5270 7, 1985 surveys prepared and certified by a civil

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 1985 / Proposed Rules

by the Bureau's personnel. The 90-dayrequirement is no longer neededbecause this program is now anestablished part of the Bureau'sprocedures and the Bureau will continueits efforts to expedite applications forconveyance of Federally owned mineralinterests.

The principal author of this proposedrulemaking in David Hemstreet, Divisionof Lands, assisted by the staff of theOffice of Legislation and RegulatoryManagement, Bureau of LandManagement.

It is hereby determined that thisrulemaking does not constitute a majorFederal action significantly affecting thequality of the human environment andthat no detailed statement pursuant tosection 102(2)(C) of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 43322)(C)) is required.

The Department of the Interior hasdetermined that this document is not amajor rule under Executive Order 12291and will not have a significant economiceffect on a substantial number of smallentities under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.].

The changes made by this proposedrulemaking are designed to clarifyprocedural questions that have arisenduring the 3 years that this program hasbeen conducted under the existingregulations. The changes will notincrease the cost of filing an applicationfor conveyance of federally ownedmineral interests and may, in fact,reduce such costs by permitting greaterflexibility on the acceptance of surveydescriptions, rather than requiring thatthey conform to the public land surveysystem descriptions. The minor changesmade by this proposed rulemaking willimpact all applicants equally, with nosignificant economic effect on smallentities.

The information collectionrequirements contained in 43 CFR Part2720 have been submitted to the Officeof Management and Budget for approvalunder 44 U.S.C. 3507.

List of subjects in 43 CFR Part 2720

Administrative practice andprocedure, Public Lands-mineralresources, Public lands-sales.

PART 2720-[AMENDED]

Under the authority of sections 209and 310 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1719,1740), it is proposed to amend Part 2720,Group 2700, Subchapater B, Chapter II ofTitle 43 of the Code of FederalRegulations as set forth below:

§ 2720.0-5 [Amended]1. Section 2720.0-5 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (d) to iead:(d) Proof of ownership means

evidence of title acceptable in localrealty practice by attorneys and titleexaminers and may include a currcnttitle attorney's opinion, based on acurrent abstract of title prepared by abonded title insurance or title abstractcompany doing business in the localewhere the lands are located.

2. A new section 2720.0-6 is added toread:

§ 2720.0-6 Policy.As required by the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act,conveyance shall be made only if it canbe clearly demonstrated that the mineralreservation is interfering with orprecluding appropriate nonmineraldevelopment of the lands and tliiatnonmineral development is a morebeneficial use than mineraldevelopment. Allegation, hypothecationor speculation that such conditionscould or may exist at some future trmeshall not be sufficient basis forconveyance. Failure to establish byconvincing factual evidence that therequisite conditions of interference orpreclusion presently exist, and thatnonmineral development is a morebeneficial use, shall result in therejection of an application.

§ 2720.1-1 [Amended]3. Section 2720.1-1 is amended by

designating the introductory text asparagraph (a), redesignating the exiatingpragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (a)(1) and (2] and adding a new paragraph(b) to read:

(b) Publication in the Federal Registerof a notice of the filing of an applicationunder this part shall segregate themineral interests owned by the UnitedStates in the public lands covered by theapplication to the extent that they willnot be subject to appropriation underthe public land laws, including themining laws. The segregative effect ofthe application shall terminate eitherupon issuance of a patent or otherdocument of conveyance to suchmineral interests, upon final rejection ofthe application or 2 years from the dateof filing of the application, which everoccurs first.

§ 2720.1-2 [Amended]4. Section 2720.1-2(d)(3) is amended

by removing the phrase "to theapplicant; and" at the end thereof andreplacing it with the phase "and ashowing of ownership in the applicant,with supporting survey evidence, % hichmay consist of a metes and bounds

surveys prepared and certified by a civilengineer or land surveyor licensedunder the laws of the State in which thelands are located; and".

§ 2720.1-3 [Amended]Section 2720.1-3(a) is amended by

removing from the beginning of theparagraph the phrase "Within 90 daysof" and replacing it with the words"Upon".

Dated: October 12, 1984.Leona A. Power,Acti ng Assistant Secretary of the Interior.[FR Doc. 85-3111 Filed 2-6-85: 8:45 am]BILLING COOE 4310,-4-U

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. 6640]

Proposed Flood ElevationDeterminations

Correction

In FR Doc. 85--1846, beginning on page3544 in the issue of Friday, January 25,1985, make the following correction:

On page 3561, in the third column ofthe table, the second entry from thebottom reading "Pamlico Sound PamlicoCounty" should have read "PamlicoSound", and in the directly adjacentsecond column, the entry"Unincorporated Areas," should haveread "Unincorporated Areas, PamlicoCounty".BILLING CODE ISOS-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special ProgramsAdministration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 173

[Docket No. HM-196, Notice No. 85]

Packaging and PlacardingRequirements for Liquids Toxic byInhalation

AGENCY: Materials TransportationBureau, Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes specialpackaging and more stringent placardingrequirements for certain poisonousliquids based on their potentialinhalation hazards. This action isnecessary because the MaterialsTransportation Bureau (MTB) believesthere are deficiencies in the packagings

5270


presently specified for such materialswhen they become authorized byreference to "n.o.s." (not otherwisespecified) packaging sections. Also,MTB believes such materials should besubject to the placarding requirementsspecified in the Hazardous MaterialsRegulations (HMR) without exception.The intended effect of this action is toestablish a higher level of safety for thetransportation of toxic liquids that poseserious inhalation risks.DATE: Comments must be received on orbefore March 14, 1985.ADDRESS: Address comments to:Dockets Branch, MaterialsTransportation Bureau, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Washington, D.C.20590 and be submitted, if possible, infive copies. The Dockets Branch islocated in room 8420 of the NassifBuilding, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. Office hours are 8:30a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Thomas Allan, Standards Division,Office of Hazardous MaterialsRegulation, Materials TransportationBureau, Department of Transportation,400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,D.C. 20590 (202-426--2075).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Action

On December 3, 1984, a discharge of amaterial identified as methyl isocyanate(MIC) occurred at the pesticide plant ofUnion Carbide (India) in Bhopal, India.More than two thousand people died asa result of the discharge.

On December 19, 1984, the Chairmanof the National Transportation SafetyBoard (NTSB) addressed a letter to theAdministrator of the Research andSpecial Programs Administration(RSPA), urging the Department to re-examine its system of hazardidentification and classification, and toupdate it in accordance with currenttechnology in order to raise theminimum level of protection provided inthe Hazardous Materials Regulations.The NTSB letter is as follows:

Dear Ms. Douglass: The December 3, 1984,release of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from amanufacturing plant at Bhopal, India, resultedin a tragedy of monumental proportions. It isdifficult to accept the fact that a material,whose primary hazard as classified by theDepartment of Transportation (DOT) is itsflammability, would cause such widespreaddeath due to its toxicity.

Because of its continuing concern aboutdeficiencies in the DOT's hazard

identification and classification system, asdescribed in the Safety Board's SafetyReport, "Status of Department ofTransportation's Hazardous MaterialsRegulatory Program," (NTSB-SR-81-2) andmore recently, as discussed at its July 26-27,1983, public hearing on the safety of railyardsin populated areas, the Board has compiledtoxicity and other data for these materialsand information about the safety measurestaken by Union Carbide and others in theirtransportation. Our review of this informationindicates that there is an urgent need toimprove the manner in which toxic materialsare classified and to raise the minimum levelsof protection required by federal regulationsin transporting these materials.

