Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27273 

1See 47 CFR 97.311(d). 

9. In the NPRM, we propose to amend 

the amateur service rules to eliminate 

the requirement that an amateur station 

transmitting a SS emission must 

automatically use APC to reduce the 

transmitter power when the station 

transmits with a power greater than one 

watt and to reduce from one hundred 

watts to a peak of ten watts the 

transmitter power output that an 

amateur station may transmit when the 

station is transmitting a SS emission.1

Because ‘‘small entities,’’ as defined in 

the RFA, are not persons eligible for 

licensing in the amateur service, this 

proposed rule does not apply to ‘‘small 

entities.’’ Rather, it applies exclusively 

to individuals who are the control 

operators of amateur radio stations. 

Therefore, we certify that the proposals 

in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

10. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 97 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 97 as follows: 

PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE 

1. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or 

apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609, 

unless otherwise noted. 

§ 97.313 [Amended] 

2. Section 97.311 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d). 

3. Section 97.313 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 97.313 Transmitter power standards. 

* * * * * 

(j) No station may transmit with a 

transmitter output exceeding 10 W PEP 

when the station is transmitting a SS 

emission type. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11386 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 171 and 173 

[Docket No. PHMSA–07–29364 (HM–231A)] 

RIN 2137–AE32 

Hazardous Materials; Packages 

Intended for Transport by Aircraft 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to amend 

requirements in the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations to enhance the 

integrity of inner packagings or 

receptacles of combination packagings 

containing liquid hazardous material by 

ensuring they remain intact when 

subjected to the reduced pressure and 

other forces encountered in air 

transportation. In order to substantially 

decrease the likelihood of a hazardous 

materials release, the proposed 

amendments: prescribe specific test 

protocols and standards for determining 

whether an inner packaging or 

receptacle is capable of meeting the 

pressure differential requirements 

specified in the regulations and, 

consistent with the 2011–2012 edition 

of the International Civil Aviation 

Organization Technical Instructions for 

the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods 

by Aircraft (ICAO Technical 

Instructions), require the closures on all 

inner packagings containing liquids 

within a combination packaging to be 

secured by a secondary means or, under 

certain circumstances, permit the use of 

a liner. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 13, 2010. 

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 

http://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 http:// 

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 

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, or 

Janet McLaughlin, Office of Security 

and Hazardous Materials, Federal 

Aviation Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 490 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 2200, 

Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 

385–4897. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

I. Background 

II. Problem 

III. ANPRM 

A. Studies and Data 

B. Pressure Differential Testing 

C. Alternatives to Testing 

D. Packaging Components 

IV. Summary of Proposals in This NPRM 

A. Incorporation of Revised ICAO TI 

Packaging Provisions 

B. Enhanced Pressure Differential 

Capability Standard 

C. Combined Enhanced Pressure 

Differential Capability Standard and 

Incorporation of Revised ICAO TI 

Packaging Provisions 

D. Vibration Testing 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1As a receptacle for a liquid or solid, a non-bulk 

outer packaging is one that has a maximum capacity 

of 450 liters (119 gallons) and, for solid contents, 

a maximum net mass of 400 kg (882 pounds). 

§ 171.8. 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

C. Executive Order 13132 

D. Executive Order 13175 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive 

Order 13272, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

I. Environmental Assessment 

J. Privacy Act 

I. Background 

The Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR; 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 both 

liquid and solid hazardous materials by 

aircraft. A combination packaging 

consists of one or more inner packagings 

or one or more articles secured in a nonbulk outer packaging.1

Requirements for combination 

packagings used to transport hazardous 

materials are set forth in parts 173 and 

178 of the HMR. Certain classes and 

quantities of hazardous materials may 

be transported in ‘‘non-UN standard’’ 

combination packagings, which are 

subject only to the general requirements 

in subpart B of part 173, including the 

following: 

—The packaging must be designed, 

constructed, filled, and closed so that 

it will not release its contents under 

conditions normally incident to 

transportation. § 173.24(b)(1). 

—The effectiveness of the package must 

be maintained to withstand minimum 

and maximum temperatures, changes 

in humidity and pressure, and shocks, 

loadings and vibrations normally 

encountered during transportation. 

§ 173.24(b)(2). 

— Each non-bulk packaging must be 

capable of withstanding, without 

rupture or leakage, the vibration test 

procedure specified in § 178.608 of 

this subchapter, which sets forth a 

specific test method to measure the 

vibration capability of a non-bulk 

packaging. § 173.24a(a)(5). 

A packaging authorized for 

transportation by aircraft must also be 

designed and constructed to prevent 

leakage that may be caused by changes 

in altitude and temperature. 

§ 173.27(c)(1). 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 that 

produces a gauge pressure of not less 

than 75 kPa for liquids in Packing 

Group III of Class 3 or Division 6.1 and 

95 kPa for other liquids; or (2) a 

pressure related to the vapor pressure of 

the liquid to be transported as 

determined by specified formulae. 

§ 173.27(c). A number of voluntary 

industry consensus standards have been 

developed, some of which include test 

methods intended to evaluate the effects 

of pressure differential on packagings at 

the various altitudes experienced in the 

air transport environment. These 

standards-setting organizations have 

also conducted measurement studies 

and testing to identify the transportation 

forces a package encounters and 

developed integrity standards and 

industry best-practices to ensure the 

pressure differential capability standard 

is met. This process assists all parties to 

design and manufacture packaging with 

quality standards that could be used to 

verify conformance with capability 

requirements. However, these voluntary 

industry standards are not included or 

referenced in the HMR, and the HMR do 

not provide specific guidance to 

shippers or packaging manufacturers as 

to how to comply with the pressure 

differential standards. 

Subparts L and M of part 178 contain 

UN performance standards for non-bulk 

packagings adopted in PHMSA’s ‘‘HM– 

181’’ final rules in 1990 and 1991. 55 FR 

52401 (December 21, 1990); 56 FR 

66124 (December 20, 1991). These 

performance standards criteria replaced 

the former detailed construction 

specifications and provide packaging 

design flexibility that is not possible 

with detailed design specifications. The 

performance criteria require design 

qualification testing and periodic 

retesting to verify whether a design type 

meets the performance standards. For 

combination packagings, drop and 

stacking testing are required, and the 

packaging must be ‘‘capable’’ of passing 

a vibration test. §§ 178.603, 178.606, 

178.608. The packaging (including the 

inner packagings) must be closed for 

testing, and tests must be carried out on 

the completed package that is prepared 

for testing, in the same manner as if 

prepared for transportation. § 178.602. 

In the HM–181 advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (47 FR 16268 

(April 15, 1982)) and the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (52 FR 16482 

(May 5, 1987)), we proposed to require 

the hydrostatic pressure test in 

§ 178.605 to be performed on all inner 

packagings of UN standard combination 

packaging designs intended for 

transportation by aircraft. The pressure 

test would have addressed pressure 

differentials encountered during air 

transportation. This amendment was not 

adopted in the final rule. 55 FR 52402 

(December 21, 1990). Instead, consistent 

with the ICAO Technical Instructions 

and the HMR in effect at the time, we 

elected to continue the requirement for 

all packagings containing liquids offered 

or intended for transportation aboard 

aircraft to be capable of withstanding 

without leakage a specified pressure 

differential. § 173.27(c). 

Since that time, ICAO has added a 

note to Part 4; 1.1.6 of the Technical 

Instructions stating that the capability of 

a packaging to meet the pressure 

differential performance standard 

should be determined by testing, with 

the appropriate test method selected 

based on packaging type. However, 

ICAO has not adopted specific test 

methods in the Technical Instructions. 

Because the HMR do not specify test 

methods for verifying that a packaging 

meets the pressure differential 

requirement, some shippers and 

packaging manufacturers have used 

historical data (i.e., lack of incidents) 

and other methods (e.g. computer 

modeling, analogies, or engineering 

studies) to demonstrate that their 

packagings satisfy the pressure 

differential capability requirement. 

