67 to 88 percent of the vernal

pools in the Central Valley by 1973

(Holland 1978, and Robert Holland,

consultant, in litt. 1992). Public

comments and additional work

regarding the number of remaining acres

of vernal pool habitat in the Central

Valley indicate the loss of vernal pool

habitat is closer to 50 percent than 67

to 88 percent (59 FR 48139; R. Holland,

pers. comm. 1996). The plants discussed

herein grow only in vernal pools in

California and have experienced minor

to major population and habitat

reductions throughout their respective

ranges. California vernal pools are

generally small, seasonally aquatic

ecosystems that are inundated in the

winter and dry slowly in the spring and

summer, making a harsh, unique

environment. Cyclical wetting and

drying create an unusual ecological

situation supporting a unique biota.

Many plants and animals have evolved

to possess such specific characteristics

that these organisms cannot live outside

these temporary pools. Four other listed

species may occur with these plants:

The vernal pool tadpole shrimp

(Lepidurus packardi); conservancy fairy

shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio);

longhorn fairy shrimp (B. longiantenna);

and vernal pool fairy shrimp (B. lynchi).

However, no close associations are

known between any of the listed shrimp

species and the eight plants affected by

this rule.

The Central Valley of California

consists of the Sacramento Valley in the

north half of the State and the San

Joaquin Valley in the south half. Within

the Central Valley, vernal pools are

found in four physiographic settings,

each possessing an impervious soil layer

relatively close to the surface. These

four settings include high terraces with

iron-silicate or volcanic substrates, old

alluvial terraces, basin rims with

claypan soils, and low valley terraces

with silica-carbonate claypans. Due to

local topography and various geological

populations, vernal pools are usually

clustered into pool complexes. Pools

within a complex typically are

separated by a distance of a few to

several meters and may form dense,

interconnected mosaics of small pools

or a more sparse scattering of large