Although MIC is classified by DOTregulations as flammable liquid just as isgasoline, I Union Carbide's handling of thismaterial reflects more fully the true hazard itpresents. For example, without limits on thequantity per container and in accordancewith DOT regulations, Union Carbide oranyone else, could elect to ship this materialby rail in the least protected of DOTspecification tank cars (ARA, 103, 104, and111); instead, Union Carbide requires MIC tobe transported in DOT Specification 115 tankcars which are double-walled and insulatedand have stainless steel tanks limited incapacity to 8,000 gallons. Similarly,containers offering greater than the requiredprotection are used by Union Carbide forhighway shipments. Moreover, UnionCarbide does not allow the transportation ofthis material by highway with other materialson the same vehicle and, based on indepthstudies, it specifies the routing of all itsshipments to assure minimum exposure to thepublic of this material during itstransportation. These increased safeguardsfor all shipments of MIC are possible becauseUnion Carbide is the only U.S. manufacturerand is able to control fully its distribution;however, this is not true of other materialswhich pose similar toxic threats in the eventof a transportation emergency.

The DOT system for identifying andclassifying the hazards of materials is theoutgrowth of a system developed over theyears by industry. In developing the system,industry primarily used accident experienceto make judgments about the hazard posedby a material and about the adequacy ofpackaging methods to minimize the potentialfor releases of materials duringtransportation. Also controlling industry'sassessment of the types and degree of thehazards posed by materials were itsconsideration only of acute threats to life, itslimitation of concern to the safety of peoplein the immediate area of an accident, and itsbelief that accidents almost always wouldinvolve a fire. Since DOT's inheritance of thishazard classification system in 1967, anoverall, objective assessment using currenttechnology, has not been made to determineits continued adequacy for identifying fullythe hazards posed to public safety and health

I If a material is both flammable and meets thecriteria for Poison B materials, it must be classified

when materials are released as a result oftransportation accidents.

The tragedy of Bhopal, resulting in thedeaths of more than 2,000 people, involvedthe release of material from a tank containingabout 3,750 gallons of MIC: Fire was notinvolved and the DOT material classificationprovided no inference that such a releaseposed a major threat to public safety. In anattempt to understand why this release ofMIC produced results similar to thosenormally associated with Class A Poisonsand why this hazard was not identified bythe DOT's system for classifying the hazardsof materials, the DOT's requirements foridentifying toxic hazards were reviewed. Thetable below which lists various materials andselected properties of materials wasdeveloped by the Safety Board. The tableincludes toxic materials shipped underseveral DOT classifications so as to comparethe lethal properties of Class A Poisons withthose of materials in other classifications. Ascan be seen from this data, the propertywhich most distinguishes Class A Poisonsfrom others is their higher vapor pressures(all are gases as opposed to liquids). The 1."values, while not directly comparable, showall listed materials to be lethal atconcentrations significantly below the lowerflammability limit. For example, MIC can belethal at 5 parts per million (ppm) yet doesnot reach its lower flammable limit untilthere exists a 53,000 ppm concentration.

Although not specifically acknowledged bythe DOT's definition, there is a relationshipbetween the standard vapor pressure,lethality, and boiling point of materialsclassed as Class A Poisons. This relationshiprecognizes the natural tendency of toxicmaterials to vaporize into the air. However, itdoes not consider the ability of other toxicmaterials, when heated thermally orchemically, to vaporize as readily as Class APoisons under standard conditions.Moreover, the definition of Class A Poisonsestablishes no standards or tests fordetermining which materials constitute athreat sufficient to be included in thisclassification. Furthermore, the criteriaestablished for identifying Class B Poisonscontain no upper limits on toxicity such thatmaterials exceeding a specified toxicitywould be classes as a Class A Poison and beprotected during transportation at the levelspecified for Class A Poisons. Statedotherwise the DOT hazard classification doesnot consider the possible site-specifichazards to public safety and health ofmaterials in accident environments. As canhappen when materials are involved intransportation accidents, it appears that thevaporization rate of MIC at Bhopal wasincreased by heat generated by a chemicalreaction causing the release of lethal butnonflammable vapors which were distributedwidely by air currents.

as flammable according to the requirements of 49CFR 173.2.

5271


Boiling Vapor Flammable limitsMaterial DOT class L.1 (ppm/time) poii pressur

__ _ _ _ 'F (mm) percent)

Methyl Isocyanate .............. Flammable liquid .............. 5/4 rs ................................. 102 348 5.3-26.Toluene dilsocyanate . Poison 8 ............. .... 10/4 hbr ....................... 484 0.024 0.9-9.5.Phosgene .. Poison A . 150/10 min 47 1.180 Nonflammable.Acrolein ............. Flammable, lquid. 150/10 min .............. 125 214 2.8-31.Hydrogen cyanide. . Poison A,...,- 150130 min ......................... 79 620 5 -40.Cyanogen chloride . Poison A.............. ......... .......... 55 1,010 6,6-32.Epichlorohydrln. .... Flammable iqu!d . 250/4 hr .............. .. 239 13 3.8-21.Nit said (red uning). Cooe 4914 ....... ..................... 155 103 Noncombustible.

1Letal concenlration--the concentration at which 50 percent of the animals (generally rodents) die wihen exposed for thelime specified.

The hazard indentification andclassification system must identifycompletely the hazards posed to life andhealth by each material during normaltransportation and during emergenciesbecause this knowledge influences greatlydecisions made about the level of protectionrequired for containers used in transportingmaterials and influences public safetyprotection measures which are institutedwhen materials are released duringtransportation. The DOT first was cautionedin 1969 aboqt deficiencies in its hazardclassification system by the NationalAcademy of Science (NAS) in its report, "AStudy of Transportation of HazardousMaterials: A Report to the Office ofHazardous Materials of the U.S. Departmentof Transportation." Because therecommendations made in the NAS reportwere not implemented by the DOT andbecause similar deficiencies have beenidentified in accident investigations since1972, the Safety Board has made severalrecommendations (R-72-44, 1-76--3, R-80-12,1-81-6, and 1-81-14) calling for improvementsin the DOT hazard identification andclassification system as well as forimprovements in packaging requirements forspecific hazardous materials.

One recommendation of particularimportance in light of the tragedy at Bhopal isR-80-12. That recommendation called for anexamination of speciality products and ClassA Poisons to determine if the toxicity hazardof materials transported in DOT Specification111 tank cars was sufficient to require theprotection afforded by head shields andthermal insulation. In the Federal RailroadAdministration's July 14,1982, response tothis recommendation, the Safety Board wasadvised that the toxicity hazards of productstransported in DOT Specification 111 tankcars were being reviewed as a part of actionsbeing taken in rulemaking Docket HM-175and that the benefit/cost analysis for HIM-175had been completed. The FRA committeditself to including the results of the review ofother products shipped in DOT Specificationcars as well as the review of the benefit/costanalysis in the final action taken on DocketHM-175. Based on this commitment, theboard acted on October 1, 1982, to close R-80-12 as acceptable action. On January 27,1984, final action was taken on Docket HM-175; that action did not include anassessment of the hazards posed to publicsafety and health based on the toxicity ofmaterials.

The Safety Board continues to urge thatearly attention be given by the DOT to re-examination of its hazard identification and

classification system. However, the tragedyat Bhopal is another reminder of the need forimmediate action by the DOT is identifymaterials that, during accident conditions,can present toxic threats to pul~lic safety andhealth similar to those demonstrated in therecent release of MIC. Many questions aboutthe toxicity of materials now unanswered byDOT's hazard identification andclassification system must be answered todetermine which flammable liquids, Class BPoisons, corrosives, and other materials, canpose life-threatening hazards during accidentconditions as we now know MIC can. Forexample, the properties listed in the abovetable indicates that acrolein poses hazardssimilar to those MIC. We believe thesematerials can be indentified expeditiouslythrough a study of additional materials-specific properties to assess the volatility ofthe materials based on their vapor pressuresand boiling points. In this way the hazardsposed by the materials when fire does notresult during accidents as well as therelationship to published toxicity data onmaterials can be realted [sic] totransportation environments.