Shippers and packaging manufacturers 

have differing views on how the 

requirements are to be verified, and use 

various test methods to demonstrate 

compliance. This leads to a non-uniform 

approach, and it is difficult for PHMSA 

and FAA to verify whether a package 

meets the pressure differential 

requirement because no test report, 

documentation, or other proof of 

compliance is required by the HMR. 

Additionally, it does not provide an 

effective method of oversight to 

determine whether regulatory 

requirements are meeting actual forces 

encountered in transportation. If there is 

no control, the evaluation of quality and 

failure analysis is not possible. Even the 

most conscientious and safety-focused 

shippers have difficulty understanding 

how to comply with the requirements in 

§ 173.27. Other shippers and packaging 

manufacturers may be taking advantage 

of the absence of specific requirements 

for verifying compliance. 

The absence of specific test methods 

in the HMR leads to inconsistencies in 

package integrity and results in varying 

levels of compliance among shippers. 

References to the pressure differential 

requirements in § 173.27(c) are found 

throughout the regulations for 

packagings and packages offered for air 

transportation and transported by 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27275 

aircraft without methods specified to 

verify compliance with this critical 

safety requirement. This results in wide 

disparities in packaging quality and the 

potential for sub-standard packages to 

be introduced into the air transport 

environment, increasing the probability 

of releases of hazardous materials 

aboard aircraft. In addition, some 

shippers or manufacturers may not 

realize that inner packagings of non-UN 

standard combination packagings are 

required to meet the pressure 

differential capability requirements of 

the HMR and the ICAO Technical 

Instructions. This includes packagings 

authorized under the limited quantity, 

consumer commodity, and Category B 

Biological Substance exceptions. A 

significant percentage of aircraft 

incidents involving liquid hazardous 

materials appear to result from failures 

of these packagings. We strongly believe 

the introduction of specific test methods 

and amendments that clarify the 

requirements for packagings offered for 

transportation by aircraft will enhance 

safety by reducing risk and level the 

playing field for shippers, 

manufacturers and air carriers alike. 

II. Problem 

When a package reaches high 

altitudes during transport, it 

experiences low pressure on its exterior. 

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 create lower 

external pressures and, therefore, larger 

pressure differentials. This condition is 

especially problematic for combination 

packagings containing liquids. When an 

inner packaging, such as a glass bottle 

or plastic receptacle, is initially filled 

and sealed, the cap must be tightened to 

a certain torque 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. 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 will not be the same as 

when the packaging was initially closed. 

Under normal conditions encountered 

in air transport (26 kPa reduction in 

pressure at 8000 ft), the pressure 

differentials are not overly severe. 

However, if the compartment is 

depressurized at altitude or if the 

compartment is not pressurized at all, 

such as on certain ‘‘feeder’’ aircraft, the 

pressure differential may be severe 

enough to cause package failure and 

release of the hazardous materials in the 

aircraft. High-altitude stresses are 

encountered when cargo and feeder 

aircraft transport packages in nonpressurized or partially-pressurized 

cargo holds. 

A seemingly ‘‘minor’’ incident can 

quickly escalate and result in 

irreversible, possibly catastrophic, 

consequences. For example, a closure 

failure of an inner container could cause 

an outer package to fail, resulting in 

fumes, smoke or flammable liquid 

acting as a catalyst to a more serious 

incident. The interaction of events 

occurring on aircraft, such as electrical 

fires, static electricity or other materials 

interacting with the leaking material, 

could result in a catastrophic event. The 

successful testing of inner packaging 

designs may lower the likelihood of 

such an event. Taking a systems-safety 

approach that includes multiple safety 

processes and redundancies can prevent 

a minor incident from becoming 

potentially much worse. 

PHMSA, FAA and, more recently, 

several international competent 

authorities all agree that the testing of 

design samples or prototypes of inner 

packagings or receptacles for pressure 

differential capability is key to 

preventing package failure in air 

transport. Testing also forms the basis of 

current performance standards in both 

the HMR and international regulations. 

Additionally, incident data and 

compliance verification testing of 

combination packagings intended for air 

transport and readily available in the 

marketplace indicate that an 

unacceptable number of packagings are 

not able to withstand pressure 

differential conditions normally 

incident to air transportation. Again, the 

packagings of particular concern are 

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. Incident data 

continue to show that packagings are 

leaking aboard aircraft; this likely is in 

part attributable to the fact that the HMR 

do not specifically provide test methods 

for determining that packagings meet 

the minimum pressure differential 

performance necessary to withstand 

conditions of air transport. It cannot be 

overemphasized that any incident, such 

as a package failure, involving 

hazardous materials in air 

transportation is unacceptable. 

Four recent studies simulated the 

impact of high-altitude on package 

integrity. These conditions result in 

extreme changes in pressure when 

compared to packages being transported 

at or close to sea level. These four 

studies were discussed in detail in the 

ANPRM published under this docket 

[73 FR 38361; July 7, 2008] and are 

available for review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

In the first study, FAA analyzed 

incident data from the DOT Hazardous 

Materials Information System (HMIS) 

for the years 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. In the 

second study, United Parcel Service 

(UPS) presented its findings to the 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) outlining the 

conditions that packages experience in 

the air transport environment. 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. In this third study on 

conditions experienced in air 

transportation, 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 2003, PHMSA also initiated 

a study with MSU to compare the HMR 

requirements and the testing used in the 

FAA/MSU study to provide for a more 

thorough evaluation of the performance 

of liquid hazardous materials in 

combination packagings when subjected 

to the conditions of air transport. This 

fourth round of testing was conducted 

on a smaller number of packaging 

designs; however, a much greater 

number of packagings of each design 

were tested in the study. 

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 contained in 

approximately 16.9 million combination 

packages are transported by aircraft 

annually. Of that total, the analysis 

concluded that approximately 483 

combination packagings containing 

liquids fail in air transportation each 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2The HMR define a ‘‘serious incident’’ as one that 

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; or (7) the release of a bulk quantity (over 

450 liters (119 gallons) or 400 kilograms (882 

pounds)) of a hazardous material. § 171.15. 

year with an average of two incidents 

reported as ‘‘serious.’’ 2 However, any 

incident, such as a package failure, 

involving hazardous materials in air 

transportation is unacceptable. 

The 2007 study concluded that of the 

approximately 483 air incidents 

reported each year, at least 44 percent 

involved the failure of inner packaging 

closures within a combination outer 

packaging as the primary cause. Such 

failures could have been the result of 

pressure differential (packages closed at 

sea level subjected to lower pressure on 

planes), stress relaxation of the closure 

(closures that appear tight but loosen 

during transportation), improper 

closures, vibration, or some other cause. 

The analysis also suggested that most 

incidents involved combination 

packagings containing flammable 

liquids (e.g., paint and paint related 

material) of varying degrees of hazard. 

Some additional statistical data from the 

2007 incident review include: 

• Over 40% of failures of 

combination packages containing 

liquids in air transportation involve 

closures and/or inner receptacles. 

• Flammable liquids are the most 

common liquid hazardous materials 

released from failed packages in air 

transportation. If such materials found 

an ignition source, it could result in a 

fire or explosion. 

• In incident 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 

failures continues to be a troubling 

statistic. 

• Combination packages containing 

liquids that fail in air transportation 

release an average 2 liters (0.5 gallons) 

of liquid hazardous materials. 

III. ANPRM 

On July 7, 2008, PHMSA published an 

advance notice of rulemaking (ANPRM; 

73 FR 38361) seeking to identify costeffective solutions to reduce incident 

rates and the potential severity of 

incident consequences without placing 

unnecessary burdens on the regulated 

community. We solicited 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. We 

asked a series of questions related to the 

packaging of liquid hazardous materials 

in combination packagings that are 

offered for transportation and 

transported by aircraft. A total of 13 

persons submitted comments in 

response to the ANPRM; the list of 

commenters includes: 

AHS Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. 

Ecolab Ecolab, Inc. 

ALPA Air Line Pilots Association, 

International 

COSTHA The Council on Safe Transportation 

of Hazardous Articles, Inc. 

IOPP Institute of Packaging Professionals 

CPC Chemical Packaging Committee 

FedEx Federal Express 

ISTA International Safe Transit Association 

ASTM ASTM International 

ICC ICC The Compliance Center, Inc. 

MSU Michigan State University School of 

Packaging 

Viking Viking Packing Specialist 

DGAC Dangerous Goods Advisory Council 

Commenters generally agree that 

regulatory changes are necessary to 

address safety issues related to the 

transportation of hazardous materials in 

non-UN standard packagings on board 

aircraft. However, commenters had 

varying views on the scope of the safety 

problem or specific regulatory 

amendments necessary to eliminate or 

reduce problems should they exist. 

Some commenters also questioned the 

validity of studies conducted and 

analysis of the underlying data used that 

motivated PHMSA to initiate 

rulemaking action. These comments are 

summarized below. 

A. Studies and Data 

As indicated previously, recent 

studies have simulated the impact of 

high altitudes on packaging integrity. 

These studies suggest that the current 

testing requirements (or lack thereof) 

under the HMR may not adequately 

address the conditions encountered 

during air transportation. Moreover, a 

review of incident data conducted by 

FAA and PHMSA supports the 

conclusion that some combination 

packaging designs used to transport 

hazardous materials by aircraft may not 

meet the capability standards mandated 

under the HMR. Indeed, the testing 

conducted 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. Study data, incidents, 

and several years of feedback from 

industry indicate that, without specific 

standards and protocols, a consistent 

approach to compliance cannot be 

achieved. This can lead to a potentially 

unsafe condition. 

Some commenters cited concerns over 

how two of the studies were conducted 

or suggested that the problems 

discussed in the ANPRM may not be as 

serious as presented. For example, 

Ecolab identifies what it contends are at 

least three discrepancies in the two air 

packaging integrity studies conducted 

by MSU in 2002 and 2003 on behalf of 

PHMSA and FAA. Ecolab contends that 

these discrepancies, identified by CPC 

and published in a 2006 Hazmat 

Packager and Shipper article, occurred 

because some of the tests utilized for the 

studies were not conducted in 

accordance with the HMR or 

corresponding international standards. 

One study allegedly used an improper 

closure design that differed from the 

originally tested design. CPC asserted 

that the improper closure design used in 

the study raised the number of 

packaging failures from 14 to 42, an 

increase of 75%. In its comments, 

Ecolab contends that a successfully 

tested package will not leak when 

closed properly and subjected to normal 

conditions of air transport. As a result 

of conclusions drawn from these initial 

studies and to address challenges made 

to the assumptions used in their 

methodology, further studies were 

budgeted and carried out. PHMSA and 

FAA acknowledge that some of the 

studies utilized packagings that did not 

conform in all respects with HMR 

requirements. The characteristics of the 

packagings tested were fully disclosed 

in the study reports. We do not agree 

that the minor differences in the 

closures used affects the conclusions of 

the studies. We note that the studies 

were not used to determine compliance 

with HMR requirements, but rather to 

measure the capability of commercially 

available packaging designs to 

withstand the unique conditions 

encountered in air transportation. 

Although most commenters support 

the actual testing of inner packaging 

designs for pressure differential 

capabilities, several commenters doubt 

that incidents are occurring in air 

transport as a result of the lack of actual 

testing. AHS notes that incident reports 

submitted to PHMSA in accordance 

with reporting requirements in § 171.16 

of the HMR do not indicate whether an 

inner packaging failed because it had 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27277 

not been tested or because it was not 

capable of withstanding forces 

encountered in transportation. We note 

that it is highly unlikely that a carrier 

or other entity without intimate 

knowledge of a packaging’s design or 

overall integrity would be able to report, 

as a root cause, that an incident that 

occurred in air transportation resulted 

from a lack of actual testing or the 

packaging’s inability to withstand the 

forces inherent to transportation by 

aircraft. However, by carefully analyzing 

available incident data and conducting 

controlled laboratory studies of 

commercially available packaging 

designs, we can conclude that the actual 

testing for pressure differential 

capability was either conducted 

incorrectly or not conducted at all. 

COSTHA contends that PHMSA 

should not be alarmed if leakage from 

an inner packaging is contained within 

its outer packaging and suggests that 

seepage from a closure over time should 

be evaluated differently than a complete 

failure where the entire contents of an 

inner packaging are released within an 

outer packaging. We disagree. A 

successfully tested and properly filled 

and closed inner packaging design 

should not leak under normal 

conditions encountered in air 

transportation. Additionally, an inferior 

inner packaging design or component 

would be identified through the pass/ 

fail criteria when originally tested. 

Because the primary receptacle within a 

combination packaging system is the 

most important component of that 

system in air transport, it should not fail 

except under extreme or highly 

abnormal conditions. 

Regarding the distribution hazards 

experienced in today’s air transport 

environment, Ecolab asserts that 

shipments have always been subjected 

to multiple flight segments and any 

consequences resulting from that 

environment. Ecolab is correct; 

however, although shipments have 

routinely utilized multiple flight 

segments in the past, the proliferation of 

sort systems and feeder aircraft systems 

has changed the environment shipments 

normally encountered during transit. 

Today, air carriers use multiple 

mechanical handling systems to sort 

packages, and the number of 

distribution points has grown with the 

natural expansion of commerce. 

In its comments, Ecolab states that 

better enforcement of existing 

regulations related to packaging 

integrity is key to reducing the number 

of incidents in air transportation. We 

agree. Once verifiable and repeatable 

testing standards are adopted in the 

HMR, shippers, packaging test labs, and 

government regulators can all measure 

packaging integrity using the same 

process, procedures, and protocols. 

Consistency is the most efficient and 

effective way to measure success or 

failure. Ecolab also notes that, according 

to PHMSA’s HMIS incident database, 

human error is cited as an accident 

cause six times more frequently than 

packaging failure. An example of human 

error could be the deliberate or 

inadvertent consequences resulting from 

failure to follow a packaging 

manufacturer’s customer notification or 

closure instructions. An example of 

packaging failure would be differences 

in manufacturing tolerances that result 

in leakage (failure) from an otherwise 

properly closed inner packaging design. 

Again, this supports the multi-layered 

safety system concept. 

B. Pressure Differential Testing 

In the ANPRM, we noted that because 

specific test methods are not included 

in the HMR or the ICAO Technical 

Instructions, there are inconsistencies in 

package integrity and varying levels of 

compliance among shippers. For 

example, because the pressure 

differential and vibration capability 

standards for combination packagings 

are not required to be verified by test 

protocols, 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. 

Shippers, carriers, packaging 

manufacturers, and testing facilities 

generally agree that the current 

capability requirements for air 

packagings are difficult to comply with 

and suggest that specific test methods 

designed to demonstrate that packagings 

will withstand conditions encountered 

during air transportation should be 

specified in the HMR. Ecolab states that 

the current regulatory language in the 

HMR regarding the pressure differential 

capability of inner packagings should be 

replaced with recognized industry 

standards for testing and no additional 

testing should be proposed. ALPA 

recommends that the HMR incorporate 

the language contained in the ICAO 

Technical Instructions clarifying test 

methods and responsible parties. For 

example, the ICAO Technical 

Instructions suggest test methods 

appropriate for certain types of inner 

packagings and liquid hazardous 

materials in order to promote 

compliance with the prescribed 

performance standard. ALPA contends 

the lack of standardized, easily 

understandable testing protocol 

contributes to incidents in air 

transportation. Ecolab and Viking both 

agree that, to properly determine the 

capability of a packaging design, it must 

first be tested. ISTA asserts that the 

simultaneous combination of low 

pressure and vibration exerted on a 

package is the only way to accurately 

replicate conditions encountered by a 

package in air transportation. 

The HMR and ICAO Technical 

Instructions both require that a shipper 

consider the pressure differential 

capability for an inner packaging 

intended to contain a mixture or 

solution based on its vapor pressure. 