The Safety Board encourages you topursue, as a priority action, the identificationof those materials now being transportedthat, during transportation emergencies, canpose life-threatening hazards to the public.The results of this effort then should be usedto adopt, on an emergency basis, necessarychanges In DOT's regulations concerning thetransportation of those products found topossess hazards similar te MIC.

Respectfully yours,Jim Burnett,Chairman.

The Department believes there ismerit in the basis concerns raised byNTSB-in particular, the pointsaddressing inhalation risks due to thevolatility of toxic liquids and the needfor immediate action relative to thepackaging of such materials. This NPRMaddresses toxic liquids that havesignificant volatility, their packaging,and improved communication of theirpresence in transport vehicles.

Background

As mentioned by the NTSB, thepresent system for identifying andclassifying the poisonous [toxic] hazardsof materials has its basis inrecommendations made to the InterstateCommerce Commission prior to transferof regulatory responsibilities to DOT in

1967. However, the followingbackground information onrecommendations and efforts to imprvethe classification system for toxic(poisonous) materials begins with theNational Academy of Sciences (NAS)report in 1969 which is mentioned in theNTSB letter.

Since the NAS Report has been citedon a number of occasions, particularlythat portion dealing with theclassification of hazardous materials,the report of the Panel that addressedthe subject is included as an appendixto this notice. There were fourappendices to the NAB Report; threediscussed general approaches toclassification and the fourth addressedtest methods for flashpoint. No newcriteria were suggested fordetermination of inhalation risks takinginto account the volatility of materials.Relevant to this NPRM is a portion ofAppendix II-A addressing healthhazards which reads as follows:

Appendix IJ-A.-Suggested Approaches toClassification

Health HazardsThe health hazards of materials being

transported are characterized by their acuteeffects on human health according to thesubcategories that follow. Note that thesubject of mechanical trauma has not beenconsidered in this classification.Consideration should be given, but Is notIncluded here, to the problem of the evolutionof toxic gases during fires.

Systemic HazardsDegree 1. Use standard definitions for toxic

substances by inhalation, ingestion, andabsorption through the skin as set forth in theproposed revision of USDA Interpretation 18,Item 18. published in the Federal Register onApril 4, 1969.

Degree 2. Use standard definitions forhighly toxic substances (poisons) byinhalation, ingestion, and absorption throughthe skin given in the FHSA regulations,except that an LDMe or LCso shall supplant thesingle dosage to 10 animals. This is inkeeping with test methods recommended byUSDA regulations, Interpretation 18, andNAS-NRC Report 1138.

Irritant Gases and Vapors, Dusts, and MistsHazards

Degree 1. As considered here, thesesubstances make reference to reversible localirritant effects on eyes, nose, and throat,.exclusive of systemic effects. An irritantaction must be determined by humanexperience since animal tests are notpresently available. Lachrymatory action onthe eye and sternutators are also included inthis category.

On June 6, 1970, the followingappeared in the Federal Register

5272 -'


fDocket HM-51; 35 FR 9831) relative toinhalation hazards:

Adtance Notice of Proposed RulemakingOn August 21, 1968 (33 FR 11862), the

Hazardous Materials Regulations Boardannounced a plan to revise the regulationsgoverning the transportation of hazirdousmaterials. That document announccd theintention to issue notices of proposed rulemaking in at least four areas, including,"classification and labels", and'intited publichelp in developing the basic regulatoryprinciples to guide the Board in revising theegulations.

The Board is planning to consider, in the,ae"r future, a proposal for classification testsfor poisonous materials. To assist the BoardM that consideration, the public is invited toexpress its views on the health hazardclassification tests proposed herein. Thisdocument is not a proposal to change ther egalations. It is an effort to get publicparticipation early in the rule-makingprocess.

The present definitions of poisonousmaterials contain specific testing criteria onlyin the case of class B poisons. There are nocriteria now provided for class A poisons urirritating materials (includirg test gases). Asd result, the public cannot practically relyupon those definitions to determine when theFederal regulations apply. In order to correctthat situation, the Department proposes toadopt testing criteria for those latter twoi;ategories.

The National Research Council-NationalAcademy of Sciences assisted theJepartment in developing these test criteria.In addition, the testing procedures andbenchmarks used by the Departments ofAgriculture and Health, Education, andWelfare have also been considered to ensureharmony between the regulatory standards of.he several Federal agencies havingiurisdiction in this area (see, for example,I 191.1 of the regulations of the Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, 21 CFRPart 191, and J 362.116 of the regulations ofthe Department of Agrirulture, 7 CFR Part362).

Types of health hazards. The healthhazards of materials being transported arecharacterized by their acute effects on humanhealth. Hazards to be considered are:Systemic hazards.Contact hazards.irritant hazards.

Systemic hazards exist when materials arecapable of causing harmful effects throughinhalation, ingestion, or absorption throughthe skirl

Hazard degrees. Degrees of hazard areranked according to the potential severity ofthe hazard to people. The establishment ofhazard degrees is necessary in order toestablish packaging criteria reflecting thepotential severity of the damage if a productshould escape from its packaging duringtransportation. This potential must be takeninto account in the design and integrity ofpackaging used in the shipment of the toxicproducts. The major categories and criteriaare as follows:

Etrtrl~ey dongerous poisons. Materialswould be classified as extremely dangerouspoisons if, on short exposure, they couldcause deaths er major residual injury tohumans. In the absence of adequate data onhuman toxicity, a material would bepresumed to be extremely poisonous tohumans if it falls within any one of thefollowing categories when tested onlaboratory animals:

(2) lnhalkticn. Any material that has anLCo of 75 parts per million by volume or lessor 0.75 milligrams per liter by volume or lessof vapor, mist or dust when administered bycontinuous inhalation for 1 hour or less toboth male and female rats, each weighingbetween 200 and 300 grams. If the material isadninistered to the animals as a dust or mist,more than 90 percent of the particlesavailable for inhalation in the test must havea diameter of 10 microns or less.

Toxic materials. Materials would beclassified as toxic if on short exposure theycould cause serious temporary or residualinjury to humans. In the absence of adequatedata on human toxicity, a material would bepresumed to be toxic to humans if it fallswithin any one of the following categorieswhen tested on aboratory animals:

(2] Inhalation. Any material that has anLCo of more than 75 parts per million byvolume but not more than 200 parts permillion or more then 0.75 milligram but notmore than 2 milligrams per liter of vapor,mist, or dust when administered bycontinuous inhalation for 1 hour or less toboth male and female rats, each weighingbetween 200 and 300 grams. If the product isadministered to the animals as a dust or mist,more than 90 percent of the particlesavailable for inhalation in the test must havea dinmapser of 10 microns or less.

On February 12, 1971, the followingappeared in the Federal Register(Docket-51; 30 FR 2934) relative toinhalation hazaids:

Second Advanced Notice of ProposedRulcmaking

On june 6,1970, the Hazardous MaterialsRegulations Board published an AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rule Making Docket No.HM-51 (35 FR 8831), inviting publicassistance in developing regulatory principlesfor the classification of certain hazardousmaterials on the basis of their health hazards.

The comments received generally relatedto toxicity test procedures, classification, anddegrees of toxicity.

Toxicity test procedures. Most commentersagreed that toxicity test procedures should beuniform among regulatory agencies, notingeven minor variations by DOT could beconfusing. Apprehension was displayedconcerning the use of tests and other criteriawhich were not developed specifically for thetransportation environment.

Degrees of toxicity. There was no commonopinion expressed in this area. One group of

commenters suggested retaining only onetoxic category as Poison B, leaving the PoisonA category for gases only, and possiblyplacing some quantitative benchmarks onthis category. Others agreed in principle withthe designation of various degrees butsuggested modifications.

The present definiticns of poisonousmaterials only contain specific testing criteriaor guidelines for Class B poisons. There areno critpria or sufficiently descriptiveguidelines for Class A or Class C poisons.Consequently, the public may encounterdifficulty in relying solely on those definitionsto determine the applicability of theregulations. In order to improve this situation,the Board proposes to adopt testing criteriawherever possible and better descriptiveguidellnes for all toxic materials covered bythe Department's regulations.