Many commenters agree that 

determining the vapor pressure of a 

mixture or solution is problematic, 

costly, and does not materially 

contribute to reducing the likelihood of 

packaging failure. Ecolab believes that a 

95 kPa differential capability is a 

realistic and attainable indication of 

inner packaging integrity and that the 75 

kPa capability for some hazard classes 

and packing groups should be 

eliminated for clarity and increased 

safety. In addition, Ecolab states that 

PHMSA should codify any testing 

protocol adopted in Subpart M of Part 

178. Because the proposed amendments 

in this notice apply to non-UN standard 

packagings as well as UN standard 

packagings, and the Part 178 

requirements apply to UN standard 

packagings only, it is appropriate that 

the amendments proposed in this notice 

be codified in § 173.27. We appreciate 

and understand commenter frustration 

with regard to calculating the vapor 

pressure of a mixture or solution to 

determine the appropriate packaging 

capable of withstanding the prescribed 

pressure differential. In this NPRM, we 

are proposing an alternative method that 

can be used to calculate the appropriate 

packaging required for a mixture or 

solution without testing to determine 

vapor pressure. 

C. Alternatives to Testing 

The HMR and ICAO Technical 

Instructions both allow a liquid 

hazardous material to be contained in 

an inner packaging that does not itself 

meet the pressure differential 

performance standard, provided that the 

inner packaging is packed within a 

supplementary packaging that does 

meet the pressure requirements. In their 

comments, AHS and ICC ask PHMSA to 

retain in the HMR the option for a 

shipper to use supplementary packaging 

that meets the pressure differential 

requirements. PHMSA agrees with 

commenters on this issue and is not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27278 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposing to amend the HMR to do 

otherwise. 

The HMR currently permit the use of 

variations in inner packagings of a 

tested combination package, without 

further testing of the package, provided 

an equivalent level of performance is 

maintained under conditions prescribed 

in § 178.601. ICC states that a packaging 

designed to successfully withstand the 

§ 178.601(g)(2) Variation 2 test protocols 

should not be required to contain inner 

packagings capable of meeting the 

pressure differential and vibration 

capabilities of the HMR. We disagree. A 

primary inner packaging or receptacle of 

known or questionable inferiority is 

unacceptable in air transportation 

regardless of whether the outer 

packaging is of a higher integrity. No 

other commenters opposed actual 

testing of inner packagings of 

combination packagings intended to 

contain liquids for transportation by 

aircraft. 

ICAO recently adopted revised 

packaging instructions for incorporation 

in the ICAO Technical Instructions that 

will become effective January 1, 2011. 

The new packing instructions require a 

secondary means of closure for all 

liquids in combination packagings. This 

requirement may be satisfied by using a 

liner or other form of containment when 

the secondary means of closure cannot 

be applied. Inner packagings containing 

liquids of Packing Group I must be 

placed in rigid leakproof receptacles 

with absorbent material before placing 

them in outer packagings of a 

combination package. None of the 

comments submitted to the ANPRM 

oppose this requirement; those who did 

comment on this requirement support 

its adoption in the HMR. 

D. Packaging Components 

Many commenters state that pressure 

differential and vibration capability 

standards should apply to both 

specification and non-specification 

packaging designs. Ecolab asserts that a 

properly tested and closed inner 

packaging design offers no risk in air 

transport. In evaluating the inherent 

risks assumed in air transportation and 

the potential for high consequence 

events should an incident occur, ALPA 

supports multiple layers of redundancy 

to include actual testing of inner 

packaging designs and the use of liners, 

absorbent material, and secondary 

means of closure. Commenters agree 

that the interaction between an inner 

packaging containing a liquid and its 

closure are critical in air transport. 

COSTHA believes that if any component 

of a tested design is changed, and it is 

not an exact replacement, quality review 

and testing is required. Viking believes 

that a successfully tested inner 

packaging is only one (albeit a major 

one) part of a closure system that also 

uses a protective liner and is properly 

oriented when stored or transported. 

PHMSA and FAA both agree that the 

verification of packaging integrity 

through testing and the additional 

redundant amendments proposed in 

this notice will ensure consistency in 

the quality of packagings used for the air 

transport of liquid hazardous materials 

and mitigate or eliminate the 

consequences of an incident or accident 

should one occur. 

IV. Summary of Proposals in This 

NPRM 

Because aircraft accidents caused by 

leaking or breached hazardous materials 

packages can have significant or 

catastrophic consequences, the air 

transportation of hazardous materials 

requires clear standards, exceptional 

diligence, and attention to detail. To 

address the regulatory deficiencies 

previously described in detail, we are 

proposing amendments to the HMR to 

strengthen the integrity of packages 

intended for transport by aircraft. 

Most commenters support adoption of 

the ICAO Technical Instructions 

requirement for a secondary means of 

closure and utilization of a liner if such 

secondary means of closure is infeasible 

or impracticable. Further, most 

commenters agree that the most 

effective means to ensure that 

combination packagings are capable of 

meeting specified performance 

standards is actual testing. We agree. 

Therefore, in this NPRM we are 

proposing to adopt the new ICAO 

Technical Instructions requirements for 

combination packagings and test 

protocols that may be used to 

demonstrate that such packagings 

conform to applicable performance 

standards. If adopted, these 

amendments will add clarity to the 

processes required in determining 

whether a packaging design is capable 

of meeting the forces encountered in air 

transportation. We are confident that 

these enhancements to current 

regulatory requirements will result in a 

higher level of safety in air 

transportation by reducing the 

likelihood of combination package 

failures in air transportation. 

The following is a summary of the 

proposals in this NPRM. 

A. Incorporation of Revised ICAO 

Technical Instructions Packaging 

Provisions 

Currently under the HMR, stoppers, 

corks, or other such friction-type 

closures must be held securely, tightly, 

and effectively in place by positive 

means. See § 173.27(d). However, a 

screw-type closure on any packaging 

must only be secured to prevent the 

closure from loosening due to ‘‘vibration 

or substantial change in temperature.’’ 

We have stated in letters of clarification 

that a secured closure should 

incorporate a secondary means of 

maintaining a seal, such as a shrinkwrap band or heat sealed liner. (We 

have included three of those letters (02– 

0302 dtd. January 23, 2003; 04–0011 

dtd. May 12, 2004; 07–0174 dtd. March 

17, 2008) in the docket for information 

and guidance.) Additionally, laboratory 

studies conducted on behalf of PHMSA 

and FAA concluded that a simple 

application of tape on a screw-type 

closure prevented ‘‘back-off’’ under even 

extreme conditions. We also note for the 

purposes of this notice that: 

• Liners typically must be manually 

inserted into a packaging before filling. 

Because most packaging systems can be 

automated or are already automated 

with some form of secondary closure 

being applied, costs and regulatory 

burden to shippers should be minimal. 

• Most Packing Group I liquids 

already require a leakproof liner in the 

HMR and ICAO Technical Instructions. 

• A liner or secondary means of 

positive closure should not affect an 

existing UN standard packaging design 

as in most cases it will not be 

considered a new design. 

• Requiring a secondary positive 

means of closure combined with 

required verification of pressure 

differential capability adds a layered 

systems-approach to air transportation 

safety. 

Packaging failures in air 

transportation often are the result of 

closures that have loosened in 

transportation. Such leaks are 

potentially dangerous in all modes of 

transportation, but have the potential for 

catastrophic results in air 

transportation. Therefore, we are 

proposing to revise § 173.27(d) to clearly 

state that all friction and screw type 

closures must be secured by a secondary 

means of positive closure. We believe 

that adoption of this requirement 

provides a necessary added level of 

protection to prevent packages from 

leaking in air transportation. For liquids 

assigned to Packing Groups II or III, a 

leakproof liner may be used to satisfy 

the secondary closure requirement 

where it cannot be applied or it is 

impracticable to apply. For liquids of 

Packing Group I, we are proposing to 

revise § 173.27(e) to require secondary 

means of closure, absorbent material, 

and a rigid, leakproof liner or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27279 

intermediate packaging. Also, for clarity 

we are proposing to remove the 

reference to Division 5.2 materials from 

the § 173.27(e) introductory text. 

B. Enhanced Pressure Differential 

Capability Standard 

Currently, the HMR require all 

packagings containing liquid hazardous 

materials intended for transportation by 

aircraft to 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 Division 

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 § 173.27(c). This 

requirement also applies to liquids 

excepted from specification packaging, 

such as limited quantities and consumer 

commodities. Liquids contained in 

inner receptacles that do not meet the 

minimum pressure requirements in 

§ 173.27(c) may be placed into 

receptacles that do meet the pressure 

requirements to ensure that the 

completed packaging—inner receptacles 

plus outer packaging—will withstand 

pressures typically encountered in air 

transportation. Single and composite 

packagings, or any packaging subject to 

hydrostatic pressure testing under 

§ 178.605, must have a marked test 

pressure of not less than 250 kPa for 

liquids in Packing Group I, 80 kPa for 

liquids in Packing Group III of Class 3 

or Division 6.1, and 100 kPa for other 

liquids. 

As discussed in detail earlier in this 

preamble and in the ANPRM, testing 

conducted on behalf of FAA and 

PHMSA indicates that many 

combination packagings fail when 

subjected to conditions intended to 

simulate the pressures encountered in 

the air transportation environment. One 

possible conclusion is that these 

packagings might not be capable of 

meeting the pressure differential 

capability standards. Without testing 

there is no assurance that these 

packagings are capable of meeting the 

prescribed standards. For air 

transportation, such deficiencies in 

packaging integrity are unacceptable. 

In this notice, we are proposing that 

conformance with the pressure 

differential requirements for rigid 

packagings may be demonstrated by 

testing performed in accordance with 

ASTM D6653, ‘‘Standard Test Methods 

for Determining the Effects of High 

Altitude on Packaging Systems by 

Vacuum Method’’ or ASTM D4991, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Leakage 

Testing of Empty Rigid Containers by 

Vacuum’’. 

For flexible packaging, we are 

proposing that conformance with the 

pressure requirements may be 

demonstrated by pressure differential 

testing performed in accordance with 

ASTM F 1140, ‘‘Standard Test Methods 

for Internal Pressurization Failure 

Resistance of Unrestrained Packages for 

Medical Applications’’, ASTM D 3078, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Leaks in Flexible 

Packaging by Bubble Emission’’ or a 

generic test method outlined in a 

proposed new Appendix E to Part 173. 

Additional test methods that may be 

used to confirm pressure differential 

capability are the hydrostatic pressure 

test in § 178.605 and the International 

Safe Transit Association’s ‘‘ISTA 3A, 

Packaged-Products for Parcel Delivery 

System Shipment 70 kg (150 lb) or Less.’’ 

However, the ISTA 3A test method is 

considered more costly and complex 

due to the high cost of equipment and 

specialized operators needed to conduct 

it. 

We have recently had the privilege of 

working with the German Federal 

Institute for Materials Research and 

Testing (BAM) on the problematic issue 

of calculating vapor pressures for 

liquids at the transportation reference 

temperatures (50–55 °C) as well as for 

mixtures and solutions. The proposed 

table in Appendix E of this notice 

provides guidance on determining these 

values based on the relationship 

between boiling points and vapor 

pressures. It allows the shipper or 

product manufacturer to estimate the 

required capability (test pressure) of 

their packaging based on the individual 

constituent in a mixture or solution 

with either the lowest boiling point or 

the highest vapor pressure at 50 °C. We 

invite comments on this potentially very 

positive initiative. 

C. Combined Enhanced Pressure 

Differential Capability Standard and 

Incorporation of Revised ICAO 

Technical Instructions Packaging 

Provisions 

Laboratory studies have shown that 

testing inner packagings or receptacles 

of commercially available combination 

packaging designs intended or marketed 

as authorized for transportation by 

aircraft achieves an approximate 

effectiveness rating of 95 percent, with 

the current compliance rate among 

shippers unknown. The current 

compliance rate for the use of liners or 

secondary means of positive closure by 

shippers is estimated to be at least 70 to 

90 percent, with an effectiveness rate of 

95 to 100 percent. Consequently, we 

have decided to propose in this notice 

a combination of both regulatory 

alternatives to achieve our objective of 

a cost-effective systems approach to 

safety that provides redundancy where 

necessary and promotes compliance by 

issuing regulations that are clear and 

easier to understand. 

D. Vibration Testing 

Section 173.27(c) of the HMR 

prescribes a pressure differential 

capability standard for inner packagings 

of combination packagings intended for 

air transport. In addition, in accordance 

with § 178.608, combination packagings 

must be capable of passing a prescribed 

vibration test. As discussed in detail 

elsewhere in this preamble, in order to 

substantially decrease the likelihood of 

a hazardous materials release in air 

transport, we are proposing to prescribe 

specific test protocols and standards for 

determining whether an inner package 

or receptacle is capable of meeting the 

pressure differential requirements 

specified in the regulations. However, 

we are not proposing to revise the 

current vibration capability standard. 

Testing to ascertain conformance with a 

pressure differential capability standard 

is significantly more cost effective than 

testing to ascertain conformance with a 

vibration capability standard. Vibration 

testing generally requires more 

expensive equipment and specially 

trained operators. Moreover, laboratory 

studies have concluded that the 

application of a secondary means of 

closure to a packaging capable of 

withstanding the pressure differentials 

encountered in air transport 

substantially reduces the overall failure 

rate of packages. 

It is our understanding that a number 

of shippers and packaging vendors 

currently use random vibration tests, 

such as those in the ISTA 3A or ASTM 

D 4169 standards, in combination with 

pressure differential testing for 

packagings intended for air transport. 

While the HMR prescribe a specific 

vibration test protocol, it appears that 

the recognized random vibration test 

methods, combined with pressure 

differential testing, achieve the intent of 

the test protocols in the HMR—that is, 

to ensure that the packaging will 

withstand environmental conditions 

normally encountered in air 

transportation. In our opinion, the use 

of sequential or combined pressure 

differential and vibration testing in 

accordance with ISTA, ASTM, or other 

test protocols would exceed the current 

capability standards for pressure 

differential and vibration for packages 

intended for air transportation. We 

would consider that inner containers 

demonstrating conformance to these 

standards would not be required to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27280 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

undergo further testing for pressure or 

vibration capability standards when 

placed in an outer packaging for 

packages intended for air transportation. 

As discussed in greater detail in Section 

III of this notice, for certain types of 

packagings, the HMR provide for 

separate testing of packaging 

components so that if one component 

conforms to the applicable performance 

standard, the secondary components 

need not meet those standards. 

V. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This NPRM is published under 

authority of Federal hazardous materials 

transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 

49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Section 5103(b) 

of Federal hazmat law authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

regulations for the safe transportation, 

including security, of hazardous 

materials in intrastate, interstate, and 

foreign commerce. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule is a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). The 

proposed rule is a significant rule under 

the Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

order issued by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11034). We have 

completed a regulatory evaluation and 

placed it in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In this rulemaking, we considered 

three regulatory alternatives: (1) Require 

a secondary means of closure on inner 

packagings or a liner in all combination 

packaging designs containing liquids; 

(2) require testing to determine whether 

an inner packaging intended to contain 

liquids is capable of withstanding the 

reduced pressures of air transport; or (3) 

require a combination of both regulatory 

alternatives. We are proposing the 

combination alternative, number 3. 

Costs for the combination alternative 

range from $2.2M to $5.7M while net 

benefits range from $41.6M to $67.9M. 

at a 7% discount rate over a 10-year 

period. Benefit-cost ratios for the 

combination alternative range from 7.3:1 

to 31.5:1. We invite commenters to 

address the potential costs of the 

enhanced packaging requirements in 

this notice, including the number of 

inner and outer packaging designs that 

would be affected. 