The National Research Council-NationalAcademy of Sciences assisted theDepartment in developing these test criteria.In addition, the testing procedures andhazard degrees used by the Departments ofAgriculture and Health. Education, andWelfare were considered to insure harmon)among the regulatory siandards of Federalagencies having jurisdiction with respect tohealth hazards of chemicals.

The health hazards of materials beingtransported are proposed to be characterizedby their acute effects on human health. Thehazards considered are systemic hazards andirritant hazards. Systemic or internal hazardsexist when materials, if inhaled, ingested, orabsorbed through the skin can have harmfuleffects on organs and tissues other than atthe site of contact.

.Drgices of hazard would be rankedaccording to the potential severity of thehazard to people. The establishment ofhazard degrees is necessary in order toestablish packaging criteria reflecting thepotential severity of the damage if a productshould escape from its packaging duringtransportation. The major categories andcriteria which would be proposed are asfollows:

Extremely toxic substances. Materialswould be classified as extremely toxiciubstauces if, on short exposure, they couldcause death or major residual injury tohumans. In the absence of adequate data onhuman toxicity, a material would bepresumed to be extremely toxic to humans ifit fell within any one of the followingcategories when tested on laboratoryanimals, according to the U.S. Department ofAgriculture test procedures described underTitle 7, Chapter 3, § 352.8 of the FederalRegulations.

(2) Inhalation: Any material that has anLC3 o of 50 parts per million or less by volumeof a gas or vapor, or 0.50 milligrams or less ofmist or dust per liter of air whenadministered by continuous inhalation for 1hour to both male and female white rats(young adults]. If the material is administeredto the animals as a dust or mist, more than 90percent of the particles available for

5273


inhalation in the test must have a diameter of10 microns or less, provided the Departmentfinds it reaonsably foreseeable that suchconcentrations could be encountered by man.

Highly toxic materials. Materials would beclassified as highly toxic if, on shortexposure, they could cause serious temporaryor residual injury to humans. In the absenceof adequate data on human toxicity, amaterial would be presumed to be highlytoxic to humans if it fell within any one of thefollowing categories when tested onlaboratory animals, according to the U.S.Department of Agriculture test proceduresdescribed under Title 7, Chapter 3, § 302.8 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations.

(2) Inhalation: Any material that has anL 0o of more than 50 parts per million byvolume of gas or vapor but not more than 200aprts per million or more than 0.50 milligram,but not more than 2 milligrams of mist or dustper liter of air when administered bycontinuous inhalation for 1 hour or less toboth male and female white rats (youngadults). If the product is administered to theanimals as a dust or mist, more than 90.percent of the particles available forinhalation in the test must have a diameter of10 microns or less provided the Departmentfinds that it is reasonably foreseeable thatsuch concentrations could be encountered byman.

On January 24, 1974, DOT publishedextensive proposals under HM-112combining actions under a number ofdockets, including HM-51. Included inthe rulemaking was proposed adoptionof a new placarding system, improvedpackaging for air shipments andstandardized shipping paperrequirements, and new definitiveclassification criteria for extremely andhighly toxic materials. The proposals inthe notice pertaining to inhalation riskswere as follows:

§ 173.326 Extremely toxic materials;definition.

(a) For the purpose of this subchapter, asubstance is considered to be an extremelytoxic material if it falls within any one of thefollowing categories when tested onlaboratory animals according to the testprocedures described in this paragraph:

(2) Inhalation. Any material that has anLC6o or 50 parts per million or less by volumeof a gas or vapor, or 0.50 milligram or less ofmist or dust per liter of air whenadministered by continuous inhalation for 1hour to both male and female white rats(young adults). If the material is administeredto the animals as a dust or mist, more than 90percent of the particles available forinhalation in the test must have a diameter of10 microns or less, provided it is reasonablyforeseeable that such concentrations could beencountered by man in transportation.* * * a * ,

§ 173.326a Highly toxic materials; definiton.

(a) For the purpose of this subchapter, asubstance is considered to be a highly toxicmaterial if it falls within any one of thefollowing categories when tested onlaboratory animals according to the testprocedures described in this paragraph:* * * * a

(2) Inhalation. Any material that has anLso or more than 50 parts per million byvolume of gas or vapor but not more than 200parts per million or more than 0.50 milligram,but not more than 2 milligrams of mist or dustper liter of air when administered bycontinuous inhalation for 1 hour or less toboth male and female white rats (youngadults). If the product is administered to theanimals as a dust or mist, more than 90percent of the particles available forinhalation in the test must have a diameter of10 microns or less provided it is redsonablyforeseeable that such concentrations could beencountered by man in transportation.

The comments received in response tothe three notices generally reflectedopposition indicating (1) nodemonstrated need for change, (2)conflict with definitions of otheragencies, (3) differences withinternational standards, (4) proliferationof sublabelling elements, and (5)increased freight rates. There wereseveral comments relative to volatility,but not in a postive sense. A typicalcomment was as follows:

Inhalation

A liquid could have an LCso of 75 ppmunder laboratory test conditions but present anegligible hazard in transportation because oflow vapor pressure. Similarly, a solid couldbe highly toxic if tested in a highly divideddust form but be shipped as par ticles toolarge to penetrate into the lungs. To be valid,this classification must embody the conceptof likelihood of test concentrations actuallyexisting in the field. This concept appearsgenerally in statutory codes. Thus, theFederal Hazardous Substances Act says,"-provided such concentration is likely to beencountered by man when the substance isused in any reasonably foreseeable manner."

Accordingly, we recommend that the firstsentence in this paragraph be revised byadding something similar to the following:"-provided such concentration is likely to beencountered by man under any reasonablyforeseeable conditions in normaltransportation."

The recommendation quoted abovewas included in the second ANPRM. Nopositive recommendations werereceived concerning a means to addressthe volatility of liquids in associationwith the LC5o values.

On April 15, 1976, as part of thepreamble to the Final Rule under DocketHM-112 (41 FR 15976), DOT stated thefollowing:

Poisonous or Toxic Materials. A number ofcomments were received concerning theuncertainty between extremely and highlytoxic definitions as well as the confusionover the differences between irritants andORM-A materials. It was suggested that areturn to the old nonmenclature as somethingthat was currently understood would beappropriate. It was also pointed out that thehazard class and the wording on the labeland placard were different. Recently therehas been considerable discussion with OSHAand the Consumer Product SafetyCommission over the criteria for evaluatingthe poison hazard of a material. Although theproposed definition was derived afterconsiderable discussions with the NationalAcademy of Sciences and HEW several yearsago, the current thinking is toward somewhatmodified versions of these definitions.International discussions on this subject (UNand IMCO) have also indicated some need tomodify the proposed definitions. It wastherefore decided to return to the currentdefinitions of Poison A and Poison B, andIrritant, and leave the definition of ORM-Aessentially the same as that of ORA-A asdefined by IATA. A notice will be preparedon this subject for public comment as soon aspossible. New names for these hazard classeswill also be considered at that time. Anymaterial currently listed as Poison A is againlisted as Poison A in the Hazardous MaterialsTable and any material proposed in HM-112as Extremely Toxic has been restored to itsprevious classification.

The "current thinking" alluded to wasprimarily related to the potential of thevapors of toxic materials to cause harmas a result of discharges duringtransportation, usually expressed interms of boiling point or vapor pressure.M B now considers its decision toterminate the proposed definitions inanticipation of development of improvedmethodology to be unfortunate becauseof the lengthy delay in bringing thematter to an appropriate resolution. If,as proposed in 1974, the rule had beenadopted, materials such as MIC wouldhave been classed Extremely ToxicMaterials because of the precedencetable proposed in § 173.2 (HM-112; 39FR 3094) which would have given"Extremely toxic liquid or solid" aclassification precedence over"Flammable liquid".

According to the proposed rule, underHM-112, the packaging for anyextremely toxic material covered by ann.o.s. entry would have been veryrestricted according to § 173.328 (39 FR3115] unless the necessary safety controlmeasures for a material were addressedin a separate section of the regulationsby rulemaking.

While MTB was awaiting furtherinternational action on resolution of thedefinitions pertaining to inhalationtoxicity, action was taken to improve

5274


the communication requirements forhazardous materials in transportation.On May 22, 1980, a Final Rule wasissued under HM-126 (45 FR 34560)requiring, as relevant to this NPRM, that(1) dual hazards of materials addressedby n.o.s. (not otherwise specified)entries in § 172.101 (49 CFR) berecognized by new shipping names, e.g.,"'Flammable liquid, poisonous, n.o.s.",[2) under § 172.203(k), a shipping papercontain, in association with the shippingname specified for a material, itstechnical or NIOSH Registry name, forimproved identification in emergencies;(3] the word "Poison" be displayed on ashipping paper in association with thedescription and class when thedescription and class do not indicatethat a material is a poison; and (4) UN/NA numbers be displayed on shippingpapers and packagings for directreference to emergency responseinformation, including DOT's EmergencyResponse Guidebook. While the newrequirements provided substantialimprovement in identifying risks, theydid not provide for packagings of higherintegrity for materials described as"Flammable liquid, poisonous, n.o.s."posing a substantial risk due to theirvolatility; therefore, the new shippingentry referenced § 173.119(m) forpackaging without special regard tomaterials posing inhalation hazards asopposed to those posing oral and dermalhazards.

At the international level, work beganas early as 1974 on the development ofnew criteria for toxic materials thatwould not only consider acute toxicityon inhalation (LC6o), but also the abilityof material to reach a dangerousconcentration in the event of adischarge.

The United Nations (UN) Committeeof Experts on the Transport ofDangerous Goods had been aware forsome time that a system of classificationbased solely on the LC~o of materialsdoes not always characterize the actualhazard presented by materials in'transport. What the Committeeconsidered necessary was a method ofclassification and packaging groupingthat more accurately reflects theprobability of poisoning by consideringthe volatility of a material as well as itstoxicity.

The first proposal to do this,submitted to the UN Committee ofExperts by the delegation of the SovietUnion in December of 1974, proposedthat the relative inhalation hazard ofmaterials be assessed throughdetermination of the material's "toxicpoint". The "toxic point" of a materialwas defined as the temperature at which

the vapor concentration of a materialreached its LC o. Although this conceptappeared sound initially, it soon becameevident that the toxic point method hadsome practical drawbacks, relating inparticular to its heavy reliance ondetermination of the vapor pressure of amaterial at a number of differenttemperatures in order to accuratelydetermine its toxic point.

In response to the criticismsexperssed by some members of theCommittee of Experts regarding the"toxic point" method, the U.S.representative with assistance ofrepresentatives from U.S. industrybegan to examine alternate approachesto the problem.

In May of 1977, the United Statesdelegation submitted an alternateproposal t the UN Committee proposinguse of a material's normal boiling pointas an indicator of relative volatility,rather than vapor pressure. The UnitedKingdom delegation proposed a thirdmethod for consideration. This methodmade use of LCo as an indicator ofacute inhalation toxicity, and used a"volatility" factor as an indicator of thepotential of the substance to reach lethalconcentration in event of a spill. The"volatility" of the substance wasdefined as the saturated vaporconcentration of the substancemeasured at 20 *C.

The Committee of Experts carefullyassessed the merits of each of the threemethods and, unable to decide on theuse of one method to the exclusion ofthe other two, and recognizing the needto address the problem of inhalationrisks in transport at the earliest possibletime, the Committee decided, at itsTenth Session in 1978, to adopt all threemethods for publication in the nextedition of the UN Recommendations.After publication of these methods andcriteria in the UN Recommendations,they were implemented by-theInternational Maritime Organization(IMO) through Amendment 17-79 to theInternational Maritime DangerousGoods Code (IMDG Code). The IMDGcode is the basic standard governing theinternational transportation ofhazardous materials by sea. As shippersand carriers began to work with the newmethods, it soon became evident thatthe use of the three methods wascausing some confusion and that itwould be best to settle on a singlemethod. For this reason, the UnitedStates delegation proposed to the UNCommittee that a special meeting beheld to re-examine this question in anattempt to arrive at a single method. TheCommittee agreed, and a meeting washeld in Hartford, Connecticut, in

October 1981. A number of the membergovernments ot the UN Committeeparticipated in the meeting, as well asthe World Health Organization, theHazardous Materials Advisory Council,and the European Council of theFederation of Chemical Manufacturers,

Following an exchange of views, thegroup agreed to recommend to theCommittee that the following threeprinciples be used as the framework fordetermining inhalation toxicity forvapours:

(a) Toxicity should be represented byLCJo (1 hour, rat).

(b) Inhalation potential should berepresented by Saturated VaporConcentration at a referencetemperature of 20 'C. *

(c) A system combining the above twofactors should be developed, allowingsubstances to be placed in order of theiroverall inhalation toxicity risk.

In the months that followed, the UNCommittee continued work on thedevelopment of appropriate groupingcriteria on the basis of these principles.Finally, at its Twelfth Session inDecember 1982, The UN Committeeadopted revised criteria for assessmentof the inhalation hazard of materials,making use of LCo and "volatility" (i.e.,the saturated vapor concentration at 20*C.).

The first international organization toimplement the new method and criteriawas the International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO). This wasaccomplished with the publication of thefirst edition of the ICAO TechnicalInstructions for the Safe Transport ofDangerous Goods by Air in 1983. TheseTechnical Instructions, publishedpursuant to Annex 18 to the Convention'on International Civil Aviation (ChicagoConvention), are binding regulations forthe international transport of hazardousmaterials by most governments that areparticipants in the Chicago Convention,

Since January 1, 1983, the HMR(§ 171.11) have contained provisionsthat incorporate by reference the ICAOTechnical Instructions. Under theseprovisions, shippers of dangerous goodsmay offer shipments, domestically andinternationally, by air as required by theICAO Technical Instructions withcertain exceptions. It is currentlyestimated that in excess of 80 percent ofdangerous goods transported by airwithin the United States are now beingtransported in accordance with theICAO Technical Instructions rather thanin accordance with the detailedprovisions of the DOT HazardousMaterials Regulations. In this context, itshould be noted that under the ICAOTechnical Instructions any material

5275


which falls into Packing Group I byvirtue of its toxic inhalation hazard isforbidden for transport aboardpassenger and cargo-only aircraft.

The International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) has alsoimplemented the new method forassessing the inhalation risk of toxicmaterials with the publication ofAmendment 21-83 to the IMDG Code,which became effective on January 1,1985. Since 1976 the DOT HazardousMaterials Regulations have permittedtransportation of hazardous materialsbeing imported into or exported from theUnited States in accordance with IMDGCode classifications. Because virtuallyall hazardous materials transported bysea must be transported in accordancewith the IMDG Code,. these materialsmust now be offered for transportationby sea in conformance with theimproved UN inhalation assessmentmethods.

At approximately the same time thatthe UN Committee of Experts beganconsidering the revision of criteria forclassification and grouping of toxicmaterials presenting an inhalation risk,work was also begun on thedevelopment of a scheme fordetermination of the precedence ofhazards of substances possessingmultiple hazards. The intent of such ascheme is to establish a procedure fordetermining which of the hazardspresented by a material would beconsidered the primary hazard and,therefore, establish the hazard class ofthe material.

In December of 1978, the Committee ofExperts adopted such a scheme fordetermination of hazard precedencewhich was subsequently published inthe UN Recommendations. Since thattime, this scheme has been adopted bothby IMO and ICAO. One of the principalconcerns of the Committee during thedevelopment of this scheme was toinsure that it took proper account ofmaterials that present a serious risk ofpoisoning due to inhalation of vapors.Under this scheme, a liquid, other thanan organic peroxide or radioactivematerial, is classified as a poisonregardless of the level of any other risk(e.g., flammability, corrosivity, etc.), if itmeets the criteria established for thePacking Group I inhalation toxicitywhich is the same criteria prepared for§ 173.3a in this NPRM. The UNprecedence scheme for classificationwill be fully addressed by MTB underDocket HM-181.

Taking into account the precedingbackground information, MTB believesthe Group I criteria that is presently ineffect for international transportationcan and should be used as the basis for

implementing improved transportationsafety requirements within the UnitedStates for volatile toxic liquids. Further,MTB believes this action should beinitiated immediately because action onmatters to be addressed by HM-181 willnot be completed in the near future.

Proposed Amendments to Part 172

§ 172.203(k)(4)-MTB proposes to adda new subparagraph that will require anadditional description on a shippingpaper reading "Poison-InhalationHazard" for any liquid hazardousmaterial having a saturated vaporconcentration at 20 °C (68 °F) equal to orgreater than ten times its LC5o value ifthat value is 1000 parts per million orless. It should be stressed that thisproposed requirement would apply toany liquid material (e.g., acrolein)meeting this criteria, not only materialssubject to "n.o.s." packagingrequirements.

§ 172.504(c)-MTB proposes to revisethe sentence at the end of the paragraphto exclude materials subject to new§ 172.505 from the 1000 poundplacarding exception provided for motorvehicles and freight containers.

§ 172.505-A neW section would beadded to the placarding rules requiringPOISON placards, in addition toplacards required by § 172.504, to bedisplayed on each motor vehicle, rail carand freight container that contains anyquantity of a material required to beidentified by a "Poison-InhalationHazard" description on a shipping paperaccording to § 172.203(k)(4).

The MTB believes the inhalation riskspresented by materials meeting thecriteria proposed for § 172.203(k)(4) aresignificant to such a degree thatcommunication of their nature andpresence is necessary withoutexception.

Proposed Amendments to Part 173§ 173.3a-MTB is proposing to add a

new § 173.3a to Part 173 that willaddress the inhalation risks of liquidmaterials that are currently classed asFlammable, Corrosive, Oxidizer, Poison,or Organic Peroxide, and whosepackagings are specified in sections thatcontain "n.o.s." (not otherwise specified)packaging requirements. This sectionwould not apply to materials (e.g.,acrolein) which have specific packagingprescribed in regulations other thangeneral n.o.s. packagings. Mattersrelating to these materials will beaddressed under Docket HM-181.

The proposed criteria for § 173.3aaddress the principal factors involved inthe potential hazard presented byvolatile toxic materials. These are thefundamental toxicity of material, as

expressed by an LC5o value, and theprobability that such a concentrationwill evolve in the atmosphere abovespilled material. This latter factor isdirectly proportional to the vaporpressure of the liquid and is expressedas the saturated vapor concentration.

The LCso is the concentration of thematerial in air which is most likely tocause death in 50 percent of both maleand female albino rats within 14 daysafter a continuous exposure of one hour.For purposes of this section, the value isexpressed in milliliters per cubic meteror parts per million.(ppm). Provision ismade for using LCo data much of whichis currently available in publishedliterature instead of conducting testsinvolving large numbers of animals.

The saturated vapor concentration isthe maximum concentration of vapor inair which is produced when the vapor isin equilibrium with the liquid at atemperature of 20 °C (68 °F). This valueis also expressed in milliliters per cubicmeter (ppm).

The criteria proposed are thosepublished in the United Nations' (UN)Recommendations of the Committee ofExperts on the Transport of DangerousGoods for materials which requireGroup I packaging because of highinhalation toxicity. UNRecommendations specify that amaterial with an LCso of more than 1000ppm does not require Group I packagingdue to inhalation hazards. A material issubject to Group I packaging when theLCso is 1000 ppm or less and thesaturated vapor concentration is ten ormore time3 the LC5o value. While MTh isproposing to use the UN criteria forGroup I as a basis for this proposed rule,it is not proposing to authorize use of thepackagings for Group I materialsspecified in Chapter 9 of the UNRecommendations. The packagingproposed in this NPRM is the same asspecified for Poison A materials underthe current HMR with a provision formaterial-specific approval of otherpackagings based on a determination ofequivalency to packagings prescribedfor Poison A materials or suitablepackagings specifically prescribed forcertain hazardous materials in otherclasses (e.g., acrolein).

It is relevant to add here mention of acollateral issue. During the past twoyears, we have received more than 1800letters, including more than 100 frommembers of Congress, protesting orquestioning the use of animals in statingour toxicity criteria. Most of the lettersrequired individual responses explainingthat our present regulations do notrequire specific LCso or LD5o data, but adetermination as to whether a material

5276


has a specified toxicity at a certainbreakpoint. In other words, each of thepresent tests is a limit test requiring nomore than 10 laboratory animals ratherthan hundreds suggested in the lettters.MTB recognizes that this NPRMproposes use of specific LCo data andthe problems we may face in respondingto numerous protests by electing to usesuch data. However, we believe ourpublic safety responsibilities outweighthe concerns expressed by opponents touse of LD5o or LCso data and, unless anequivalent and acceptable procedure fordetermination of inhalation toxicity isprovided as an alternative, we firmlybelieve LC5 o must be used for thepurposes of the new safety controlmeasures proposed for new § 173.3a aswell as the improved communicationrequirements proposed for shippingpapers and placarding. In order tominimize testing, however, there areprovisions in the proposed rule allowingconversion of 4-hour LCQo data to 1-hourLCso data, and use of LC5o datacontained in published tests.

Comments

Interested persons are invited tosubmit constructive comments on therules proposed in this notice. MTB doesnot solicit comments on the technicalmerits of the NTSB letter (e.g., the lackof a reference temperature in the fifthcolumn of the table in the letter).Comments are solicited on the merits ofthe basic issue raised by NTSB which isthe purpose of this rulemaking action,i.e., improved packaging of violatileliquids that present significant toxicityrisks, and improved communication ofthe presence of those risks duringtransportation.

Earlier in this preamble there ismention of comments received inresponse to Dockets HM-51 and 112concerning conflicts with other agencies.Commenters are invited to point out anyconflicts that could be encounteredrelative to the requirements of otheragencies if a final rule is adopted asproposed in this NPRM. Such aconsideration should take into accountthe fact that this NPRM is limited toproposed changes affecting shippingpapers, placarding and use ofpackagings.

MTB requests data concerningmaterials that may be affected by therules proposed in this notice. Ofparticular interest would be thetechnical names of materials affectedand any additional costs that will beencountered in changing to packagingsthat would be required, if a final rule isadopted as proposed for § 173.3a.

Administrative Notice

A. Executive Order 12291

The effect of this rule, as proposed,does not meet criteria specified in § 1(b)of Executive Order 12291 and is,therefore, not a major rule, but is asignificant rule under the regulatoryprocedures of the Department ofTransportation (44 FR 11034). Thisproposed rule does not require aRegulatory Impact Analysis, or anenvironmental impact statement underthe National Environmental Policy Act(49 U.S.C. 4321 et sq.) A regulatoryevaluation is available for review in theDocket.

B. Impact on Small Entities

Based on limited informationconcerning size and nature on entitieslikely affected by this proposed rule, Icertify this proposal will not, ifpromulgated, have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Thiscertification is subject to modification asa result of the review of commentsreceived in response to this proposal.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 172Hazardous materials transportation.

49 CFR Part 173

Hazardous materials transportation,Packaging and containers.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49CFR Parts 172 and 173 would beamended as follows:

PART 172-HAZARDOUS MATERIALSTABLES AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS COMMUNICATIONSREGULATIONS

1. In § 172.203, paragraph (k) would beamended by adding paragraph (k)(4) toread as follows:

§ 172.203 Additional descriptionrequirements.

(k) * * *(4) If the liquid in a package has a

saturated vapor concentration at.20 °C(68 °F) equal to or greater than ten timesits LCo (vapor) value and that value is1000 parts per million or less, the words"Poison-Inhalation Hazard" shall beentered on the shipping paper inassociation with the shippingdescription (see § 173.3a(c) fordefinitions and acceptable methods fordetermination of LCso.values).

2. In § 172.504 the sentence followingparagraph (c)(2) would be revised asfollows:

§ 172.504 General Placardingrequirements.

(c) * *(2) * * *

This paragraph does not apply toportable tanks, cargo tanks, tank cars,transport vehicles and freight containerssubject to § 72.505 or transportation byair or water.

3. In Part 172, a new § 172.505 wouldbe added to read as follows:

§ 172.505 Special placarding requirementsfor certain poisonous materials.

In addition to placards required by§ 172.504, each motor vehicle, rail carand freight container that contains amaterial subject to the "Poison-Inhalation Hazard" shipping paperdescription requirement of§ 172.203(k](4) must be placardedPOISON on each side and each end.

PART 173-SHIPPERS-GENERALREQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTSAND PACKAGING

4. In Part 173, a new § 173.3a would beadded as follows:

§ 173.3a Packaging; special requirementsfor certain poisonous materials.

(a) Notwithstanding the packagingrequirements and authorizationsprescribed in sections of this Chapterlisted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section(including exemptions referring thereto),no person may offer for transportation amaterial addressed by those sectionsthat also meets the criteria of paragraph(c) of this section except in apackaging-

(1) Specified in Subpart H of this partfor any Poison A material if thepackaging is made of materials that arechemically compatible with thehazardous material; or

(2) Approved by the AssociateDirector of HMR based on adetermination that the packagingprovides a level of safety equivalent to apackaging authorized in this Chapter forPoison A materials, or to packagingsauthorized for a hazardous materialhaving similar hazards addressed by aspecific packaging regulation of thispart.

(b) This section applies to any liquidmaterial-

(1) Addressed by the Table in§ 172.101 (Column 5b) of this subchapterto a packaging requirement prescribedin § § 173.119, 173.125, 173.134, 173.154,173.221, 173.245, 173.249, 173.346, or173.352, or which is addressed by anexemption, issued under Subpart B ofPart 107 of this chapter, that refers to

52775277


one or more of those sections for thepurpose of packaging authorization; and

(2) Having a saturated vaporconcentration it 20 °C (68 0F) equal to orgreater than ten times its LG~o (vapor)value if that value is 1000 parts permillion (ppm) or less.

(c) For the purpose of this section-(1) L o means the concentration of

vapor that, when administered bycontinuous inhalation to both male andfemale young albino rats for one hour, ismost likely to cause death within 14days in one half of the animals tested.The result is expressed in millilitres percubic meter of air (ppm).

(2) Saturated vapor concentrationmeans the concentration of vapor atequilibrium with the liquid phase at 20*C (68 °F) and standard atmosphericpressure expressed in millilitres percubic meter (ppm).

(3) If LC5o data are available basedsolely on a 4-hour exposure, such datamay be used by multiplying that data bytwo to determine an acceptable 1-hourvalue for the purposes of this section.

(4) LCso data of a type currentlypublished in scientific and technicalhandbooks, journals and texts may beused (based on the lowest publishedvalue) in place of new tests usinganimals to determine compliance withthis section.

(49 U.S.C. 1804. 1808; 4 CFR 1.53; App. A toPart I and paragraph (a)(4) of App. A to Part106)

Issued in Washington. D.C. on February 4,1985.Alan I. Roberts,Associate Director for Hazardous MaterialsRegulation, Materials Transportation Bureau.

Appendix

The following is the report of Panel IIon classification which was included in"A Study of Transportation ofHazardous Materials" prepared for DOTby the Highway Research Board and theCommittee on Hazardous Materials,National Academy of Sciences-NationalResearch Council, held in Warrenton,VA, following a meeting May 7-9, 1969.

Panel II Report

IntroductionThe panel was convened to consider the

basis and to develop an outline forclassifying the type and degree of hazards tolife or property inherent in the transportationof hazardous materials by air, rail, highway,or water in the United States. A basiccriterion was that any system should bepracticable and formulated in language thatcould be understood by persons directlyinvolved in handling, storing, stowing, andcarrying the materials.

The panel discussed how it is determinedwhat a hazardous substance is. The panel

then decided that it should construd. aclassification system consistent with itsobjective.

The objective of a classification system isto identify the type and degree of plot-mtialhazard that materials represent to life andproperty in transport by air, road, jail, orwater so that adequate controls (packaging,identification, handling, emergercyprocedures, etc.) may be provided.

During the panel's deliberations, itconsidered the present DOT, Coast Guard,UN, and NFPA classification systems, andtwo that emerged from the discussic"a. Themajor problems encountered with each werealso considered. From these consideuations,the criteria for evaluating hazardousmaterials classification systems described inthe following section were developed.However, it was obvious that a syatcmn,.tic,comparative evaluation, more comprehensivethan the allotted time permitted, is needed tocomplete an analysis of changes thot shouldbe made in the present systems.

Pollution of the environment and acstheticpollution were discussed. How vr, DOTindicated that these are covered it: o'hbr thanthe Hazardous Materials Regiuations.Therefore, the panel did not consider themfurther except to note that NAR Publication1465 on Bulk Water Transportation ofHazardous Materials deals with hunyantoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and aestheticeffects of water pollution.

The following list gives various calsativefactors leading to hazards in transportationthat were considered in the deliberations:

1. Fire-thermal radiation, evolution ofnoxious gases, propagation of fire;

2. Chemical--reactions within container,reactions external to container, externallystimulated reactions, corrosion;

3. Physiological-inhalation (includingsuffocation), absorption, ingestion, painfulirritation to eyes, tissue damage;

4. Mechanical (Physical)-overpressurizingcontainer, puncture or impact, componentdefect, overfilling container.

Identification of IssuesThe enabling legislation under which

regulations for the transport of hazardousmaterials are to be promulgated does notdefine hazardous materials. To promote aclear understanding of the regulations anddescribe hazardous materials in logicalclassifications, such a definition rmust bedeveloped. The Hazardous SubstancesLabeling Act (Pub. L. 86-13, 21 CkR Part 191)is suggested as a guide for development ofthis definition.

The panel is aware of many uses for aclassification system and many wereconsidered, but no record of the intendeduses that a hazardous materials classificationsystem muot satisfy is available. This recordmust be developed before a recommendedsystem can be promptly appraiscd.

The panel submits that the objective of thehazardous materials classification system isto identify the type and degree of potentialhazard that materials represent to life andproperty in transport by air, road, rail, orwater, so that adequate controls (packaging,identification, handling, emergencyprocedures, etc.) may be provided to limit

that hazard. It is recognized that finaltabulation of uses may require modificationof this objective.

As mentioned earlier, during itsdeliberations the panel considered thepresent DOT, Coast Guard, UN, and NFPAclassification systems, and two that emergedfrom the discussions. Also considered werethe ma~or problems with each. From theseconsiderations, the following criteria forevaluating hazardous materials classificationsystems described were developed. Aclassification system should: (a) Contain aminimum number of categories and beintelligible to the "average man"; (b) bebroad enough to cover the inherent chemicaland physical characteristics of all types ofmaterials being transported and the hazardsthey pose in transportation (c) reflectmultiple types of hazards; (d) be uniform forall modes of transport; (e) identify degrees(not inherent characteristics) for each type ofhazard and specify thresholds for eachdegree; (f) consider fire, chemical,physiological, and physical hazards; (g)provide quantifiable definitions for eachclass; (h) consider mobility or migration ofmaterial during or after an incident; (i)consider as separate categories noxiouscombustion products and reactivity in fires;(j) consider mass effects; and (k) take intoaccount (1) compatibility with classificationsystems for other purposes; (2) the physicalstate; (3) the transportation environment; (4)mixture of mixing hazards; (5) general andnot specfic problems; (6) storage problems;(7) emergency considerations; (8)environmental pollution problems; (9)commingling problems; (10) the possibility ofinhibitors or stabilizers fractionating and (11)materials as shipped, rather than "test tuba"materials.

It was evident that a systematic,comparative evaluation, much morecomprehensive than permitted in the timeallotted the panel, is needed to complete ananalysis of changes that should be made inthe present systems. We did not have anopportunity to consider the effects ofpressurization-i.e., the hazards fromcompressed gases, other than flammability,toxicity or reactivity.

Present regulations, developed largelyempiiically over the last 60 years, are notbased on a rational system for classifyinghazards. A classification theory is neededthat pro1 ides a framework for the changesrequired to accommodate the demands ofcurrent and future technology.

The panel is deeply concerned about theproblems presented by mixed cargoes andthe compatibility of their components in theevent of a package or container failure.Extensive study is needed before materialsmay be classified in sufficient detail to avoidcombining incompatible items in cargoes. TheCoast Guard is currently working on thisproblem and should be encouraged andexpedited in the task with adequate funding.

On advice from the Office of HazardousMaterials, for purposes of this conference theclassification of health hazards wasreatricted to those to humans without regardto effects on plants and animals. Further, thepanel decided that for transportation

I Jmnll . . ..... .

5278


purposes, only acute exposures of humansneed be considered.

The radioactive materials classificationwas not considered because it has recentlybeen satisfactorily revised.

Because of the extensive history of theclasses of explosives and current acceptance,the panel suggests the DOT continue to usethe explosives categories during some interimperiod. However, explosives are included inthe reactivity hazards category in theproposed classification system and should beincorporated into that category.

In order to establish a suitableclassificatioi system and define objectivelythe degree of hazard involved, it is essentialthat a sufficient number of quantitative testsbe available to assist the classifyingauthority. In establishing these tests, certainprinciples should be considered. For newchemicals and chemicals produced in smallquantities, the required tests may be limitedto the basic hazards. In such cases, theremaining hazards may be covered byclassification in the most hazardous grade foreach type of hazard applicable untilsubsequent tests indicate a lesser degree ofhazard.

As the quantity of a particular chemicaltransported increases, the tests must increasein sophistication and number to defineproperly the magnitude of potential hazardassoicated with bulk quantities. In somecases, the hazard-defining tests may becomeelaborate, costly, and performable only by alimited number of laboratories staffed byhighly skilled personnel.

Wherever possible, the tests should besimple and easily carried out with generallyavailable laboratory equipment. They shouldbe so designed that the results require nosubjective decisions or interpretations, maybe expressed quantitatively and numerically,and are reproducible within establishedlimits from one laboratory to another. Itwould be desirable that a suitable center beestablished for the compilation of these testresults so that, whenever possible, basic testdata need not be redetermined by eachmanufacturer.

For the development of suitable tests,several alternatives are available: (a) Theestablishment of a test development center,(b) the utilization of voluntary groups, such asASTM, AIHA, and ACGIH, and/or (c) theutilization of private research firms--bothprofit and non-profit. Volunteer groups arecurrently working on the development ofmeaninful and quantitative test methods inseveral areas. To implement and expeditethis program dependence must be placed onfinancial support from the governmentthrough contractual agreements, or industrymust offer full-time participation in thevoluntary efforts of working committees toassure that the tests are established byconsensus rather than regulatory fiat.

Suggested Approaches

To develop an approach forrecommendation to the OHM, the panelarbitrarily selected three possible newclassification categories--health,flammability, and reactivity-and attemptedto define the subcategories within each tomake them responsive to the foregoing

criteria. The panel made an effort to considersystemically the potential hazards in makingthis selection. The results are contained inAppendix II-A.

Conclusions and RecommendationsThe panel was confronted with an

inadequate data base about environmentalconditions that influence the selection ofcredible incidents upon which theclassification, at least in part, must be based.This situation precluded arriving at aconclusive recommendation for specificclassification changes. However, the panelprepared a suggested classification approachto serve as a tentative system for generatingcomments and alternative suggestions. Thissuggested system is summarized in tabularform in Appendix 11-B.

The lack of an adequate data base, andother aspects of the present classificationproblems, led the panel to suggest severalprograms. Specifically, the panel recommendsthat the following programs be undertaken toovercome present classification systemdeficiencies, provide a modified or newsystem that will meet the criteria previouslyidentified, and provide the basis for a soundregulatory and industry/citizen hazardsmanagement program:

1. Adopt the classification systemsuggested in this report with its concepts asthe basis for developing changes in thepresent classification system.

2. Make a comparative evaluation ofpresent hazardous materials classificationsystems to determine their adequacy ordeficiencies with respect to idealclassification system criteria, and identifyspecific changes required to meet thesecriteria.

3. Develop graphic system models fortransportation modes that can be used inanalyzing hazards posed by the inherentcharacteristics of the commodities consideredas possible hazardous commodities, takinginto account the environmental, handling,operational, and other pertinent elements.

4. Develop specific, quantifiable,standardized testing criteria and proceduresfor each hazardous material category anddegree, and prepare recommended regulatorychanges to accommodate each.

In addition, the following needs should beaddressed in future DOT programs:

1. Definition of the term "hazardousmaterials" for guidance in classificationefforts.

2. Declaration of the intended use of ahazardous materials classification system.

3. Development of suitable testingprocedures for classifying mixtures,especially tests for flammable materials.

Timely implementation of therecommended programs can be achievedthrough a variety of resources available tothe OHM. In addition to its own staff,services of volunteer groups, othergovernmental agencies, and contractors canbe enlisted. For example, MCA, API, NFPA,AAR, American Trucking Association, AirTransport Association, and other interestedgroups such as ASTM and USASI cancontribute to the program at no cost to theOHM.

Estimates of program costs depend on theextent of the programs authorized. The

developed of testing procedures andpractices is probably the most expensiveportion of the reclasgification efforts. Thepanel recommends that cost estimates for thiswork be developed with the assistance of theBureau of Mines, Bureau of Explosives, andthe NAS Advisory Center on Toxicology.Should the OHM wish the reduce the timerequired by volunteer groups to achieve theend results suggested, cost and timeestimates can be developed throughnegotiations with qualified contractors.

[FR Doc. 85-3137 Filed 2-6-85; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910-60-"

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

Foreign Proposals To AmendAppendices to the Convention onInternational Trade In EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendmentsto appendices.

SUMMARY: The Convention onInternational Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES] regulates internationalshipment of certain wildlife and plantspecies, which are listed in appendicesto this treaty. Any nation that is a Partyto CITES may propose amendments toAppendix I or II for consideration by theother Parties.

This notice announces proposalssubmitted by Parties dther than theUnited States, and invites informationand comments on them in order todevelop negotiating positions for theUnited States delegation. The proposalswill be considered in April and May1985 at the fifth regular meeting of theParties.

DATE: The Service will consider allcomments received by March 15, 1984,in developing negotiating positions. TheService plans to publish a notice of itsdecisions on the positions prior to themeeting of the Parties.

ADDRESS: Please send correspondenceconcerning this notice to the Office ofScientific Authority, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, D.C.20240. Materials received will beavailable for public inspection from 7:45a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday throughFriday, in room 537, 1717 H Street, NW.,Washington, D.C.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dr. Richard L. Jachowski, Office ofScientific Authority, U.S. Fish and

5279

5270 7, 1985 surveys prepared and certified by a civil

Documents

Transcript of 5270 7, 1985 surveys prepared and certified by a civil