C. Executive Order 13132 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This notice 

preempts State, local and Indian tribe 

requirements but does not propose any 

regulation with substantial direct effects 

on the States, the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

The Federal hazardous materials 

transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101– 

5127, contains an express preemption 

provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) 

preempting State, local and Indian tribe 

requirements on the following subjects: 

(1) The designation, description, and 

classification of hazardous materials; 

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, 

labeling, marking, and placarding of 

hazardous materials; 

(3) The preparation, execution, and 

use of shipping documents related to 

hazardous materials and requirements 

related to the number, contents, and 

placement of those documents; 

(4) The written notification, 

recording, and reporting of the 

unintentional release in transportation 

of hazardous material; or 

(5) The design, manufacture, 

fabrication, marking, maintenance, 

recondition, repair, or testing of a 

packaging or container represented, 

marked, certified, or sold as qualified 

for use in transporting hazardous 

material. 

This notice addresses covered subject 

item (5) described above and preempts 

State, local, and Indian tribe 

requirements not meeting the 

‘‘substantively the same’’ standard. 

Federal hazardous materials 

transportation law provides at 49 U.S.C. 

5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a 

regulation concerning any of the 

covered subjects, DOT must determine 

and publish in the Federal Register the 

effective date of Federal preemption. 

The effective date may not be earlier 

than the 90th day following the date of 

issuance of the notice and not later than 

two years after the date of issuance. The 

effective date of Federal preemption of 

this notice will be 90 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications and does not 

impose direct compliance costs, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive 

Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and 

Policies 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–611) requires each agency to 

analyze proposed regulations and assess 

their impact on small businesses and 

other small entities to determine 

whether the proposed rule is expected 

to have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

regulatory evaluation for this NPRM, 

which includes a detailed small 

business impact analysis, is in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. Based 

on the analysis in the public docket, I 

certify that while this notice will impact 

a significant number of small entities, it 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This notice has been developed in 

accordance with Executive Order 13272 

(‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

procedures and policies to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to ensure potential 

impacts of draft rules on small entities 

are properly considered. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This notice does not impose 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It will not result in costs of $141.3 

million or more, in the aggregate, to any 

of the following: State, local, or Native 

American tribal governments, or the 

private sector. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

PHMSA currently has an approved 

information collection under Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Control 

Number 2137–0572, ‘‘Testing 

Requirements for Non-Bulk Packaging,’’ 

with an expiration date of March 31, 

2010. This NPRM may result in an 

increase in the annual burden and costs 

of this information collection due to 

proposed changes to require packaging 

manufacturers to conduct testing to 

confirm that a combination packaging 

intended for the air transportation of 

liquid hazardous materials is capable of 

withstanding the pressures encountered 

on board aircraft and to maintain a 

documented record of the test results. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, no person is required to 

respond to an information collection 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27281 

unless it has been approved by OMB 

and displays a valid OMB control 

number. Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code 

of Federal Regulations requires that 

PHMSA provide interested members of 

the public and affected agencies an 

opportunity to comment on information 

and recordkeeping requests. 

This notice identifies a revised 

information collection request that 

PHMSA will submit to OMB for 

approval based on the requirements in 

this proposed rule. PHMSA has 

developed burden estimates to reflect 

changes in this proposed rule, and 

estimates the information collection and 

recordkeeping burden as proposed in 

this rule to be as follows: 

OMB Control No.: 2137–0572. 

Annual Number of Respondents: 

1,496. 

Annual Number of Responses: 29,712. 

Annual Burden Hours: 54,525. 

Annual Burden Costs: $1,557,779.25. 

PHMSA specifically requests 

comments on the information collection 

and recordkeeping burdens associated 

with developing, implementing, and 

maintaining these requirements for 

approval under this proposed rule. 

Requests for a copy of this 

information collection should be 

directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn 

Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Standards (PHH–11), Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553. 

Address written comments to the 

Dockets Unit as identified in the 

ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. 

We must receive comments regarding 

information collection burdens prior to 

the close of the comment period 

identified in the DATES section of this 

rulemaking. In addition, you may 

submit comments specifically related to 

the information collection burden to the 

PHMSA Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, at fax number 

202–395–6974. If these proposed 

requirements are adopted in a final rule, 

PHMSA will submit the revised 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements to OMB for 

approval. 

H. Environmental Assessment 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), §§ 4321–4375, requires 

Federal Agencies to analyze regulatory 

actions to determine whether the action 

will have a significant impact on the 

human environment. The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations order Federal Agencies to 

conduct an environmental review 

considering (1) the need for the action, 

(2) alternatives to the action, (3) 

environmental impacts of the action and 

alternatives, and (4) the agencies and 

persons consulted during the 

consideration process. 40 CFR 

1508.9(b). 

Purpose and Need. As discussed 

elsewhere in this preamble, PHMSA 

proposes to amend requirements in the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations to 

enhance the integrity of inner 

packagings or receptacles of 

combination packagings containing 

liquid hazardous material by ensuring 

they remain intact when subjected to 

the reduced pressure and other forces 

encountered in air transportation. In 

order to substantially decrease the 

likelihood of an unintentional 

hazardous materials release to the 

environment, the proposed amendments 

in this notice prescribe specific test 

protocols and standards for determining 

whether an inner packaging or 

receptacle is capable of meeting the 

pressure differential requirements 

specified in the regulations and aligns 

the HMR with international air 

transportation standards. 

Alternatives. PHMSA considered four 

possible alternatives to strengthen 

packaging requirements for air 

shipments of liquid hazardous 

materials: 

Alternative 1: Do nothing. Under this 

alternative, the current regulatory 

scheme applicable to air shipment of 

hazardous liquids would continue in 

place. We rejected this alternative 

because newly identified safety risks 

would not be addressed. 

Alternative 2: Require that friction 

and screw type closures of inner 

packagings intended to contain liquids 

as part of a combination packaging to be 

secured by a secondary means of 

closure. Under this alternative, we 

would adopt the packaging amendments 

included in the 2011–2012 edition of 

the ICAO Technical Instructions. 

Specifically, we would require friction 

and screw type closures of inner 

packagings intended to contain liquids 

as part of a combination packaging to be 

secured by a secondary means of 

closure. For liquids assigned to Packing 

Groups II or III, a leakproof liner could 

be used to satisfy the secondary closure 

requirement where it could not be 

applied or would be impracticable to 

apply. For liquids of Packing Group I, a 

secondary means of closure, absorbent 

material and a leakproof liner would be 

required. We rejected Alternative 2. 

While it would address many of the 

safety issues associated with the 

transportation of liquid hazardous 

materials, Alternative 2 alone does not 

represent a comprehensive systemsoriented regulatory solution and would 

not address problems associated with 

the current pressure differential 

capability standard. 

Alternative 3: Require enhanced 

pressure differential capability 

requirements on all inner packagings 

intended to contain liquids as part of a 

combination packaging. Currently, the 

HMR require that all packages 

transported by air and for which 

retention of liquids is a basic function 

must be capable of withstanding, 

without leakage, a certain pressure 

differential, which is usually 95 

kilopascals (kPa) (§ 173.27[c]). This 

integrity standard applies to both 

specification and non-specification 

packaging. Under this alternative, we 

would require packaging manufacturers 

to conduct testing to confirm that a 

combination packaging intended for the 

air transportation of liquid hazardous 

materials is capable of withstanding the 

pressures encountered on board aircraft 

and to maintain a documented record of 

the test results. We rejected this 

alternative. While it would address 

many of the safety issues associated 

with the transportation of liquid 

hazardous materials, Alternative 3 alone 

does not represent a comprehensive 

systems-oriented regulatory solution. 

Moreover, it does not address critical 

international harmonization issues. 

Alternative 4: Adopt the provisions in 

both Alternatives 2 and 3. Under this 

alternative, PHMSA would adopt the 

new and revised regulatory provisions 

summarized in the discussion of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 above. This is the 

selected alternative. The proposed 

testing requirements will enhance safety 

by ensuring that all liquid hazardous 

materials shipments are contained in 

packages capable of withstanding 

normal conditions encountered in air 

transport and packaged to reduce the 

possibility of damage that could lead to 

an incident. It also harmonizes domestic 

packaging requirements with 

international standards, thereby 

reducing confusion, promoting safety, 

and facilitating efficient transportation. 

Analysis of Environmental Impacts. 

Hazardous materials are substances that 

may pose a threat to public safety or the 

environment during transportation 

because of their physical, chemical, or 

nuclear properties. The hazardous 

material regulatory system is a risk 

management system that is preventionoriented and focused on identifying a 

safety hazard and reducing the 

probability and quantity of a hazardous 

material release. Releases of hazardous 

materials can result in explosions or 

fires, while radioactive, toxic, 

infectious, or corrosive hazardous 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27282 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

materials can have short- or long-term 

exposure effects on humans or the 

environment. 

The potential for environmental 

damage or contamination exists when 

packages of hazardous materials are 

involved in accidents or en route 

incidents resulting from cargo shifts, 

valve failures, package failures, loading, 

unloading, collisions, or handling 

problems. The release of hazardous 

materials can cause the loss of 

ecological resources and the 

contamination of air, aquatic 

environments, and soil. Contamination 

of soil can lead to the contamination of 

ground water. For the most part, the 

adverse environmental impacts 

associated with releases of most 

hazardous materials are short-term 

impacts that can be reduced or 

eliminated through prompt clean-up/ 

decontamination of the accident scene. 

We have reviewed the risks associated 

with transporting combination packages 

containing liquid hazardous materials 

by aircraft and by surface transportation 

to and from aircraft. The amount of 

liquid hazardous material contained in 

air-eligible combination packages to 

which this notice of proposed 

rulemaking applies is minimal and 

ranges anywhere from 0.5L to 220L. 

However, hazardous materials that pose 

the highest risk to humans and the 

environment are packaged in much 

smaller quantities when transported by 

aircraft thereby minimizing any 

consequences to both should a package 

fail and release its contents. For these 

reasons, we conclude there will be little 

or no impact to the environment if the 

provisions proposed in this NPRM are 

adopted. 

Consultation and Public Comment. 

We invite commenters to address 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the proposals in this 

NPRM. 

I. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form for all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit ‘‘http://dms.dot.gov’’. 

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN number contained in the 

heading of this document can be used 

to cross-reference this action with the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 171 

Exports, Hazardous materials 

transportation, Hazardous waste, 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 173 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Packaging and containers, Radioactive 

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Uranium. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR chapter I is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 171—GENERAL INFORMATION, 

REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 171 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 

CFR 1.45 and 1.53; Pub. L. 101–410 section 

4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–134 

section 31001. 

2. In § 171.7, in paragraph (b) table, 

the following changes are made: 

a. Under the source ‘‘American 

Society for Testing and Materials,’’ the 

organization’s telephone number and 

website address are added and the 

material entries ‘‘ASTM D 3078, 

Standard Test Method for Determination 

of Leaks in Flexible Packaging by 

Bubble Emission,’’ ‘‘ASTM D 4991, 

Standard Test Method for Leakage 

Testing of Empty Rigid Containers by 

Vacuum,’’ ‘‘ASTM D 6653, Standard Test 

Methods for Determining the Effects of 

High Altitude on Packaging Systems by 

Vacuum Method’’ and ‘‘ASTM F 1140, 

Standard Test Methods for Internal 

Pressurization Failure Resistance of 

Unrestrained Packages for Medical 

Applications’’ are added in appropriate 

numerical order; 

b. The new source entry ‘‘International 

Safe Transit Association, 1400 Abbott 

Road, Suite 160, East Lansing, MI 

48823–1900. (517) 333–3437. http:// 

www.ista.org.’’ is added and, the 

material entry ‘‘ISTA 3A, PackagedProducts for Parcel Delivery System 

Shipment 70 kg (150 lb) or Less’’ is 

added to the ‘‘Source and name of 

material’’ column and the reference 

entry ‘‘Part 173, appendix E’’ is added to 

the corresponding ‘‘49 CFR reference’’ 

column. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 171.7 Reference material. 

* * * * * 

(b) List of informational materials not 

requiring incorporation by reference. * * 

* 

Source and name of material 49 CFR reference 

* * * * * * * 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Noncurrent ASTM 

Standards are available from: Engineering Societies Library, 354 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017. Telephone: 

(610) 832–9585. Web site: http://www.astm.org. 

ASTM D 3078 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Leaks in Flexible Packaging by Bubble Emission’’ ............... Part 173, appendix E. 

ASTM D 4991 Standard Test Method for Leakage Testing of Empty Rigid Containers by Vacuum .................................. Part 173, appendix E. 

ASTM D 6653 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Effects of High Altitude on Packaging Systems by Vacuum 

Method.

Part 173, appendix E. 

* * * * * * * 

ASTM F 1140 Standard Test Methods for Internal Pressurization Failure Resistance of Unrestrained Packages for 

Medical Applications.

Part 173, appendix E. 

* * * * * * * 

International Safe Transit Association, 1400 Abbott Road Suite 160, East Lansing, MI 48823–1900. Telephone: (517) 

333–3437. Web site: http://www.ista.org. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27283 

Source and name of material 49 CFR reference 

ISTA 3A, Packaged-Products for Parcel Delivery System Shipment 70 kg (150 lb) or Less .............................................. Part 173, appendix E. 

* * * * * * * 

PART 173—SHIPPERS—GENERAL 

REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS 

AND PACKAGINGS 

3. The authority citation for part 173 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 

CFR 1.45, 1.53. 

4. In § 173.27, paragraphs (a), (c)(2), 

(d) and (e) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 173.27 General requirements for 

transportation by aircraft. 

(a) The requirements of this section 

are in addition to requirements 

prescribed elsewhere under this part 

and apply to packages offered or 

intended for transportation aboard 

aircraft. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Any packaging design not already 

subject to § 178.605, for which the 

retention of liquid is a basic function 

(e.g., the inner packagings of a 

combination packaging), must be 

capable of withstanding without leakage 

the greater of— 

(i) An internal pressure that produces 

a gauge pressure of not less 75 kPa (11 

psig) for liquids in Packing Group III of 

Class 3 or Division 6.1; or 95 kPa (14 

psig) for other liquids in accordance 

with an appropriate test method that 

produces the required pressure 

differential between the inside and 

outside of an applicable packaging; or 

(ii) A pressure related to the vapor 

pressure of the liquid to be conveyed, 

determined by one of the following: 

(A) The total gauge pressure measured 

in the receptacle (i.e., the vapor pressure 

of the material and the partial pressure 

of air or other inert gases, less 100 kPa 

(15 psia)) at 55 °C (131 °F), multiplied 

by a safety factor of 1.5; determined on 

the basis of a filling temperature of 15 

°C (59 °F) and a degree of filling such 

that the receptacle is not completely full 

at a temperature of 55 °C (131 °F) or 

less; 

(B) 1.75 times the vapor pressure at 50 

°C (122 °F) less 100 kPa (15 psia); or 

(C) 1.5 times the vapor pressure at 55 

°C (131 °F) less 100 kPa (15 psia). 

(iii) The capability of a packaging to 

withstand an internal pressure without 

leakage that produces the specified 

pressure differential must be 

determined by successfully testing 

design samples or prototypes. The 

appropriate test method and test 

duration selected must be based on 

packaging type (e.g., material of 

construction) in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of Appendix E to this part. 

Examples of acceptable test methods to 

determine pressure differential 

capability are identified in Appendix E 

to this part. For a liquid hazardous 

material where the vapor pressure is 

unknown, the initial boiling point may 

be used to determine minimum 

packaging requirements as specified in 

the Appendix E Table of this part. For 

one or more liquid hazardous materials 

contained in a mixture or solution, the 

individual constituent with the highest 

vapor pressure at 50 °C or the lowest 

initial boiling point (at sea level) may be 

used to determine minimum packaging 

requirements for the entire mixture or 

solution as specified in this section. 

(iv) Testing must be verifiable and 

appropriately documented. Supporting 

documentation must be made available 

for inspection by a representative of the 

Department upon request and for at 

least 90 days once the package is offered 

for transportation. 

* * * * * 

(d) Closures. The body and closure of 

any packaging must be constructed so as 

to be able to adequately resist the effects 

of temperature and vibration occurring 

in conditions normally incident to air 

transportation. Inner packaging or 

receptacle closures must be held 

securely, tightly and effectively in place 

by secondary means. Examples of such 

methods include: Adhesive tape, 

friction sleeves, welding or soldering, 

positive locking wires, locking rings, 

induction heat seals, and child-resistant 

closures. The closure device must be so 

designed that it is unlikely that it can be 

incorrectly or incompletely closed. For 

other than liquids of Packing Group I, 

when a secondary means of closure 

cannot be applied or is impracticable to 

apply to an inner packaging containing 

liquids, this requirement may be 

satisfied by securely closing the inner 

packaging and placing it in a leakproof 

liner before placing the inner packaging 

in its outer packaging. A liquid of 

Packing Group I with a secondary 

means of closure applied must be 

packaged and closed in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(e) Absorbent materials. Except as 

otherwise provided in this subchapter, 

liquid hazardous materials of Classes 3, 

4, or 8, or Divisions 5.1 or 6.1 that are 

packaged and offered for transport in 

glass, earthenware, plastic, or metal 

inner packagings must be packaged 

using absorbent material as follows: 

(1) Packing Group I liquids on 

passenger-carrying and cargo-carrying 

aircraft must be contained in an inner 

packaging with a secondary means of 

closure applied that is further packaged 

in a rigid leakproof liner or rigid 

intermediate packaging containing 

sufficient absorbent material to absorb 

the entire contents of the inner 

packaging before being placed in its 

outer package. 

(2) Absorbent material must not react 

dangerously with the liquid (see 

§§ 173.24 and 173.24a.). 

* * * * * 

5. In part 173, appendix E is added to 

read as follows: 

Appendix E to Part 173—Test 

Procedures for Packagings Intended to 

Meet Pressure Differential 

Requirements for Air Transport 

(a) Test method. Testing for pressure 

differential capability may be conducted 

using internal hydraulic or pneumatic 

pressure (gauge) or external vacuum 

methods. External vacuum tests are not 

acceptable if the specified pressure 

differential is not achieved or maintained. 

The external vacuum test is also not normally 

suitable for: Flexible packagings; packagings 

filled and closed under an absolute 

atmospheric pressure lower than 95 kPa or an 

altitude greater than 1,500 feet; and 

packagings intended for the transport of high 

vapor pressure liquids (i.e., vapor pressures 

greater than 111 kPa @ 50 °C or 130 kPa @ 

55 °C). Metal packagings and composite 

packagings other than plastic (e.g., glass, 

porcelain, or stoneware), including their 

closures, must be subjected to the test 

pressure for at least 5 minutes. Plastic 

packagings, including their closures, must be 

subjected to the test pressure for at least 30 

minutes. The minimum test pressure is one 

that produces an internal pressure (gauge) of 

not less 75 kPa (11 psig) for liquids in 

Packing Group III of Class 3 or Division 6.1; 

or 95 kPa (14 psig) for other liquids in 

accordance with an appropriate test method 

that produces the required pressure 

differential between the inside and outside of 

an applicable packaging. The following 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27284 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

standards are examples of acceptable 

methods that may be used to determine 

pressure differential capabilities of a 

packaging design: 

(i) For non-flexible (i.e., ‘‘rigid’’) inner 

packagings: 

(A) ASTM D 4991, ‘‘Standard Test Method 

for Leakage Testing of Empty Rigid 

Containers by Vacuum.’’ 

(B) ASTM D 6653, ‘‘Standard Test Methods 

for Determining the Effects of High Altitude 

on Packaging Systems by Vacuum Method.’’ 

(C) International Safe Transit Association, 

‘‘ISTA 3A, Packaged-Products for Parcel 

Delivery System Shipment 70 kg (150 lb) or 

Less.’’ 

(ii) For flexible inner packagings: 

(A) ASTM D 3078, ‘‘Standard Test Method 

for Determination of Leaks in Flexible 

Packaging by Bubble Emission.’’ 

(B) ASTM F 1140, ‘‘Standard Test Methods 

for Internal Pressurization Failure Resistance 

of Unrestrained Packages for Medical 

Applications.’’ 

(iii) The hydrostatic pressure test under 

§ 178.605 of this subchapter. 

(iv) Generic flexible test method. This test 

procedure is used to evaluate a flexible bag 

or pouch to determine pressure differential 

capabilities. The test specimens and the 

number of samples must be chosen at 

random, to permit an adequate determination 

of representative performance. When 

conducting the pressure differential test to 

meet the requirements for air transport, a 

minimum of three (3) representative 

specimens of each flexible inner packaging 

must be tested. Testing must be conducted on 

the flexible packaging (primary receptacle or 

secondary packaging) to establish pressure 

differential capabilities. Test specimens must 

be prepared and tested at ambient laboratory 

conditions. 

(A) To begin the procedure, lay flexible 

container on flat surface and, at one of the 

bottom corners, cut an access hole 

approximately 1⁄4′′ long across the corner. 

Insert a 4′′ × 1⁄4;′′ plastic guide tube into the 

cut corner of the bag. Leave a minimum of 

2′′ of tubing extending from the corner of the 

bag. This tube is used as a guide to insert the 

copper tube. Seal the bag according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions while 

maintaining the 2′′ extension on the outside 

of the bag. Position the bag to guide the 

copper tube into the bag where the plastic 

tube is extending out of the flexible bag. To 

seal the cut end of the bag, use sponge rubber 

to protect the bag from the clamps. Clamp the 

flat area of the copper tube with quick 

clamps. Place the bag on a flat surface and 

rest for 30 minutes. 

(B) After 30 minutes, slowly pressurize the 

sample to 2–3 psi. Hold for one minute. 

Continue to increase the pressure until a 

pressure of 95 kPa (14 psig) is reached. Once 

the desired pressure is reached, conduct the 

test and monitor for 30 minutes. Upon 

completion of the test, submerge the bag in 

water, or other appropriate means, to check 

for leakage. Disconnect the pressure hoses 

from each of the fittings and inspect each 

specimen carefully and note any leakage that 

may have occurred or damage to the 

specimen. Document results of test on test 

report for packaging design. 

(b) Table. For a liquid where the boiling 

point, initial boiling point or vapor pressure 

is known, the following table prescribes the 

corresponding minimum test pressure for 

packagings subject to pressure differential 

requirements in § 173.27(c). For a mixture or 

solution, the individual constituent with the 

highest vapor pressure at 50 °C or the 

individual constituent with the lowest initial 

boiling point may be used to determine the 

minimum test pressure its packaging must be 

capable of withstanding for the mixture or 

solution as a whole. 

(Initial) Boiling Point in °C ................................................. ≥ 48 °C ≥ 45 °C ≥ 40 °C ≥ 35 °C ≥ 30 °C ≥ 25 °C ≥ 20 °C 

Vapor Pressure @ 50 °C in kPa ........................................... ≤ 111 °C ≤ 125 °C ≤ 150 °C ≤ 175 °C ≤ 205 °C ≤ 240 °C ≤ 300 °C 

Required Minimum Test Pressure in kPa .......................... 95 kPa 1 120 kPa 165 kPa 210 kPa 260 kPa 320 kPa 425 kPa 

NOTE 1: 75 kPa (minimum) for liquids in Packing Group III of Class 3 or Division 6.1. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010 

under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 

106. 

Magdy El-Sibaie, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11384 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS