[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79424-79453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31880]



[[Page 79423]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 244

December 21, 2015

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, et al.





 Hazardous Materials: Requirements for the Safe Transportation of Bulk 
Explosives (RRR); Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 79424]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, and 177

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0345 (HM-233D)]
RIN 2137-AE86


Hazardous Materials: Requirements for the Safe Transportation of 
Bulk Explosives (RRR)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(PHMSA) is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations by establishing 
standards for the safe transportation of explosives on cargo tank motor 
vehicles and multipurpose bulk trucks transporting materials for 
blasting operations. This rulemaking is responsive to two petitions for 
rulemaking submitted by industry representatives: P-1557, concerning 
the continued use of renewal applications, and P-1583, concerning the 
incorporation of an industry standard publication. Further, developing 
these requirements provides wider access to the regulatory flexibility 
currently only offered by special permits and competent authorities.
    The requirements of this final rule mirror the majority of 
provisions contained in nine widely-used longstanding special permits 
that have established safety records. These requirements eliminate the 
need for future renewal requests, thus reducing paperwork burdens and 
facilitating commerce while maintaining a commensurate level of safety. 
This final rule authorizes the transportation of certain explosives, 
ammonium nitrates, ammonium nitrate emulsions, and other specific 
hazardous materials in both non-bulk and bulk packagings, which are not 
otherwise authorized under current regulations. These hazardous 
materials are used in blasting operations on cargo tank motor vehicles 
and specialized vehicles, known as multipurpose bulk trucks, which are 
used as mobile work platforms to create blends of explosives that are 
unique to each blast site. Finally, this rulemaking addresses the 
construction of new multipurpose bulk trucks.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective January 20, 2016.
    Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of 
the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may find information on this rulemaking (Docket No. 
PHMSA-2011-0345) at Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Nickels, (202) 366-8553, 
Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials 
Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents of Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Special Permits
    B. Petitions for Rulemaking
III. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
IV. List of Commenters
V. Summary and Discussion of Public Comments
    A. Incorporation by Reference
    B. Hazardous Materials Table and Special Provision 148
    C. New Section 173.66 on the Requirements for Bulk Explosives
    D. Loading and Unloading Language for Class 1 (Explosive) 
Materials
VI. Section-by-Section Review of Amendments
    A. Part 171
    B. Part 172
    C. Part 173
    D. Part 177
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
    B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 13563, 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 
Procedures and Policies
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    I. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
    J. Privacy Act
    K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
    L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    M. Executive Order 13211

I. Executive Summary

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 
is issuing this final rule, titled ``Hazardous Materials: Requirements 
for the Safe Transportation of Bulk Explosives (RRR),'' in order to 
establish standards for the safe transportation of explosives on cargo 
tank motor vehicles (CTMV) and multipurpose bulk trucks (MBTs) 
transporting materials for blasting operations. This final rule is 
responsive to two petitions for rulemaking submitted by industry 
representatives: P-1557, concerning the continued use of renewal 
applications, and P-1583, concerning the incorporation of an industry 
standard publication. Further, codifying these new requirements 
provides wider access to the regulatory flexibility currently offered 
only by special permits and competent authority approvals. This final 
rule will eliminate the need for future renewal requests of nine 
special permits (the transportation of certain explosives, ammonium 
nitrates, ammonium nitrate emulsions, and other specific hazardous 
materials in bulk packaging) that have established safety records. 
These amendments will reduce paperwork burdens and facilitate commerce 
while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.
    PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 15, 
2014, under Docket HM-233D (PHMSA-2011-0345). See 79 FR 41185.\1\ This 
final rule addresses comments to the NPRM and amends the existing 
hazardous materials regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) pertaining 
to the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/15/2014-16382/hazardous-materials-requirements-for-the-safe-transportation-of-bulk-explosives-rrr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Incorporating by reference (IBR) the Institute of Makers 
of Explosives' (IME) Safety Library Publication No. 23 
``Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, Division 1.5, 
Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids, Class 3 
and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk Packaging'' (referred to as IME 
Standard 23).
     Establishing requirements directing manufacturers of newly 
constructed or modified MBTs to comply with certain National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements known as the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) found in 49 CFR part 571.
    PHMSA is confident that this final rule is of benefit to both the 
public and the industry, as it will: (1) Eliminate the need for firms 
to apply individually for the transportation of certain classes of bulk 
materials in MBTs, (2) provide regulatory flexibility and relief while 
maintaining a high level of safety, (3) promote safer transportation 
practices, (4) facilitate commerce, (5) reduce paperwork burdens, (6) 
protect the

[[Page 79425]]

public health, welfare, safety, and environment, and (7) eliminate 
unnecessary regulatory requirements.
    In the NPRM, PHMSA encouraged all interested parties, particularly 
the holders of the nine currently active special permits (discussed in 
Section II. Background), to submit comments on the proposals discussed. 
Additionally, we asked that commenters give feedback on the NPRM's 
preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis \2\ (RIA) and the underlying 
proposed benefit-cost estimates, and provide additional recommendations 
to improve the final rule language and increase regulatory flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://www.regulations.gov and insert PHMSA-2011-0345-
0004 into the ``Search for:'' box.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Special Permits

    In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the HMR by establishing 
standards for the safe transportation of explosives on CTMVs and MBTs 
transporting materials for blasting operations. These standards for 
bulk explosives mirror the majority of provisions contained in nine 
widely-used longstanding special permits issued by PHMSA under 49 CFR 
part 107, subpart B (Sec. Sec.  107.101 to 107.127). A special permit 
sets forth alternative requirements (variances) to the requirements in 
the HMR in a way that achieves a safety level at least equal to that 
required under the regulations or that is consistent with the public 
interest. Congress expressly authorized DOT to issue these variances in 
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 as amended. For an 
in-depth discussion on what special permits are and why incorporating 
them into the HMR is necessary, please review the Section II. 
Background preamble discussion in the NPRM (July 15, 2014; 79 FR 41185; 
41187).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-15/pdf/2014-16382.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule incorporates elements of nine special permits (by 
way of incorporating IME Standard 23) that authorize multipurpose bulk 
truck operations not specifically permitted under the HMR. These 
amendments eliminate the need for hundreds of current grantees to 
reapply for renewal of nine special permits every four years and for 
PHMSA to process those renewal applications. These nine special permits 
are:
     DOT-SP 4453: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5D explosives contained in non-DOT specification 
bulk, hopper-type tanks. This special permit was issued in 1980 and is 
utilized by 22 grantees with acceptable safety performance.
     DOT-SP 5206: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5D explosives contained in privately operated bulk 
hopper-type units. This special permit has been in effect since 1980 
and is utilized by one grantee with acceptable safety performance.
     DOT-SP 8453: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5D explosives and Division 5.1 materials contained 
in DOT specification cargo tanks and certain non-DOT specification 
cargo tanks and portable tanks. This special permit has been in effect 
since 1980 and is utilized by 33 grantees with acceptable safety 
performance.
     DOT-SP 8554: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5D explosives and/or Division 5.1 oxidizers in the 
bulk motor vehicles described in the special permit. This special 
permit has been in effect since 1981 and is utilized by at least 38 
grantees with acceptable safety performance.
     DOT-SP 8723: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5 explosives and/or Division 5.1 oxidizers, in bulk, 
in DOT specification and non DOT specification packagings described in 
the special permit. This special permit has been in effect since 1981 
and has been utilized by at least 31 grantees with acceptable safety 
performance.
     DOT-SP 9623: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.5D explosives and Division 5.1 oxidizers in a cargo 
tank with a dromedary compartment (cargo compartments) containing 
Division 1.1 explosives mounted directly behind the trailer cab subject 
to the limitations specified in the special permit. This special permit 
was issued in 1986 and is utilized by seven grantees with acceptable 
safety performance.
     DOT-SP 10751: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5 explosives, Division 5.1 oxidizers, 
and Class 3 combustible liquids in separate containers mounted on the 
same vehicle frame structure. This special permit was issued in 1994 
and is utilized by 16 grantees with acceptable safety performance.
     DOT-SP 11579: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.1B, 1.1D, 1.4B, 1.4D, 1.4S, and 1.5D explosives, 
Division 5.1 oxidizers, Class 8 materials, and Class 3 combustible 
liquids in separate containers secured on the same vehicle frame 
structure. This special permit was issued in 1996 and is utilized by 65 
grantees with acceptable safety performance.
     DOT-SP 12677: Authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
certain Division 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5D explosives, Division 5.1 oxidizers, 
Class 8 corrosive liquids, and Class 3 combustible liquids in separate 
containers secured on the same vehicle frame structure. This special 
permit was issued in 2001 and is utilized by eight grantees with 
acceptable safety performance.
    This final rule benefits the regulated community by incorporating 
into the HMR these nine special permits (221 grantees) with well-
established safety records \4\ thus reducing paperwork burdens and 
facilitating commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Over the past 10 years, there have been 43 reported 
transportation incidents in the U.S. involving multipurpose bulk 
trucks. During this same period, there has never been a death or 
major injury attributed to the hazardous materials while in 
transportation when there was compliance with the regulations. While 
there has been one incident that resulted in a fatality in that 10 
year period, it involved a vehicular crash and human error, and was 
not attributed to the transportation of the hazardous materials. 
Overall most incidents (90 percent) resulted in spillage; fewer 
incidents resulted in vapor dispersion (3 percent), environmental 
damage (0.5 percent), fire (0.5 percent), waterway infringement (0.4 
percent), and explosion (0.1 percent.) Most of the time, the 
closures or covers in portable tanks failed, causing leaks. Detailed 
hazardous materials incident reports for hazardous materials 
incidents specified in Sec.  171.16 may be found at the PHMSA Web 
site at the following URL: https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Search.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Petitions for Rulemaking

    Two components in this final rule were presented to PHMSA in 
petitions for rulemaking.
1. Petition No. P-1557
    The petition from R&R (P-1557) dated March 23, 2010, asked PHMSA to 
eliminate the need to operate under the terms and conditions of a 
special permit for deliveries of certain types of bulk explosives, and 
to develop bulk explosive requirements in the HMR. R&R Trucking stated 
that ``the request is limited to Explosives, blasting, type E, 1.5D, 
UN0332, PG [Packing Group] II and Ammonium nitrate emulsion, 5.1, 
UN3375, PG II, transported on articulated DOT specification CTMVs.'' 
Further, the petition stated that ``no other hazardous material may be 
loaded into or carried on the vehicle or any vehicle in a combination 
of vehicles when transporting either of these materials in the approved 
bulk packaging.'' A more detailed description

[[Page 79426]]

of P-1557 is available in the Section II. Background preamble 
discussion in the NPRM (July 15, 2014; 79 FR 41185; 41188).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-15/pdf/2014-16382.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA agrees with the petitioner on the merit of establishing 
requirements for the transportation of bulk explosives in commerce. 
With the incorporation of IME Standard 23 in this final rule, PHMSA is 
establishing all relevant and appropriate requirements set out in the 
current multipurpose bulk transportation special permits,\6\ including 
the special permits under which R&R Trucking operates. It should be 
noted that while we are not incorporating every provision in all nine 
special permits, we have established criteria to transport these 
commodities in conformance with the HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOT-SP 4453, DOT-SP 5206, DOT-SP 8453, DOT-SP 8554, DOT-SP 
8723, DOT-SP 9623, DOT-SP 10751, DOT-SP 11579, and DOT-SP 12677.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Petition No. P-1583
    The petition from IME (P-1583) dated May 13, 2011, asked PHMSA to 
develop bulk explosive requirements in the HMR by incorporating by 
reference IME Safety Library Publication No. 23, Recommendations for 
the Transportation of Explosives Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate 
Emulsions Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids Class 3, and Corrosives 
Class 8 in Bulk Packagings. IME's petition stated that: (1) The long-
term, ubiquitous, and safe transport of explosives in bulk form, 
including the use of MBT technology, warrant expansion of the HMR to 
include established requirements of general applicability governing 
these transportation practices; and (2) the recommendations included in 
IME Standard 23 represent industry-wide best practices that, 
collectively, prescribe a higher standard of safety than the 
requirements included in the special permits currently used to 
authorize this transportation. A more detailed description of P-1583 is 
available in the Section II. Background preamble discussion in the NPRM 
(July 15, 2014; 79 FR 41185; 41189).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-15/pdf/2014-16382.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA agrees with the petitioner's request to develop bulk 
explosive requirements in the HMR by proposing to incorporate by 
reference IME Standard 23. Codifying these new requirements in this 
final rule and incorporating IME Standard 23 into the HMR provides 
wider access to the regulatory flexibility currently offered only by 
special permits and competent authority approvals.
    Access to the petitions referenced in this final rule can be found 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Numbers ``PHMSA-2010-0101'' 
(P-1557), and ``PHMSA-2011-0137'' (P-1583).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The Institute of Makers of Explosives' (IME) Safety Library 
Publication No. 23 ``Recommendations for the Transportation of 
Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, 
Combustible Liquids, Class 3 and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk 
Packaging'' (referred to as IME Standard 23) is free and easily 
accessible to the public via the Web site provided by the parent 
organization. Access to the IME Standard 23 publication incorporated by 
reference is also available for public download and review at: http://www.ime.org/. Under the ``Publications & Products'' tab, click the 
``Safety Library Publications'' link \9\ and either order a physical 
copy or download a free PDF copy via email. Also, a copy of the IME 
Standard 23 publication has been added to the Docket \10\ under 
``PHMSA-2011-0345'' at http://www.regulations.gov. IME Standard 23 is 
discussed in VI. Section-by-section Review of Amendments (A. Part 171-
Section 171.7) of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.ime.org/products/category/safety_library_publications_slps.
    \10\ http://www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. List of Commenters

    In response to PHMSA's July 15, 2014 NPRM (79 FR 41185), PHMSA 
received comments from various stakeholders. The organizations who 
commented are listed in Table 1:

      Table 1--List of Organizations Commenting on the HM-233D NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Assigned docket Number             Name               Docket URL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2011-0345-0005........  Institute of Makers   http://
                               of Explosives (IME).  www.regulations.gov/
                                                     #!documentDetail;D=
                                                     PHMSA-2011-0345-
                                                     0005.
PHMSA-2011-0345-0006........  Dangerous Goods       http://
                               Advisory Council      www.regulations.gov/
                               (DGAC).               #!documentDetail;D=
                                                     PHMSA-2011-0345-
                                                     0006.
PHMSA-2011-0345-0007........  R&R Trucking (R&R)..  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=
                                                     PHMSA-2011-0345-
                                                     0007.
PHMSA-2011-0345-0008........  Council on Safe       http://
                               Transportation of     www.regulations.gov/
                               Hazardous Articles    #!documentDetail;D=
                               (COSTHA).             PHMSA-2011-0345-
                                                     0008.
PHMSA-2011-0345-0009........  Council on Safe       http://
                               Transportation of     www.regulations.gov/
                               Hazardous Articles    #!documentDetail;D=
                               (COSTHA) IME          PHMSA-2011-0345-
                               Support.              0009.
PHMSA-2011-0345-0010........  IME Supplemental      http://
                               Comments.             www.regulations.gov/
                                                     #!documentDetail;D=
                                                     PHMSA-2011-0345-
                                                     0010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary and Discussion of Public Comments

    Discussed in the following sections is a list of the major 
amendments PHMSA proposed for adoption into the HMR in the NPRM, a 
brief synopsis of the comments we received in response to those 
proposals, and our position regarding those comments received to the 
NPRM. Furthermore, the amendments we are finalizing in this final rule 
are addressed in Section VI. Section-by-section Review of Amendments.

A. Incorporation by Reference

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to incorporate by reference the latest 
edition of the technical standard published by IME, known as ``Safety 
Library Publication No. 23 Recommendations for the Transportation of 
Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, 
Combustible Liquids, Class 3 and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk 
Packaging'' (referred to as IME Standard 23). The intent behind 
proposing to incorporate by reference IME Standard

[[Page 79427]]

23 was to establish general requirements of: (1) A single bulk 
hazardous material for blasting by CTMV; and (2) CTMVs capable of 
transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-
bulk packagings. PHMSA received general support from the commenters on 
the principle of utilizing industry consensus standards as a necessary 
and effective approach, with IME, Dangerous Goods Advisory Council 
(DGAC), and R&R specifically, endorsing IME Standard 23. We did not 
receive any comments that opposed our proposals to incorporate this 
standard and we are adopting it as proposed.

B. Hazardous Materials Table and Special Provision 148

    As previously discussed, in the NPRM PHMSA proposed to incorporate 
IME Standard 23 into the HMR and establish requirements of general 
applicability governing the transportation of: (1) A single bulk 
hazardous material for blasting by CTMV; and (2) CTMVs capable of 
transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-
bulk packagings. However, as noted in the NPRM, the HMR does not permit 
the transportation in bulk packaging of certain Class 1 and Class 5 
hazardous materials that are used in commercial blasting operations. 
This type of transportation is only permitted under a PHMSA special 
permit. In the NPRM, we proposed that a new Special Provision 148 be 
added to each entry under Column 7 of the Hazardous Materials Table 
(HMT) for HMT entries that are listed in IME Standard 23. These HMT 
entries include certain hazardous materials from the following hazard 
classes and divisions: Divisions 1.1B, 1.1D, 1.4B, 1.4D, 1.4S and 1.5D 
explosives; Division 5.1 oxidizers; Class 8 corrosive liquids; and 
Class 3 combustible liquids. In the NPRM, Special Provision 148 was 
proposed in order to direct readers to Sec.  173.66, therefore only 
specific explosives, oxidizers, etc. will be eligible.
    PHMSA received general support from the commenters on the principle 
of revising the HMT and adding a new Special Provision 148 to 
appropriate HMT entries, with IME offering one suggestion. IME stated 
that: ``IME inadvertently included `Detonator assemblies, non-electric, 
for blasting, Division 1.1B, UN0360' in a pre-publication version of 
IME Standard 23, but removed it from the final copy. This should be 
removed from the HMT changes in the final rule.'' We reviewed the 
comment and agree with IME's suggestion and will revise the regulatory 
text in this final rule as needed.
    We did not receive any comments that opposed our proposals to 
revise the appropriate HMT entries and add new Special Provision 148. 
Therefore, in this final rule, we are amending the regulatory text and 
also removing the HMT entry IME noted in its comments.

C. New Section 173.66 on the Requirements for Bulk Explosives

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to add a new section to 49 CFR part 173 
(Sec.  173.66), which included specific requirements for newly 
constructed MBTs and modifications to existing trucks.
1. Section 173.66 Preamble
    In the preamble of the new section, prior to paragraph (a), PHMSA 
proposed requirements for MBTs. We proposed that when Sec.  172.101 
allowed that a Class 1 (explosive) material may be packaged in 
accordance with this section, only the bulk packagings specified for 
these materials in IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this 
subchapter) would be authorized, subject to the requirements of 
subparts A and B of this part and the special provisions in Column 7 of 
the Sec.  172.101 table. Therefore, as proposed in the NPRM, an entity 
operating a MBT under current conditions, such as a special permit, 
would be subject to operating under the IME Standard 23 document. 
Furthermore, as proposed in the NPRM, the additional requirements in 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would apply to: (1) A new MBT constructed 
after December 31, 2014, or (2) an old MBT that requires modifications 
due to wear and tear (i.e., re-chassis, etc.).
    PHMSA received general support from the commenters on the principle 
of establishing a new Sec.  173.66 that outlined the requirements for 
bulk explosives, but the commenters had concerns with specific aspects 
of the regulations. Regarding compliance dates, IME commented that:

    Compliance Date: PHMSA proposes to trigger requirements for 
compliance with the FMVSS, FSS, and EBDD standards for newly 
constructed MBTs after December 31, 2014. While we can hope that HM-
233D is finalized by December 31, 2014, we request that the 
mandatory compliance date be triggered by a threshold such as 120 
days after the rule is finalized. Additionally, we note that no 
future effective date is specified for MBTs that are modified. We 
would suggest that the mandatory compliance date be the same.

    Additionally, COSTHA echoed those thoughts in its comment ``We 
would also like to encourage PHMSA to grant the IME request that the 
mandatory compliance date with the standards for newly constructed MBTs 
be transitioned with a threshold such as 120 days after the rule is 
finalized and that it be aligned with the effective date for MBTs that 
are modified.'' In regards to the compliance dates issue, we reviewed 
the comments and agree with IME's suggestion and will revise the 
regulatory text in this final rule as needed.
    Regarding the overall structure and language prior to paragraph (a) 
of the new section, R&R commented that:

    R&R supports the need for differentiation between transport of: 
(1) A single bulk hazardous material for blasting by cargo tank 
motor vehicles and (2) transport by MBT capable of transporting 
multiple hazmats for blasting in bulk and non-bulk packaging. Two 
distinctly different types of transportation. Distinction between 
the two types of transport must be clearly maintained. SLP-23 makes 
the distinction by having separate sections. In the NPRM, Special 
Provision 148 makes this distinction, but Sec.  173.66 is vague on 
the distinction. For clarification Sec.  173.66 should refer to 
Section 1 of SLP-23 for the standards for transporting a single bulk 
hazardous material for blasting by cargo tank motor vehicle and to 
Section 2 of SLP-23 for the standards for cargo tank motor vehicles 
capable of transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting in 
bulk and non-bulk packagings.

    In regards to the clarification of single bulk CTMVs differing from 
MBTs, we reviewed the comments and agree with R&R's suggestion and will 
revise the regulatory text in this final rule as needed.
2. Fire Suppression Systems
    In the NPRM, in paragraph (a) of Sec.  173.66, we proposed 
additional requirements regarding fire suppression systems (FSS) for 
newly constructed and modified MBTs. In addition to complying the usual 
requirements of the HMR (e.g., placarding, shipping papers, etc.), and 
the IME Standard 23 per Sec.  171.7 of the HMR, the NPRM proposed that 
these vehicles would be required to have a FSS that is an engineered 
system connected to the engine and transmission compartments. The 
system would be activated by manual switch or passive means in the 
event of a fire. Additionally, all fire extinguishers used as 
components of the system would be required to meet the requirements of 
49 CFR 393.95(a) and the applicable National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) codes and standards. Further, the NPRM proposed that 
the FSS's design would be required to be verified and certified by the 
Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) of the vehicle, and the design would 
have to be tested through engineering analysis or physical testing to 
verify the initial design or future modification(s) to the current FSS. 
The NPRM proposed that the FSS would be

[[Page 79428]]

visually inspected annually for defects, flaws, damage, etc., to ensure 
none are present, and the system would be pneumatically tested every 
five years to ensure the system is free of debris, leaks, and damage, 
and to ensure the system will function properly. Finally, the NPRM 
proposed the DCE must prepare a test report and provide it to the 
manufacturer of the vehicle and the manufacturer must provide a copy to 
the owner of the vehicle.
    Commenters generally did not support the additional requirements 
regarding FSS for newly constructed and modified MBTs proposed in the 
NPRM. For example, IME commented that:

    PHMSA acknowledges that ``there are too few incident data to 
estimate and monetize the benefits from a fire suppression system.'' 
Unaware of any death or serious injury attributable to hazmat 
carried on MBTs since this technology was introduced in the 1970s. 
There is no off-the-shelf FSS technology; IME isn't supportive of 
allowing MBTs to be guinea pigs for field testing FSS technology. 
SLP-23 already provides a FSS which far exceeds that required for 
other commercial motor vehicles, including trucks transporting 
hazmat for which fire is an inherent risk. SLP-23 requires that MBTs 
be equipped with two fire extinguishers with an Underwriters' 
Laboratories (UL) rating of at least 4-A:40-B:C. Current federal 
regulations require that trucks used to transport placarded 
quantities of hazmat be equipped with one fire extinguisher having 
an UL rating of 10B:C. There is no assurance, in an accident where 
the driver is incapacitated and unable to use the fire extinguishers 
on the vehicle, that the FSS will have survived the crash and be 
operational. Every ounce of unnecessary weight added to a vehicle is 
an ounce of lost payload, this adds up to more trucks on the road to 
carry the same volume of material, increasing crash risk and 
generate other societal impacts such as wasted fuel and more air 
emissions. PHMSA's requirement is similar to but not the same as the 
NRCan standard. Given the lack of incident data to show that such 
systems would increase safety commensurate with the cost, we do not 
support the NRCan standard or the more onerous PHMSA proposal. IME 
questions whether PHMSA, instead of NHTSA, is the agency to propose 
such a vehicle modification. NHTSA is responsible for setting and 
enforcing safety performance standards for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment.

    Furthermore, in a set of supplemental comments, IME commented that:

    Safety: Safety benefits of MBTs have long been demonstrated. 
There has never been a death or a major injury attributed to 
blasting agents and oxidizers transported in bulk. We have not been 
able to identify a single instance where a FSS would have made a 
difference to the outcome of the incident. No one would guarantee 
that such a system would be operational in a crash. A FSS would be 
of no value in suppressing an engine fire fueled by a tire fire. In 
a non-crash situation, the driver will already have access to at 
least two fire extinguishers with a 4-A:40-B:C rating, a standard of 
safety already surpassing that required on any other commercial 
motor vehicle operating in the United States.
    Insurance Rates: The largest insurer of MBTs in the US told IME 
that adding FSSs to MBTs would have no effect on rates because there 
is no statistically significant loss experience.
    FSSs in Canada: We discussed the evolution of and experience 
with FSSs in Canada. First, industry had little involvement in the 
FSS standard imposed by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) through its 
Mobile Process Unit (MPU) permit system. Thus, it is not correct to 
represent Canadian industry as ``supporting'' this standard. Second, 
it is not correct to represent the PHMSA FSS proposal as being 
aligned or harmonized with the NRCan standard. The NRCan standard is 
vastly different than that proposed in HM-233D. The NRCan standard 
reads in full, ``MPUs are also required to have an engineered fire 
suppression system for the engine compartment. . . . [E]ngineered 
fire suppression systems must be inspected every 6 months (or sooner 
if required by other jurisdiction). These systems must be inspected 
by a qualified and approved facility or person (reg.: NFPA 17, Chap. 
11).'' NFPA 17 is the National Fire Protection Association's 
standard on ``Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems'', and chapter 11, 
covers the inspection, maintenance and recharging of such systems. 
While not referenced, chapter 9 of this standard states that ``only 
pre-engineered systems . . . shall be installed on mobile 
equipment.'' PHMSA's standard is paragraphs long requiring vehicle 
specific designs that have been verified and certified by a Design 
Certifying Engineer, including physical testing or engineering 
analysis. Pre-engineered systems are not allowed. Additionally, 
PHMSA requires periodic inspections and detailed recordkeeping and 
retention requirements that differ from the NRCan standard. Based on 
the NRCan requirement, we can report that installation costs of FSSs 
in Canada run between $4,000 and $6,000, and add between 300-500 
pounds to the weight of the vehicle. A typical payload on an MBT is 
25,000 pounds, and the cost of a new MBT ranges from $250,000 to 
$500,000. Thus, a NRCan-type FSS would reduce payload between 1.2% 
and 2%, and would add between 1.2% and 1.6% to the cost of a new 
MBT. Costs of periodic inspections average $800 in remote areas and 
$150 in more populated areas. NRCan allows companies to obtain NFPA 
certification for their own employees to conduct inspections.

    PHMSA's position in the NPRM was that fire was a potential hazard 
in an MBT incident. IME has highlighted the safety record of MBTs which 
indicates that fire is not typically common with an incident involving 
these vehicles.\11\ PHMSA's engineered FSS as proposed was more 
stringent and cost prohibitive than a pre-engineered FSS or the NRCan 
requirement. PHMSA agrees with IME that the FSS proposed in the NPRM 
exceeded the level of safety established. However, we disagree that 
PHMSA does not have the authority to include a FSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Over the past 10 years, there have been 43 reported 
transportation incidents in the U.S. involving multipurpose bulk 
trucks. During this same period, there has never been a death or 
major injury attributed to the hazardous materials while in 
transportation when there was compliance with the regulations. While 
there has been 1 incident that resulted in a fatality in that 10 
year period, it involved a vehicular crash and human error, and was 
not attributed to the transportation of the hazardous materials 
themselves. Overall most incidents (90 percent) resulted in 
spillage; fewer incidents resulted in vapor dispersion (3 percent), 
environmental damage (0.5 percent), fire (0.5 percent), waterway 
infringement (0.4 percent), and explosion (0.1 percent.) Most of the 
time, the closures or covers in portable tanks failed, causing 
leaks. Detailed hazardous materials incident reports for hazardous 
materials incidents specified in Sec.  171.16 may be found at the 
PHMSA Web site at the following URL: https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Search.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA acknowledges that the proposed FSS would add weight to the 
MBT, and that the increased weight would decrease the payload, thereby 
increasing the number of MBTs on the road. Furthermore, we do agree 
that the established safety record of MBTs stand for itself and that 
IME Standard 23 does exceed the federal requirements for fire 
extinguishers. As such, we have reviewed the comments regarding FSS for 
newly constructed and modified MBTs and agree with IME's position. We 
will revise the regulatory text in this final rule as needed. In 
addition, PHMSA may revisit the FSS requirement in the future, if a 
future review of incident data indicates a need.
3. Emergency Shut-Off/Battery Disconnect Devices
    In the NPRM, in paragraph (b) of Sec.  173.66, we proposed 
additional requirements for emergency shut-off/battery disconnect for 
newly constructed and modified MBTs. The NPRM proposed that for these 
trucks, the batteries for the chassis would be required to have three 
easily accessible manual disconnect switches. One manual disconnect 
switch would be located inside the driver's cab and would not include 
the ignition; the remaining two manual disconnect switches would be 
located on each side of the vehicle. Further, the NPRM proposed all 
three switches would be connected to the positive battery terminal and 
the line of the switch would be protected from rubbing and abrasion 
that could cause a short circuit. Finally, the NPRM proposed that the 
battery disconnect would be required to isolate all manufacturing 
equipment

[[Page 79429]]

except critical instrumentation that requires the maintenance of the 
electrical supply, and that the battery disconnect is tested monthly to 
ensure proper operation.
    Commenters generally did not support the additional requirements of 
emergency shut-off/battery disconnect devices (EBDD) for newly 
constructed and modified MBTs. For example, IME commented that:

    We agree that any EBDD standard included in a final rule 
promulgated under this docket should apply only to newly constructed 
or modified MBTs. However, we disagree with the EBDD standard as 
proposed. PHMSA's proposal would require MBTs to be equipped with 
three manual EBDDs, not to include the ignition switch. The cost/
benefit of this standard cannot be justified. First, MBT's are the 
only type of specialized vehicle that is already required to have a 
manual EBDD in addition to the ignition switch. Yet, PHMSA provides 
no data to support the need to triple the current EBDD requirement. 
In fact, PHMSA acknowledges that no death or major injury has been 
attributed to hazardous materials carried by MBTs--a record that 
cannot be matched by other bulk hazardous materials that are 
sensitive to electric charge. Second, in the years since this 
requirement has been imposed, we are unaware of any instance where 
EBDDs have been used in an emergency, irrespective of the 
consequence. Rather, emergency responders simply cut the battery 
cable as they are trained to do. Third, PHMSA's cost justification 
does not include the cost to train all emergency responders on the 
existence and operation of the EBDDs. We would expect these costs to 
be significant. There are over one million firefighters, alone, in 
the United States, and over 70 percent of fire departments are 
volunteer with relatively high-rates of turnover. Fifth, the 
proposed EBDD standard is inconsistent with the standard required in 
Canada. PHMSA should not pass up this opportunity to advance the RCC 
initiative with regard to EBDD requirements. We would support 
including an EBDD requirement for MBTs that is equivalent to the 
Canadian EBDD standard.

    Additionally, COSTHA echoed those thoughts in its comment that 
harmonization is essential and that it would be better to harmonize 
with an equivalent Canadian EBDD standard than impose an entirely new 
one.
    While the cost/benefit of the additional two switches was adequate 
to justify this requirement, PHMSA agrees with IME that the triple EBDD 
is redundant. Also, the triple EBDD is not harmonized with the NRCan 
requirements or IME Standard 23. As such, we have reviewed the comments 
regarding EBDD for newly constructed and modified MBTs and agree with 
the commenters' position. We are revising the regulatory text in this 
final rule as needed. In addition, PHMSA may revisit the EBDD 
requirement in the future, if a future review of incident data 
indicates a need.
4. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
    In the NPRM, in paragraph (c) of Sec.  173.66 we proposed that for 
newly constructed and modified MBTs, those trucks must be in compliance 
with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) found 
in 49 CFR part 571. Furthermore, in the NPRM we proposed that the MBT 
manufacturer must maintain a certification record ensuring the final 
manufacturing is in compliance with the FMVSS, per the certification 
requirements found in 49 CFR part 567, and these certification records 
must be available to DOT representatives upon request.
    PHMSA received general support from the commenters on the 
requirements to be in compliance with the applicable FMVSS found in 49 
CFR part 571, with IME offering one comment that: ``PHMSA proposes that 
newly constructed and modified MBTs be in compliance with applicable 
FMVSS, and that MBT manufacturers maintain a record ensuring that these 
vehicles are in compliance with the FMVSS certification requirements 
found in 49 CFR part 567. IME supports these requirements.'' We did not 
receive any comments that opposed this requirement, and we are adopting 
it as proposed.
5. Modified Vehicles
    In paragraph (d) of Sec.  173.66 of the NPRM we proposed a 
definition for the term modification. We proposed that ``modification'' 
means any change to the original design and construction of a MBT that 
affects its structural integrity or lading retention capability (e.g. 
rechassising, etc.). In the NPRM, we proposed to exclude: (1) A change 
to the MBT equipment such as lights, truck or tractor power train 
components, steering and brake systems, and suspension parts, and 
changes to appurtenances, such as fender attachments, lighting 
brackets, ladder brackets; and (2) replacement of components such as 
valves, vents, and fittings with a component of a similar design and of 
the same size.
    PHMSA received general support from the commenters on the addition 
of a new term for modification, with IME offering one suggestion. IME 
stated that: ``We fully support the proposed definition. However, we 
suggest that the definitional term be changed to `Modified' since this 
is the term PHMSA uses in proposed Sec.  173.66 and the preamble.'' We 
agree with IME's suggestion and are revising the regulatory text in 
this final rule as needed.

D. Loading and Unloading Language for Class 1 (Explosive) Materials

    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to revise Sec.  177.835 paragraph (a) 
to state that no Class 1 (explosive) materials may be loaded into, on, 
or unloaded from any motor vehicle with the engine running, except that 
the engine of a MBT may be used for the operation of the pumping 
equipment of the vehicle during loading or unloading. Furthermore, in 
the NPRM we proposed to add a new paragraph (d) which discussed MBTs 
and specified that Class 1 (explosive) materials may be packaged in 
accordance with Sec.  173.66 of this subchapter. However, these 
materials would be permitted to be transported on the same vehicle with 
Division 5.1 oxidizers, or Class 8 corrosive materials, and/or Class 3 
combustible liquid, n.o.s., NA1993 only under the conditions and 
requirements set forth in IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7) and 
paragraph (g) of Sec.  177.835.
    PHMSA received general support from the commenters on the principle 
of revising loading and unloading language for Class 1 explosive 
materials in the highway part of the HMR, with DGAC stating that it 
``supports the proposed revision to Sec.  177.835 which would authorize 
the engine of the MBT to remain running when used for the operation of 
pumping equipment during loading and unloading.'' Additionally, IME 
states that it ``is supportive of the proposed revision to 49 CFR 
177.835(a) that seeks to address that vehicles need to run engines to 
run equipment on MBTs.'' However, IME did offer one suggestion in that 
as proposed, ``the NPRM only authorized the ability to use a vehicle 
engine for MBTs, and that pumping equipment is also used to load/unload 
material from cargo tanks transporting single commodity blasting agents 
or oxidizers. As such, IME requests that the proposed 49 CFR 177.835(a) 
provision be modified to provide the same option for these cargo tank 
vehicles.''
    We reviewed the comment and agree with IME's suggestion and are 
thus revising the regulatory text in this final rule as needed. 
Therefore, single commodity CTMVs are similarly eligible to use the 
vehicle's engine while operating the pumping equipment of the vehicle 
during loading or unloading, and it ensures overall regulatory clarity 
for these specific types of operations.

[[Page 79430]]

VI. Section-by-Section Review of Amendments

    The following is a section-by-section review of the amendments 
adopted in this final rule:

A. Part 171

Section 171.7
    Section 171.7 provides a listing of all standards incorporated by 
reference into the HMR. For this rulemaking, we evaluated a consensus 
industry standard pertaining to the standards for transporting a single 
bulk hazardous material for blasting by CTMVs and for CTMVs capable of 
transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-
bulk packaging. These standards include parts on: General requirements; 
modes of transportation; additional provisions; qualifications, 
maintenance, and repair of packagings; qualifications of individuals 
certifying non-DOT specification bulk packaging; placarding and marking 
requirements; and security and safety of the bulk hazardous materials 
transported. These standards also include parts on: Purpose and 
limitations; hazardous materials covered; packagings; operational 
controls; qualifications, maintenance, and repair of packagings; 
special provisions; and emergency response, reporting, and training 
requirements. We determined that the standards provide an enhanced 
level of safety without imposing significant compliance burdens. These 
standards have a well-established and documented safety history and 
their adoption will maintain the high safety standard currently 
achieved under the HMR. Therefore, we are adding and revising the 
incorporation by reference material under the following organization:
    Paragraph (r)(2) is revised to add the Institute of Makers of 
Explosives IME Standard 23, IME Safety Library Publication No. 23 (IME 
Standard 23), Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, 
Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, Combustible 
Liquids, Class 3, and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk Packagings, October 
2011 Edition.

B. Part 172

Section 172.101
    Section 172.101 provides the instructions for using the HMT and the 
HMT itself. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising ``Column (7) Special 
Provisions'' of the HMT by adding Special Provision 148 to the list of 
entries. In this final rule, new Special Provision 148 is added to 
Sec.  172.102(c)(1) and assigned to the HMT entries in Table 2:

        Table 2--List of HMT Entries Adding Special Provision 148
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Hazardous materials descriptions and
           proper shipping names                 Identification Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetic acid solution, not less than 50      UN2790
 percent but not more than 80 percent
 acid, by mass.
Acetic acid solution, with more than 10     UN2790
 percent and less than 50 percent acid, by
 mass.
Ammonium nitrate based fertilizer.........  UN2067
Ammonium nitrate emulsion or Ammonium       UN3375
 nitrate suspension or Ammonium nitrate
 gel, intermediate for blasting explosives.
Ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixture           NA0331
 containing only prilled ammonium nitrate
 and fuel oil.
Ammonium nitrate, liquid (hot concentrated  UN2426
 solution).
Ammonium nitrate, with not more than 0.2%   UN1942
 combustible substances, including any
 organic substance, calculated as carbon,
 to the exclusion of any other added
 substance.
Articles, explosive, n.o.s................  UN0349
Boosters, without detonator...............  UN0042
Combustible liquid, n.o.s.................  NA1993
Cord, detonating, flexible................  UN0065
Cord, detonating, flexible................  UN0289
Corrosive liquid, acidic, organic, n.o.s..  UN3265
Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for     UN0361
 blasting.
Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for     UN0500
 blasting.
Detonators, electric, for blasting........  UN0030
Detonators, electric, for blasting........  UN0255
Detonators, electric, for blasting........  UN0456
Detonators, non-electric, for blasting....  UN0455
Explosive, blasting, type A...............  UN0081
Explosive, blasting, type B or Agent        UN0331
 blasting, Type B.
Explosive, blasting, type E...............  UN0241
Explosive, blasting, type E or Agent        UN0332
 blasting, Type E.
Hypochlorite solutions....................  UN1791
Nitrites, inorganic, aqueous solution,      UN3219
 n.o.s.
Oxidizing liquid, n.o.s...................  UN3139
Oxidizing solid, n.o.s....................  UN1479
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 172.102 Special Provisions
    Section 172.102 lists special provisions applicable to the 
transportation of specific hazardous materials. Special provisions 
contain packaging requirements, prohibitions, and exceptions applicable 
to particular quantities or forms of hazardous materials. PHMSA is 
adopting the following revision to Sec.  172.102, special provisions:
Special Provision 148
    In this final rule, PHMSA is adding new Special Provision 148 to 
Sec.  172.102(c)(1) and assigning it to numerous HMT entries (see the 
previous section: Section 172.101). Special Provision 148 states that 
for domestic transportation, the HMT entries that are assigned Special 
Provision 148 are directed to Sec.  173.66 for: (1) The standards for 
transporting a single bulk hazardous material for blasting by cargo 
tank motor vehicles (CTMV); and (2) the standards for CTMVs capable of 
transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-
bulk packagings.
Special Provision 163
    Special Provision 163 currently requires ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate 
emulsion or Ammonium nitrate suspension or Ammonium nitrate gel, 
intermediate for blasting explosives'' to ``satisfactorily pass Test 
Series 8 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part I, Section 18 
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).'' For bulk packages, Test 
8(d) of Test Series 8 applies. This testing is in addition to the 
requirements in Special Provision 147 and therefore must be completed 
prior to approval by the Associate Administrator. Although not 
addressed in the HM-233D NPRM or this final rule's regulatory text, we 
included this non-substantive clarification in order to highlight the 
requirement to pass Test 8(d) when transporting applicable substances 
in a bulk packaging.

C. Part 173

Section 173.66
    In this final rule, PHMSA is adding a new Sec.  173.66 that 
provides the requirements for a hazardous material to be permitted for 
transport in accordance with this section (per Special Provision 148 in 
Sec.  172.102(c)(1)), and only the bulk packagings specified for these 
materials in IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) 
are authorized, subject to the requirements of subparts A and B of this 
part and the special provisions in Column 7 of the Sec.  172.101 table. 
(See Section I of IME Standard 23 for the standards for transporting a 
single bulk hazardous material for blasting by CTMVs, and Section II of 
IME Standard 23 for the standards for CTMVs capable of transporting 
multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-bulk 
packagings.) As provided by this new section, an entity operating these 
types of vehicles would no longer operate under a special permit, and 
would instead be subject to operating

[[Page 79431]]

under the IME Standard 23 document. Furthermore, the additional 
requirements in paragraph (a) would apply to: (1) A new multipurpose 
bulk truck constructed after 120 days from publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register, or (2) an old multipurpose bulk truck 
that is modified due to wear and tear (i.e., re-chassis, etc.) after 
120 days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    In paragraph (a), we require that for newly constructed and 
modified MBTs, those trucks must be in compliance with the applicable 
FMVSS found in 49 CFR part 571. Furthermore, the multipurpose bulk 
truck manufacturer must maintain a certification record ensuring the 
final manufacturing is in compliance with the FMVSS, per the 
certification requirements found in 49 CFR part 567, and these 
certification records must be available to DOT representatives upon 
request.
    In paragraph (b), we state that the term ``modified'' means any 
change to the original design and construction of a MBT that affects 
its structural integrity or lading retention capability, (e.g. 
rechassising, etc.). Excluded from this category are the following: (1) 
A change to the MBT equipment such as lights, truck or tractor power 
train components, steering and brake systems, and suspension parts, and 
changes to appurtenances, such as fender attachments, lighting 
brackets, ladder brackets; and (2) replacement of components such as 
valves, vents, and fittings with a component of a similar design and of 
the same size.
    By finalizing these requirements, PHMSA is echoing the majority of 
provisions contained in nine widely-used longstanding special permits 
that have established safety records. These requirements will eliminate 
the need for future renewal requests, thus reducing paperwork burdens 
and facilitating commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of 
safety.

D. Part 177

Section 177.835
    Section Sec.  177.835 provides the loading and unloading 
requirements for Class 1 explosive materials. In this final rule, we 
are revising paragraph (a) to state that no Class 1 explosive materials 
may be loaded into, on, or unloaded from any motor vehicle with the 
engine running, except that the engine of a MBT (see paragraph (d) of 
this section) and the engine of a cargo tank motor vehicle transporting 
a single bulk hazardous material for blasting may be used for the 
operation of the pumping equipment of the vehicle during loading or 
unloading. Furthermore, we are adding a new paragraph (d) which 
provides requirements for MBTs and specifies that Class 1 explosive 
materials may be packaged in accordance with Sec.  173.66 of this 
subchapter. However, these materials would be permitted to be 
transported on the same vehicle with Division 5.1 oxidizing materials, 
or Class 8 corrosive materials, and/or Class 3 combustible liquid, 
n.o.s., NA1993 only under the conditions and requirements set forth in 
IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) and paragraph 
(g) of this section (Sec.  177.835).

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This final rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
5103(b), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of 
hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The 
49 U.S.C. 5117(a) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a 
special permit from a regulation prescribed in 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 
5112 of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law to a person 
transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way 
that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level 
required under the law, or consistent with the public interest, if a 
required safety level does not exist. The final rule amends the 
regulations by incorporating IME Standard 23 and provisions from 
certain widely-used longstanding special permits that have established 
a history of safety and which may, therefore, be converted into the 
regulations for general use.

B. Executive Order 13610, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 12866, 
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and 
Review''), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 (``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review''), stressing that, to the extent 
permitted by law, an agency rulemaking action must be based on benefits 
that justify its costs, impose the least burden, consider cumulative 
burdens, maximize benefits, use performance objectives, and assess 
available alternatives, and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Both the preliminary 
NPRM and the final rule regulatory impact assessments discussing the 
benefits and costs of this action are available for review in the 
public docket for this rulemaking (filed under ``PHMSA-2011-0345'' at 
http://www.regulations.gov).
    Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
that were established in Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and 
Review of September 30, 1993. Executive Order 13563, issued January 18, 
2011,\12\ notes that our nation's current regulatory system must not 
only protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment but 
also promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job 
creation.\13\ Further, this executive order urges government agencies 
to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. In addition, federal 
agencies are asked to periodically review existing significant 
regulations, retrospectively analyze rules that may be outmoded, 
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal regulatory requirements in accordance 
with what has been learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.
    \13\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13610, issued May 10, 2012, urges agencies to 
conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether 
they remain justified and whether they should be modified or 
streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of 
new technologies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-14/pdf/2012-11798.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By building off of each other, these three Executive Orders require 
agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a 
``reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least 
burden on society.''
    In this final rule, PHMSA amends the HMR to incorporate 
alternatives this agency has permitted under widely-used longstanding 
special permits and competent authority approvals with established 
safety records that we have determined meet the safety criteria for 
inclusion in the HMR. Incorporation of IME Standard 23 into the 
regulations of general applicability will provide

[[Page 79432]]

shippers and carriers with additional flexibility to comply with 
established safety requirements, thereby reducing transportation costs 
and increasing productivity. In addition, the final rule will reduce 
the paperwork burden on industry and this agency resulting from putting 
an end to the need for renewal applications for special permits. As 
such, nine special permits with 221 grantees will no longer be needed. 
Taken together, the provisions of this final rule will promote the 
continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while reducing 
transportation costs for the industry and administrative costs for the 
agency.
    In accordance with the guidance provided by OMB Circular A-4 \15\ 
on the development of regulatory analysis as required under Section 
6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, 
and a variety of related authorities, the Final Rule regulatory impact 
assessment addresses the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.

 Describes the need for the regulatory action
 Defines the baseline
 Sets the timeframe of analysis
 Identifies a range of regulatory alternatives
 Identifies the consequences of regulatory alternatives
 Quantifies and monetizes the benefits and costs or 
evaluates non-quantified costs and benefits
 Discounts future benefits and costs

    This analysis discusses the individual (requirement area by 
requirement area) costs and benefits. The remainder of this section 
presents an overview of the factors considered for the analysis in 
accordance with OMB guidelines. As this is the regulatory analysis for 
the final rule, only the alternative adopted is analyzed.
1. Need for the Regulatory Action
    Our agency's mission is to protect people and the environment from 
the risks of hazardous materials transportation. To do this, PHMSA 
establishes national policy; sets and enforces standards, educates, and 
conducts research to prevent incidents; and prepares the public and 
first responders to reduce consequences if an incident does occur.
    PHMSA's vision is that no harm results from the transportation of 
hazardous materials, and it is committed to reducing the risk of harm 
to people and the environment resulting from the transportation of 
hazardous materials. PHMSA does not accept death as an inevitable 
consequence of transporting hazardous materials and works continuously 
to find new ways to reduce risk of death, injury, environmental and 
property damage, and transportation disruptions.
    This rulemaking action is necessary to provide regulatory 
flexibility and eliminate the need for future renewal requests, thus 
reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining 
an appropriate level of safety. The final rule would be beneficial to 
stakeholders by reducing paperwork and providing regulatory flexibility 
for industry; reducing administrative costs for the Federal Government 
while maintaining an appropriate level of safety; and facilitating 
commerce.
    This rulemaking adopts a combination of features including 
incorporating into the HMR by reference IME Standard 23, and complying 
with certain NHTSA requirements. PHMSA believes this final rule will 
benefit both the public and the industry, as it will:

 Eliminate the need for firms to apply individually for the 
transportation of certain classes of bulk materials in CTMVs
 Provide regulatory flexibility and relief while maintaining 
a high level of safety
 Promote safer transportation practices
 Facilitate commerce
 Reduce paperwork burdens
 Protect the public health, welfare, safety, and environment
 Eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements

    Finally, with this rulemaking amending the HMR by incorporating IME 
Standard 23, the majority of provisions from nine special permits will 
be incorporated since those permits were used as the basis to create 
IME Standard 23.
2. Baseline
    Explosives are used for many purposes. According to the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, explosives are used ``in 
areas such as mining, oil and gas exploration; demolition; avalanche 
control; and the use of explosives in special industrial tools, fire 
extinguishers, air bag inflators, fireworks; and specials effects in 
the entertainment industry.'' \16\ The largest user is the mining 
industry, where coal mining alone accounts for 67 percent of total U.S. 
explosives consumption.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 
Explosives Industry. Retrieved from http://www.nibin.gov/content/Explosives/explosives-industry.
    \17\ GlobalSecurity.org. Explosives--Mining Types. Retrieved 
from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-mining1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bulk explosives are transported by MBTs and Articulated Cargo Tank 
Vehicles (ACTVs). According to IME, there are approximately 1,500 MBTs 
on highways in any given year.\18\ These trucks make, on average, 
350,000 trips covering tens of millions of miles. The average truck 
payload is 12.5 tons.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
    \19\ Supplemental comments from the Institute of Makers of 
Explosives on PHMSA HM-233D Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Retrieved 
from http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PHMSA-2011-0345-
0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IME estimates are confirmed by the information in the Commodity 
Flow Survey (CFS) published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
and the U.S. Census Bureau.\20\ The most recent CFS shows the value, 
amount, and hazardous materials weight-distance traveled by truck 
(referred to as ``ton-miles'') for shipments of Hazard Class 1, Hazard 
Class 5, and Hazard Class 8 commodities considered under this analysis 
(see Table 3).\21\ CTMVs transported 8.2 million tons of commodities 
worth $8.1 billion more than 1.7 billion ton-miles in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Bureau of Transportations Statistics, & U.S. Census Bureau. 
2012 Commodity Flow Survey. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/econ/cfs/.
    \21\ Includes: UN2790, UN2067, UN3375, NA0331, UN2426, UN1942, 
UN0349, UN0042, UN0065, UN0289, UN3265, UN0361, UN0500, UN0030, 
UN0255, UN0456, UN0455, UN0081, UN0331, UN0241, UN0332, UN1791, 
UN3219, UN3139, and UN1479. UN0360 was not included due to a request 
by IME to remove this commodity from consideration. NA1993 is a 
Class 3 commodity that was not included either. This gives an 
underestimate of the total values, which is counterbalanced by the 
fact that not all shipments of the above commodities will be subject 
to HM-233D.

[[Page 79433]]



  Table 3--Hazardous Material Shipped by Private and For-Hire Trucks by Hazard Class in the United States \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Value 2012       Tons 2012    Ton-miles 2012   Average miles
                  Hazard class                      (million $)     (thousands)      (millions)    per shipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard Class 1, Explosives......................           5,282           3,225             535             166
Hazard Class 5, Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides.           1,651           4,471             998             223
Hazard Class 8, Corrosive Materials.............           1,215             547             200             366
    Total.......................................           8,148           8,243           1,733             210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2012 CFS Hazardous Materials tables.

    On average, trucks travel 210 miles per shipment, which falls 
inside the 200-500 mile range in the Federal Highway Administration's 
(FHWA) Freight Facts and Figures 2011. Trucks in the 200-500 mile range 
average 76,000 miles of travel a year.\23\ With an average load of 12.5 
tons, each CTMV accounts for 950,000 ton-miles annually (76,000 miles * 
12.5 tons). Therefore, we estimate that there were 1,824 CTMVs in 2012 
(1.7 billion ton-miles/950,000 ton-miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Some commodities subject to HM-233D were not listed in the 
2012 CFS, and other HM-233D subject commodities with missing values 
were filled by sharing out the residual for the aggregate hazard 
class.
    \23\ FHWA. Freight Facts and Figures 2011, Table 3-7. Retrieved 
from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/table3_7.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the commodities (UN0331/NA0331, UN0332, and UN3375) with 
an annual ton-mileage of 539 million were transported by both ACTVs and 
MBTs,\24\ while the remaining commodities were transported by MBT only. 
Therefore, commodities UN0331/NA0331, UN0332, and UN3375 are the only 
impacted commodities not exclusively transported by MBT. Sharing out 
the ton-miles equally between ACTVs and MBTs for those three 
commodities results in an ACTV population estimate of 284 ((0.5 * 539 
million ton-miles)/950,000 ton-miles per CTMV). We estimate that there 
are 1,540 MBTs (1,824 CTMVs--284 ACTVs), which is close to IME's 1,500 
estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ IME Standard 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates derived from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) Motor Carrier Management Information System 
(MCMIS) Catalog can confirm the 2012 CFS estimate of 1,824 trucks.\25\ 
MCMIS data from 2015 show that firms that transport explosives and 
oxidizers have the following number of hazardous material vehicles in 
their fleet: \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FMCSA. Online safety data resources. Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/research-and-analysis/online-safety-data-resources.
    \26\ The census identifies those trucks that transport hazardous 
materials in quantities large enough to require a placard under the 
HMR at 49 CFR 177.823.

 19 percent of the firms transporting hazardous materials 
have 1 vehicle in their fleet
 34 percent have between 2 and 5 vehicles
 11 percent have between 6 and 9 vehicles
 15 percent have between 10 and 24 vehicles
 13 percent have between 25 and 99 vehicles
 8 percent have 100 vehicles or more

    PHMSA data detailing the applications for the special permits show 
that 100 firms were involved in obtaining permits for the nine special 
permits referred to above.\27\ All were applications for renewals, 
party-to status, or modifications. By sharing the 100 firms using the 
percentages from MCMIS data, we can assume that the 100 firms have the 
number of vehicles in the fleet as illustrated in the following Table 
4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Accessed and downloaded for the nine special permits 
impacted by HM-233D in May 2015 (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a/special-permits/search).
    \28\ For the ``High Estimate'' to the firms having 100 or more 
vehicles, PHMSA approximated 125 vehicles in order to estimate a 
plausible range.

                                          Table 4--CTMV Fleet Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of          Number of
                                              MCMIS-based estimate of the    vehicles in the    vehicles in the
              Number of firms                 number of vehicles per firm       fleet--low        fleet--high
                                                                                 estimate           estimate
A                                            B............................          C = A * B          D = A * B
                                                                                [lower bound]      [upper bound]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.........................................  1............................                 19                 19
34.........................................  2 to 5.......................                 68                170
11.........................................  6 to 9.......................                 66                 99
15.........................................  10 to 24.....................                150                360
13.........................................  25 to 99.....................                325               1287
8..........................................  100 or more \28\.............                800               1000
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................  .............................              1,428              2,935
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we assume that 100 firms use the special permits under 
consideration, the fleet of vehicles transporting the classes of 
hazardous materials that are under these special permits has 
approximately between 1,428 and 2,935 vehicles. The estimate of 1,824 
CTMVs falls into this range.
    Incidents associated with the transportation of explosives. Based 
on analysis of the incident data from 2005 through 2014 that are 
associated with the special permits under consideration, the 
transportation of bulk explosives that were granted special permits do 
not have a high rate of accidents, especially considering the number of 
trips completed and the miles driven per year. According to PHMSA 
incident data from 2005 through 2014, there were

[[Page 79434]]

43 incidents associated with the nine special permits considered in 
this analysis.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Over the past 10 years, there have been 43 reported 
transportation incidents in the U.S. involving multipurpose bulk 
trucks. During this same period, there has never been a death or 
major injury attributed to the hazardous materials while in 
transportation when there was compliance with the regulations. While 
there has been 1 incident that resulted in a fatality in that 10 
year period, it involved a vehicular crash and human error, and was 
not attributed to the transportation of the hazardous materials 
themselves. Overall most incidents (90 percent) resulted in 
spillage; fewer incidents resulted in vapor dispersion (3 percent), 
environmental damage (0.5 percent), fire (0.5 percent), waterway 
infringement (0.4 percent), and explosion (0.1 percent.) Most of the 
time, the closures or covers in portable tanks failed, causing 
leaks. Detailed hazardous materials incident reports for hazardous 
materials incidents specified in Sec.  171.16 may be found at the 
PHMSA Web site at the following URL: https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Search.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Risks from incidents. The risks to the public and/or the 
environment from the transportation of explosives are difficult to 
estimate because there are few incidents. A FMCSA report on cargo tank 
rollovers notes CTMVs are less prone to rollover than similar 
vehicles.\30\ The report estimates a rollover rate of 0.34 rollovers 
per million miles traveled for vehicles with a lower center of gravity 
(similar to CTMVs) and 0.39 rollovers per million miles for nominal 
vehicles. Vehicles with a center of gravity height and wheel width 
similar to those of CTMVs (e.g., those with a lower center of gravity) 
may experience 87 rollovers, while vehicles with a higher center of 
gravity wheel height and wheel width (e.g., nominal vehicles) 
experience 100 rollovers.\31\ Incidents associated with vehicles 
covered by the special permits included in this analysis are rare. In 
fact, according to a DOT study on intermodal explosives, the authors 
noted, ``The risk of transporting explosives by highway compares 
favorably with transportation of other hazardous materials.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ FMCSA. (2007). Cargo tank roll stability study: Final 
report. Washington, DC: Battelle. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from 
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Cargo%20Tank%20Roll%20Stability%20Study%20Final%20Report%20April%202007.pdf.
    \31\ FMCSA. (2007). Cargo tank roll stability study: Final 
report. Washington, DC: Battelle. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from 
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Cargo%20Tank%20Roll%20Stability%20Study%20Final%20Report%20April%202007.pdf.
    \32\ DOT. (2003, February). Intermodal explosives working group 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transporting explosives safely, the United Nations devised a 
``Hazard Divisions classification system.'' \33\ The hazardous 
materials considered under this final rule are Class 5 Oxidizers,\34\ 
Class 8 Corrosive substances, other combustible explosives (not 
elsewhere classified), and Class 1 explosives that are categorized into 
six different divisions that indicate their main hazard 
characteristics. The Class 1 divisions and their main hazard 
characteristics are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Ammunition/IATG/docs/IATG01.50-UN_Explosive_Classification_System_and_Codes(V.1).pdf.
    \34\ These are not technically explosives but can explode under 
certain circumstances.

 Division 1.1 for explosives with mass explosion hazard
 Division 1.2 for explosives with a projection hazard
 Division 1.3 for explosives with a fire hazard
 Division 1.4 for explosives with no significant explosion, 
projection, or fire hazard
 Division 1.5 for explosives with a mass explosion hazard 
but are so insensitive, there is very low probability of initiation 
or of transition from burning to detonation under normal transport 
conditions
 Division 1.6 for extremely insensitive articles that do not 
have a mass explosive hazard. This division is composed of articles 
that contain only extremely insensitive detonating substances and 
that demonstrate a negligible probability of accidental initiation 
or propagation

    The transport of industrial explosives in some instances can 
increase the risk of death, injury, product loss, and property and 
environmental damage.
    Impact on the local economy and community resources: Incidents that 
cause fires, explosions, road closures, evacuations, or other such 
events have the potential to increase the demand for community 
resources. There is typically an increased demand for assistance from 
first responders and firefighters to control fires, and from police and 
other law enforcement personnel to control traffic and assist in 
possible evacuations. These releases may also prompt demand for 
services from engineers or other public workers to address utility and 
infrastructure problems. Releases can cause business interruptions or 
loss of fuel supplies, such as natural gas, gasoline, and home heating 
oil. Although the potential for releases to cause displacement of 
populations near or around fires or explosions is remote, these 
releases could cause the need for permanent or temporary shelter, 
putting more strain on community resources. Combined effects on 
businesses, transportation, and other economic resources can exacerbate 
response and recovery issues.
    Impact on the environment: Spills and releases can cause 
environmental damage, impact wildlife, and contaminate drinking water 
supplies.
    Health hazards: Releases, depending on their mode and severity, can 
cause many health hazards, including toxicity, dizziness, asphyxiation, 
irritation, and burns. Accidents and incidents have commanded attention 
from Congress, stakeholders, constituents, and environmental groups.
    Factors contributing to failures. Many factors can contribute to 
failures. Of the 43 incidents reported to PHMSA from 2005 through 2014 
involving the nine special permits in the rulemaking, 12 incidents 
involved one or more vehicles crashing and 14 involved vehicle 
rollovers (see Table 5). Other factors included human error and loose 
closure components. This was out of the 34 incidents for which the 
factors of failure were recorded, while for the other nine incidents, 
factors of failure were either not applicable or not recorded. There 
was spillage in 32 recorded incidents involving at least one hazardous 
material, and six incidents affected the environment. There were no 
injuries, fatalities, or hospitalizations related to hazardous 
materials. There were two fatalities, one of which was related to a 
rollover accident while the other was of an unknown cause.
    Each incident report includes data on up to three parts that 
failed, how they failed, and the cause of failure(s) for each hazardous 
material. In total, data was recorded for 35 incidents on the parts 
that failed and for 35 incidents on how they failed. The part that 
failed most frequently was the closure or cover. Leaking or torn off/
damaged closures were the most common methods of failure. In eight 
incidents, the description of how they failed was not recorded or not 
applicable, and in eight incidents, failure of parts was not recorded 
or not applicable.

[[Page 79435]]



          Table 5--Factors Contributing to Failures, 2005-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
           Factors of failures               incidents      Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover accident.......................              14           41.18
Vehicular crash or accident damage......              12           35.29
Loose closure component.................               2            5.88
Human error.............................               2            5.88
Other \35\..............................               4           11.76
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................              34          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports Database.\36\


           Table 6--Parts Contributing to Failures, 2005-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
              Parts failed                   incidents      Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover/body/closure......................              20           57.14
Discharge valve or coupling.............               4           11.43
Vent....................................               4           11.43
Hose adaptor or coupling................               2            5.71
                                         -------------------------------
Other \37\..............................               5           14.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports Database.\38\


                    Table 7--How It Failed, 2005-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
               How failed                    incidents      Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaked..................................              13           37.14
Torn off or damaged.....................              11           31.42
Burst or ruptured.......................               4           11.43
Ripped or torn..........................               2            5.71
Vented..................................               2            5.71
Other \39\..............................               3            8.57
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................              35          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports Database.\40\

3. Timeframe for the Analysis
    PHMSA estimates that the economic effects of this rulemaking, once 
finalized and adopted, will be sustained for many years into the 
future. Notwithstanding this, because of the difficulty of and 
uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into the far 
future, PHMSA assumes a 10-year period to quantify and monetize the 
costs and benefits and demonstrate net effects of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ All other factors--including corrosion, deterioration or 
aging, and dropped or misaligned material component/device--had 1 
incident out of the 34 incidents (2.94 percent).
    \36\ https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Welcome.aspx.
    \37\ All other parts--including bottom outlet valves, hoses, 
liquid valves, manway or dome covers/gaskets, and tank shells--had 1 
incident out of 35 incidents (2.86 percent).
    \38\ https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Welcome.aspx.
    \39\ All other factors including structural, failed to operate, 
and cracked had 1 incident out of 35 incidents (2.86 percent).
    \40\ https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Welcome.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Calculating Costs and Benefits
    Costs to the public and PHMSA accrue from the requirements set 
forth in the regulations and the enforcement methods and procedures 
adopted to carry out the objectives of the rules and regulations. 
Examples of costs include (but are not limited to) goods and services 
required to comply with the regulation; measures of productivity, such 
as losses related to work time; incident-related death, illness, or 
disability; and payments to standard-setting organizations for the 
standards.
    Typically, the benefits of rules are derived from health and safety 
factors. Since the federal regulatory agencies often design regulations 
to reduce risks to life, evaluation of the benefits of reducing 
fatality risks can be the key part of the analysis. In this case, the 
societal costs (e.g., death, injuries, property damage, other losses) 
are minimal, since there are no deaths or injuries. The societal costs 
in this analysis are derived solely from property damage and other 
losses associated with the incidents. Most of the benefits from the 
rule will be related to cost savings. Examples of benefits in the form 
of reduced expenditures include (but are not limited to) private-sector 
savings, government administrative savings, gains in work time, and 
reduced costs of compliance.
5. Societal Costs and Potential Benefits
    The value of lives saved, injuries prevented, and property damage 
avoided serve as the basis for calculating societal costs, which in 
turn represent the potential benefits of a regulation. To determine the 
cost to society of incidents, we use pertinent historical incident 
data.
    According to PHMSA incident data from 2005 through 2014, there were 
43 incidents associated with the nine special permits being considered 
in this analysis, including two vehicular crash fatalities that were 
not hazardous material related. PHMSA does not include the incidents 
that were deemed

[[Page 79436]]

not related to hazardous materials in the calculation of societal 
costs. For this analysis, the societal costs and potential benefits 
accrue from the material loss, carrier damage, property damage, and 
remediation costs (heretofore referred to as damages and losses). Table 
8 lays out the damages and losses (over a 10-year period) related to 
the nine special permits under consideration.

     Table 8--Value of Material Loss, Carrier Damages, Property Damages, Response, and Cleanup Costs Related to the Nine Special Permits, 2005-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Carrier        Property
                                                           Material loss      damage          damage       Response cost   Cleanup cost      All costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total amount reported...................................        $314,504      $3,894,903         $94,667        $321,256        $286,286      $4,911,616
Average amount per year.................................          31,450         389,490           9,466          32,125          28,928         491,162
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHMSA Incident Reports Database.\41\

    The total annual societal costs (potential benefits), associated 
damages, and losses for the nine special permits being considered under 
this analysis are approximately $491,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Welcome.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Summary of Comments Relating to Costs and Benefits Estimates
    For the HM-233D NPRM, PHMSA received two sets of comments from IME 
and one set of comments from R&R.42 43 Comments relevant to 
the preliminary NPRM RIA included comments on the FSSs and EBDDs 
requirements of the proposed rule as well as comments concerning the 
differences between MBTs and ACTVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=PHMSA-2011-0345.
    \43\ Other comments received from the Dangerous Goods Advisory 
Council and the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles 
are supportive of the rulemaking and IME's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments related to FSSs. In their comments dated September 11, 
2014, and November 21, 2014, IME outlined arguments against including a 
FSS requirement in the HM-233D rulemaking. IME stated that MBTs, which 
are subject to the FSS requirement in the proposed rule, have a proven 
safety record and that they would not want their MBTs to be the 
``guinea pigs'' for field testing the FSS technology. Further, IME 
stated that there have been no deaths or serious injuries attributable 
to hazardous materials carried on MBTs since the technology was 
introduced in the 1970s and that the safety benefits of FSS may be 
negligible, as there is no guarantee that a FSS will be operational 
after a crash. Also, IME Standard 23 already requires MBTs to be 
equipped with two fire extinguishers with an Underwriters' Laboratories 
(UL) rating of at least 4-A:40-B:C, stronger than the current 
requirement of one fire extinguisher with a UL rating of 10B:C. 
Finally, IME stated that consequently, Nobel Insurance Services, the 
largest insurer of MBTs in the U.S., told IME that adding FSSs to MBTs 
would not have an effect on rates because there would be no significant 
loss of experience.
    Regarding the implementation of the FSS requirement in Canada, IME 
notes that it is not correct to represent Canadian industry as 
``supporting'' this standard; the FSS standard was imposed by NRCan 
through its Mobile Process Unit permit system and did not include the 
industry in the process.\44\ Furthermore, IME states the PHMSA FSS 
requirement is different from the NRCan standard. In Canada, pre-
engineered FSS technology is permitted, while the PHMSA standard does 
not permit this type of technology and the standard requires vehicle-
specific designs that have already been certified by a DCE, including 
physical testing or engineering analysis. IME states that unlike the 
NRCan standard, PHMSA also requires periodic inspections and detailed 
recordkeeping and retention requirements. Ultimately, given the lack of 
incident data to show that FSSs would increase safety commensurate with 
the cost, IME does not support the NRCan FSS standard or the more 
onerous PHMSA FSS proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ A Mobile Process Unit is the Canadian equivalent of a MBT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimating the costs based off the NRCan requirement, IME reports 
that installation costs of FSSs in Canada are between $4,000 and 
$6,000, which does not include periodic maintenance, testing 
requirements, or recordkeeping. IME states each FSS would add 300-500 
pounds of weight to the vehicle, and a typical payload of an MBT is 
25,000 pounds, and a new MBT ranges from $250,000 to $500,000. 
Therefore, IME states an NRCan-type FSS would reduce payload between 
1.2 percent and 2 percent, and the cost of a new MBT would increase by 
1.2 percent to 1.6 percent. Periodic inspections cost an average of 
$800 in remote areas and $150 in more populated areas.
    IME questioned if PHMSA has the jurisdiction to impose a truck 
safety standard on MBTs or any motor vehicle. Congress delegated PHMSA 
with the authority to develop regulations and standards for packaging 
to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials, while NHTSA 
has the authority to set safety performance standards for motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, per 49 U.S.C. chapter 301.
    Comments related to EBDDs. In comments dated September 11, 2014, 
IME agreed that in a final rule, the EBDD standard should apply only to 
newly constructed or modified MBTs. IME, however, did not believe that 
the proposal for a requirement of three EBDDs was justified. MBTs are 
already required to have a manual EBDD in addition to the ignition 
switch, a requirement that no other specialized vehicle has. Moreover, 
PHMSA acknowledged that no death or major injury has been attributed to 
hazardous materials carried by MBTs,\45\ which is a record that cannot 
be matched by other bulk hazardous materials that are sensitive to 
electric charge. IME was unaware of any instance where an emergency has 
warranted the use of EBDDs, irrespective of the consequence. IME states 
the battery cable is cut by emergency responders as they are trained to 
do, and that the cost of training all emergency responders is not 
included in PHMSA's cost calculation. Finally, IME states these costs 
would be significant given there are more than 1 million firefighters 
in the U.S., and more than 70 percent of fire departments are 
volunteer-based, with relatively high rates of turnover. The proposed 
standard for EBDDs is inconsistent with Canada's standard requirements. 
IME would support an EBDD requirement that harmonizes with the Canadian 
EBDD standard.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 79 FR 41188 (July 15, 2014), FN 2.
    \46\ NRCan. (2011, September). Requirements for Bulk Mobile 
Process Units. pp. 11.

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

[[Page 79437]]

    Comments on MBT and ACTV differences. In the comments submitted on 
September 15, 2014, R&R argued for a clearer distinction in the 
rulemaking between cargo tank motor vehicles transporting single bulk 
hazardous materials (e.g., ACTVs) and MBTs. Regarding commodity 
transportation, ACTVs transport single bulk hazardous materials for 
blasting while MBTs transport multiple hazardous materials for blasting 
in bulk and non-bulk packaging. In IME Standard 23, IME clarifies the 
distinction by having two separate sections for the two types of 
vehicles and transports. Further, although Special Provision 148 makes 
this distinction, Sec.  173.66 is not clear in this distinction because 
it only refers to bulk packaging and not to the type of transport. 
According to R&R, this portion should refer back to Sections 1 and 2 of 
IME Standard 23 for the standards for transporting a single bulk 
hazardous material for blasting by cargo tank motor vehicle and for 
MBTs capable of transporting multiple hazardous materials for blasting 
in bulk and non-bulk packaging, respectively. Furthermore, R&R 
requested clarification on the status of UN3375 ammonium nitrate (AN) 
emulsion, 5.1 oxidizer, an explosive precursor. If ``these materials'' 
refer back to Class 1 explosive materials, UN3375 is not included in 
the authorization to transport in bulk without a special permit, and 
therefore, R&R states that clarification is needed on the status of 
UN3375.
    Comments summary. IME strongly opposed including the FSS 
requirement in the HM-233D rulemaking and provided numerous arguments 
and data to back up their point of view. Consequently, PHMSA decided 
not to include the FSS requirement in the final rule. Therefore, 
discussion of it is not a cost or benefit component of the Final Rule 
RIA, and costs estimates of the FSS--taking comment input into 
account--are outlined in Appendix A of the Final Rule regulatory 
analysis in the docket.
    IME also opposed the specifics of the EBDD requirement in the HM-
233D rulemaking, stating that they would support an EBDD requirement 
that harmonizes with the Canadian standard. As IME Standard 23 already 
includes an EBDD requirement, PHMSA decided to remove this requirement 
from the final rule as well. Therefore, discussion of this is not 
included in the Final Rule regulatory analysis in the docket.
    R&R argued for clarifications to be made to the HM-233D rulemaking, 
in particular, to draw a clearer delineation between ACTVs and MBTs. 
PHMSA incorporated these clarifications into their rulemaking, and the 
Final Rule regulatory analysis in the docket was updated to make a 
clearer distinction between ACTVs and MBTs.
7. The Final Rule
a. Definition of the Scope and Parameters of the Analysis
    PHMSA is amending the HMR by establishing standards for the safe 
transportation of bulk explosives. This rulemaking is responsive to two 
petitions for rulemaking submitted by industry representatives: P-1557, 
concerning the continued use of renewal applications, and P-1583, 
concerning the incorporation by reference into the HMR of an industry 
standard publication. Further, developing these requirements would 
provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility currently only 
offered by special permits and competent authorities.
    By implementing these requirements, PHMSA will be mirroring the 
majority of provisions contained in nine widely-used longstanding 
special permits that have established safety records.

     The driver qualification and training program audits 
text in IME Standard 23 (page 14) mirrors that of DOT-SP 10751 (page 
4), DOT-SP 11579 (page 7), and DOT-SP 12677 (page 5). This text 
covers the driver's license, endorsement, and training requirements 
for drivers transporting explosive materials. Similar text also 
appears in IME Standard 23 Section 1.
     The packaging requirements for transport of Division 
1.5 and Division 5.1 hazardous materials in IME Standard 23 (pages 
12-13) excerpts text from DOT-SP 10751 (page 3), DOT-SP 11579 (page 
4), and DOT-SP 12677 (page 3).
     IME Standard 23 (page 13) outlines the operational 
controls dealing with carriage restrictions, the placement of 
materials and containers inside cargo tanks, and the handling and 
maintenance of cargo tanks. These are mirrored in DOT-SP 12677 (page 
4), DOT-SP 10751 (page 3), and DOT-SP 11579 (page 6).
     Tire specification and tire pressure monitoring 
standards in IME Standard 23 (page 14) are mirrored in DOT-SP 12677 
in (pages 6-7). Tire specification requirements stipulate that the 
tire be no more than six years old and outline the minimum tread 
depth of both the steering axle and other tires. Tire pressure 
standards describe when they should be replaced and when tire 
pressure should be measured. However, text specifying the frequency 
of tire pressure checks in the special permits is not equivalent to 
that in IME Standard 23.
     Emergency battery disconnect standards covered in IME 
Standard 23 (page 15) are covered in DOT SP-12677 (page 8) and DOT 
SP-11579 (page 10). Stipulations include that the switch needs to be 
located 24 inches from the battery terminal, and each switch must be 
tested once per calendar month and be repaired in the event of 
malfunction and failure.
     The emergency response, reporting, and training 
provision in IME Standard 23 (page 15) is described in DOT-12677 
(page 10) and DOT-11579 (page 12). This provision describes 
procedures for reporting and investigation accidents. A slight 
difference in reporting requirements between IME Standard 23 and the 
special permits is that IME Standard 23 requires an incident report 
forwarded to PHMSA within 45 days, while the special permits 
stipulate that the incident report must be completed within 30 days 
and then sent to PHMSA within 15 days of its completion.

    In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the HMR by amending the 
regulations to establish standards for the safe transportation of bulk 
explosives. These final rule requirements include the following:

     Incorporation of IME Standard 23 into the HMR. PHMSA 
will incorporate IME Standard 23 and establish requirements of 
general applicability governing the transportation of bulk explosive 
materials. As such, PHMSA will revise the 49 CFR 171.7 material 
incorporated by reference to include IME Standard 23, and establish 
a new section for the bulk explosives requirements.
     Requirements for both existing CTMVs and new 
construction of CTMVs, including modifications.

    By incorporating these requirements, PHMSA will be echoing the 
majority of provisions contained in nine widely-used longstanding 
special permits that have established safety records. These revisions 
are intended to eliminate the need for future renewal requests, thus 
reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining 
an appropriate level of safety.
b. IME Standard 23
    IME Standard 23 recommends standards for MBT straight trucks that 
typically transport multiple hazardous materials in support of blasting 
operations and articulated cargo tanks that carry a single bulk 
blasting agent or oxidizer. The analysis presented here mainly 
addresses the costs and benefits associated with the operation of MBTs. 
Where applicable, it also addresses the costs and benefits associated 
with the operation of ACTVs.
    IME Standard 23 was developed with input from IME members, 
stakeholders, and PHMSA. Federal agencies often incorporate standards, 
especially if the standards do not compromise the level of safety.\47\ 
PHMSA typically incorporates non-consensus standards (as was the case 
with the incorporation

[[Page 79438]]

of the rail special permits) \48\ through an NPRM that is published in 
the Federal Register, providing the regulated community and the public 
an opportunity to comment. This ensures transparency in the rulemaking 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ OMB Circular A119. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/.
    \48\ For example, in June 2012, PHMSA published a final rule to 
incorporate provisions contained in certain widely used or 
longstanding rail special permits that have general applicability 
and established safety records rail special permits into the HMR. 
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
foregoing the rule was previously approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on October 1, 2003, and March 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adoption of IME Standard 23 in the HMR affords the following 
advantages:

     IME Standard 23 is more comprehensive and has stricter 
standards than the special permits, and it may eliminate some 
duplicative functions, such as tire pressure inspections under 
special permits, which are already included in Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance standards that FMCSA uses but have not incorporated 
into the HMR. IME Standard 23 requires tire pressure checks before 
each day at the start of the trip but does not require firms to 
perform the tire pressure checks before each departure onto a public 
road.
     IME Standard 23 has a provision that prevents caking of 
AN into a solid mass.
     IME Standard 23 eliminates the need for special permits 
and the need for renewals, party-to status, or modifications, thus 
saving industry and agency resources because it lessens burdens 
common to applying for and reviewing special permits.
     IME Standard 23 is explicit, unambiguous, targeted, and 
simple to understand and follow.
    The major disadvantages are the following:
     Regulations may need to be reevaluated and changed at 
appropriate intervals to keep pace with technological enhancements 
and other matters. However, IME will perform this at no charge to 
PHMSA. IME will also publish the revised standards free of charge to 
the public.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PHMSA will not be evaluating the applicant firm's 
fitness as it currently does in Phase 2 of the special permit 
application process.
     PHMSA may have to invest more time on compliance 
inspections.

c. Analysis of Costs
    Below is an analysis of costs associated with the various 
provisions under IME Standard 23 that affect its incorporation into the 
HMR.
    Costs associated with fire extinguishers. IME Standard 23 requires 
a minimum of two fire extinguishers rated 4-A:40B:C for MBTs. Current 
Federal regulations require a minimum of one fire extinguisher rated 
10B:C. Fire extinguishers rated 4-A:40B:C are more powerful than 10B:C 
fire extinguishers and can be used for more types of fires.\50\ IME 
makes the following estimates: \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Portable fire extinguishers. Retrieved from http://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire/extinguishers.

    \51\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fire extinguishers could be affixed in 8 hours.
     The cost for 2 fire extinguishers is approximately 
$250.
     The labor costs for installing the fire extinguishers 
are estimated at $280.
     The cost associated with the MBT downtime is 
approximately $560.
     Approximately 25 percent of MBTs would need to acquire 
and affix the extinguishers.

    Using IME data, we estimate that the cost to equip 385 MBTs (25 
percent of the 1,540 MBTs in service) with fire extinguishers would be 
approximately $419,650 (($250 for the fire extinguishers + $280 labor 
costs + $560 vehicle downtime) * 385 MBTs). This would be a one-time 
cost. There will be annual maintenance costs, but we believe these 
costs will be negligible (somewhere between $0 and $5 per MBT over a 
10-year period). Each vehicle should already have at least one fire 
extinguisher on board per DOT regulations.\52\ IME estimates that the 
fire extinguisher has a longer life than the MBT; therefore, we 
estimate that there would be no annual costs to industry resulting from 
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ FMCSA. Part 393: Parts and accessories necessary for safe 
operation. Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/393.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with working pressure limits. IME Standard 23 
limits the maximum allowable working pressure of an MBT cargo tank to 
35 pounds per square inch. This measure is intended to help prevent a 
buildup of pressure in the tank, which could result in a mass 
detonation of the contents in a fire.\53\ IME estimates that most MBTs 
already meet this standard and that, at most, 10 percent of the MBTs 
(or 154 MBTs) would need a retrofit.\54\ According to IME, the cost of 
retrofitting each MBT would be about $3,000.\55\ The cost to industry 
to retrofit 154 MBTs would be approximately $462,000, a one-time cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ This does not have an effect on the capacity of an MBT.
    \54\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
    \55\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with periodic tests and inspections of non-DOT 
specification cargo tanks. IME Standard 23 requires that non-DOT 
specification cargo tanks be inspected essentially in the same way as 
specification tanks. This requires competence training of inspectors 
and physical inspections as described in Appendix B of IME Standard 23. 
IME estimates that 75 percent of the MBTs with non-specification tanks 
are in substantial compliance with IME Standard 23 in this regard. 
According to IME, the annual cost of performing inspections and testing 
for noncompliant vehicles is approximately $3,500 per vehicle.\56\ 
Assuming that 25 percent of MBTs (or 385 vehicles) would need to 
comply, the annual cost of complying is $1,347,500 (385 MBTs not in 
compliance * $3,500 for inspection and tests per vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with the nameplate. IME Standard 23 requires that 
a nameplate be affixed to the vehicle describing its design 
characteristics. According to IME, virtually all MBTs will need a 
retrofit, costing an average of about $125 per truck for a total cost 
of $192,500 ($125 * 1,540 MBTs).\57\ This is a one-time cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with accident investigations. IME Standard 23 
requires companies to provide PHMSA with an incident investigation 
report of all CTMV crashes. This report may be an internal 
investigation because: (1) Some companies are self-insured, and (2) 
some insurance companies will not allow their reports to be released. 
An independent accident investigation of a CTMV crash would be 
conducted only if PHMSA requests it. IME estimates that this would be 
necessary once a year under IME Standard 23. An independent accident 
investigation of an MBT crash costs about $10,000.\58\ Therefore, the 
annual cost associated with accident investigations would be $10,000 
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives. Similar inferences can be made for ACTVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with driver training after preventable accidents. 
IME Standard 23 requires that drivers involved in preventable accidents 
(as defined in 49 CFR 385.3) while operating a CTMV be retrained if the 
driver remains employed by the motor carrier. The IME Standard 23 
requirement is similar to the requirement in the current applicable 
special permits, even though IME Standard 23 clarifies that the carrier 
does not have a responsibility to

[[Page 79439]]

continue to employ the driver. Driver training costs are variable, 
depending on the amount of training needed and required by the rule. 
Truck driver courses cost about $5,000 per driver.\59\ As noted 
earlier, there are on average approximately four incidents per year 
under special permits. If the trend continues in future years under IME 
Standard 23, the cost of driver training to the industry is expected to 
be about $20,000 per year (4 * $5,000), providing the drivers are not 
terminated; however, if the firm has to train new drivers, the cost is 
expected to be the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Professional Truck Driver Institute. Frequently asked 
questions by prospective students, schools & the general public. 
http://www.ptdi.org/errata/FAQs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs associated with maintaining and updating IME Standard 23. The 
cost of standard development is spread among many standards that IME 
makes available to the public. Some standards require more resources 
than others do. IME estimates that the annual cost for maintaining and 
updating IME Standard 23 is about $50,000. IME is prepared to bear the 
cost of maintaining IME Standard 23 and updating it at no cost to 
PHMSA, once it is incorporated into the HMR. This cost is included in 
the total cost to industry; this is an ongoing expenditure that is an 
integral part of industry's management and operation.
    Summary of all costs associated with the final rule. Incorporating 
IME Standard 23 into the HMR will result in a one-time cost of 
approximately $1.1 million and an annual cost of approximately $1.4 
million. The following Table 9 details the expected costs:

              Table 9--Costs Associated With the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Recurring
               Cost items                 One-time costs   annual costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Extinguishers......................        $419,650              $0
Work Pressure Limit.....................         462,000               0
Periodic Inspections....................               0       1,347,500
Nameplate...............................         192,500               0
Accident Investigation..................               0          10,000
Driver Training.........................               0          20,000
Maintaining/Updating IME Standard 23....               0          50,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................       1,074,150       1,416,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Analysis of Benefits
    The benefits associated with the final rule are the sum of the 
benefits of incorporating IME Standard 23 into the HMR and any benefits 
that may accrue from existing and new trucks meeting the additional 
requirements described above. The annual benefits from the 
incorporation of IME Standard 23 into the HMR are described below.
    Cost savings to industry from no longer having to apply for the 
nine special permits. According to PHMSA data from May 2015, 305 
requests for the nine special permits were submitted, with an average 
life span of 3.132 years (approximately 97 [305 requests/3.132 years] 
requests per year).\60\ There were no requests for new permits; all 305 
were party-to special permits, modifications, or renewals. According to 
IME, the industry spends approximately $825 for each renewal, party-to 
status, or modification special permit request. Since none of the 
applications involved new permits, the annual cost to industry would be 
$80,025 (97 permit applications per year * $825).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Accessed and downloaded for the nine special permits 
impacted by HM-233D in May 2015 from http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a/special-permits/search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost savings to PHMSA from no longer having to review and approve 
applications for the nine Special Permits. PHMSA spends approximately 
$414 per application.\61\ The annual total cost to PHMSA for the 
application and review process is $40,158 ($414 per application * 97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Estimate provided by the Special Permits and Approvals 
Division via email on July 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost savings to industry associated with not having to check tire 
pressure before each departure onto the public roads. The special 
permits contain a requirement to check and record the pressure in each 
tire before each regulated movement on a public road, while IME 
Standard 23 contains a requirement to only check tire pressure before 
the initial trip of the day, which would be part of a routine pre-trip 
inspection and should not add any additional cost.\62\ For the 
calculation of costs ensuing from the requirement to check tire 
pressure before each departure onto public roads (based on information 
from IME and using inferences for CTMVs), PHMSA assumes the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.

     Drivers of CTMVs earn approximately $35 per hour, 
including overhead.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ According to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) May 2014 occupational wage statistics for ``53-3032 
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers,'' the mean hourly wage is 
$20.16 per hour or $30.24 per hour, using a 50-percent overhead 
factor. See: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm. The BLS 
wage estimate is less than the IME estimate because the BLS estimate 
includes drivers of all tractor trailers and trucks with a capacity 
of 26,000 pounds. PHMSA is using IME's wage estimate for this cost 
analysis because the IME wage estimate relates to MBT drivers 
considered under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Drivers perform work-related activities about 250 days 
per year for approximately 14 hours for each of those 250 days. The 
14-hour day consists of driving (which, under current U.S. 
regulations, is restricted to 11 driving hours during a 14-hour 
workday),\64\ non-driving (such as loading, unloading, performing 
required tire checks, and doing paperwork), and rest breaks. 
According to a DOT study, commercial motor vehicle drivers spend 
approximately 66 percent of their workday driving; 23 percent 
performing non-driving activities; and the remaining 11 percent 
resting, eating, and sleeping while on duty.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ DOT. (2013, July 1). New hours-of-service safety 
regulations to reduce truck drive fatigue begin today [Press 
release]. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/new-hours-service-safety-regulations-reduce-truck-driver-fatigue-begin-today.
    \65\ Blanco, M., Hanowski, R.J., Olson, R.L., Morgan, J.F., 
Soccolich, S.A., Wu, S., & Guo, F. (2011, May). The impact of 
driving, non-driving work, and rest breaks on driving performance in 
commercial motor vehicle operations. Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and State University & FMCSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In 2014, a gallon of diesel fuel cost $3.83.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015, August). 
Weekly retail gasoline and diesel prices. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The cost per day to operate a CTMV in compliance with 
special permits is $560.
     Checking tire pressure takes approximately 30 minutes 
per day, according to an IME estimate. PHMSA believes this

[[Page 79440]]

may be an overestimation but has included it in the absence of an 
alternative value.

    Under the assumptions above, the cost per year for the tire checks 
is approximately $4,375 per year per CTMV ($35 driver wage per hour of 
work * 0.5 hours per tire pressure check * 250 work days/year).
    Vehicles idle during the tire check, and PHMSA estimates that they 
consume 1 gallon of fuel per hour. The fuel costs per year per vehicle 
are $479 ($3.83 per gallon of diesel * 0.5 hours per tire pressure 
check * 250 workdays).
    Additionally, the industry estimates that the daily time needed to 
check tire pressure (i.e., 30 minutes per day) translates to a lost 
time equivalent of approximately 0.036 workdays (0.5 hours per day/14-
hour workday). Thus, the lost productive time of CTMVs costs $5,040 
(0.036 lost time per workday * 250 workdays/year * $560 to operate a 
CTMV per day) per year. See the following Table 10:

                     Table 10--Annual Costs per Vehicle Associated With Tire Pressure Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Labor cost per   Fuel cost per    CTMV downtime     Total annual
       Average amount of time per day          year per CTMV    year per CTMV       per year      cost per CTMV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 minutes..................................          $4,375             $479           $5,040           $9,894
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual cost per vehicle associated with the tire-pressure check 
requirement is $9,894, which is an annual cost to industry from the 
tire pressure test requirement of approximately $18,046,656 ($9,894 
total cost per vehicle per year * 1,824 CTMVs).
    Cost savings to industry from reduced caking incidence. There is a 
savings from the IME Standard 23 requirement relating to caking. If 
left sitting for several days, ammonium nitrate (AN) can absorb 
moisture from the air, allowing it to cake into a solid mass that is 
extremely difficult to break up. AN is highly hygroscopic; that is, it 
readily absorbs water from the atmosphere. AN is also highly water-
soluble. If AN sits undisturbed in a bulk container long enough, it 
will absorb water and the prills will dissolve slightly around the 
edges. A prill is a small aggregate or globule of a material, most 
often a dry sphere, formed from a melted liquid. A drop in temperature 
will then cause the prills to solidify into a solid mass. IME Standard 
23 counteracts this by unloading the transport container. Almost all 
bulk trucks will have AN prills in them at some point, making them 
susceptible to caking. Routine maintenance requirements under IME 
Standard 23 do not permit caking of the contents of an MBT to occur. 
IME Standard 23 specifies that if the interior surfaces of bulk 
packaging are not smooth and free of obstructions, the bulk packaging 
is to be inspected and cleaned ``to prevent caking and/or drying-out of 
the bulk hazardous material.'' IME Standard 23 further specifies that 
bulk hazardous materials not be allowed to remain in the bulk packaging 
for any period of time that could result in caking. IME Standard 23 
recommends that the equipment be cleaned as needed to minimize the 
accumulation and packing of the bulk hazardous materials in the bulk 
packaging. IME notes that instances of caking currently occur 5 to 10 
times annually and cost about $12,000 to remediate each time.\67\ There 
is no additional cost to industry to comply with the requirement in IME 
Standard 23 that helps prevent caking. Thus, this preventive 
requirement represents a savings to industry on average of $90,000 per 
year (assuming an average of 7.5 (i.e., the average of 5 and 10) caking 
incidents per year * $12,000 per incident for remediation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Santis, L. Cost analysis of SLP-23, special permits, and 
Canadian standards for bulk trucks. Institute of Makers of 
Explosives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost savings to the public from the IME standard. There are many 
resources and costs involved in the development and revision of 
standards.\68\ According to the Administrative Conference of the United 
States report, ``agencies are legally required to identify the specific 
version of material incorporated by reference and are prohibited from 
incorporating material dynamically. When an updated version of the 
incorporated material becomes available, the regulation must be updated 
if PHMSA wants the regulation to incorporate the new version.'' \69\ In 
addition, if the standard is copyrighted--as is often the case with 
voluntary consensus standards--there are concerns with what might 
constitute ``fair use'' under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. There 
are fees for licensing the standards. The costs associated with paying 
a fee for the standards will affect small businesses and may cause 
small businesses to leave the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ANSI notes that standard-setting organizations charge for 
standards because ``every standard is a work of authorship and, 
under U.S. and international law, is copyright protected, giving the 
owner certain rights of control and remuneration that cannot be 
taken away without just compensation. In addition, there are many 
costs associated with developing, maintaining, and distributing 
standards--all of which can be reflected in the price of a 
standard.'' ANSI. Why voluntary consensus standards incorporated by 
reference into Federal Government regulations are copyright 
protected. Retrieved August 18, 2012, from http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Critical%20Issues/Copyright%20on%20Standards%20in%20Regulations/Copyright%20on%20Standards%20in%20Regulation.pdf.
    \69\ Administrative Conference of the United States. 
(Memorandum). (2011, October 19). Retrieved August 7, 2015, from 
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Revised-Draft-Recommendation-10-19-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to IME information, the resources and costs associated 
with development and updating include the following:

     Staff and equipment to manage the administration 
process. IME spends about $1 million annually on this.
     Volunteer members to attend meetings and develop text. 
Teleconferencing saves some resources and travel costs; IME 
estimates that a typical member invests about a quarter of a person-
year in IME activities. The cost is not quantified.
     For meetings, IME spends approximately $100,000 per 
year.
     IME spends approximately $50,000 per year to maintain 
IME Standard 23.
     IME spends approximately $100,000 per year for videos, 
posters, and publications.

    IME will make the standard available at no charge, which represents 
a cost saving to the public of about $1.3 million.\70\ This is cost 
saving to the users, since there are several factors that impact the 
price of a standard. According to the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI), the price charged by standard setters includes the 
costs of: (1) Developing and maintaining the standards; (2) supporting 
the users of the standards and educating Federal, State, and local 
government regulators and legislators about the value of the standards; 
(3) paying for intellectual property rights; and (4) paying for the 
production, warehousing, and distribution costs associated with

[[Page 79441]]

disseminating the standards.\71\ Based on IME's experience with 
developing, maintaining, providing assistance to users and others, and 
disseminating standards, we estimate that the total annual costs for 
the development and maintenance of standards would likely be more than 
$1.3 million because of an undetermined licensing fee additional to the 
other cost elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Assumes non-quantified costs of $50,000 for volunteer 
members.
    \71\ ANSI. Why charge for standards? Retrieved from http://www.ansi.org/help/charge_standards.aspx?menuid=help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost savings to industry from reduced paperwork burden. According 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement that was prepared 
for the HM-245 rule that incorporated ``Certain Cargo Tank Special 
Permits'' into the HMR, PHMSA estimated a 1-hour special permit renewal 
time. PHMSA estimates that the fully loaded wage rate for the employee 
who fills out the permits (e.g., a compliance officer) is $32.69 per 
hour; the fully loaded wage rate is $49.04 ($32.69 * 1.5) per hour.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ PHMSA-based labor costs on the ``Compliance Officer'' 
occupation for wages, and accounted for fringe benefits of 50 
percent to estimate the full labor cost. See: BLS Occupational 
Employment Statistics http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual cost savings to industry associated with the reduced 
paperwork is approximately $4,757 ($49.04 hourly wage rate for a 
compliance officer * 97 fewer special permits).
    Cost savings from incorporating the NHTSA requirement. The NHTSA 
requirement in the final rule is expected to reduce regulatory and 
administrative burden without negatively affecting transportation 
safety. There are likely to be no significant marginal costs or 
benefits associated with this requirement. NHTSA is the U.S. Government 
agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 
(the Vehicle Safety Act), and certain other laws relating to motor 
vehicle safety. Under that authority, NHTSA issues and enforces the 
FMVSS that apply to motor vehicles and to certain items of motor 
vehicle equipment. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that motor vehicles 
and regulated items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale in 
the United States be certified to comply with all applicable FMVSS. 
Before offering a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment item for 
sale in the United States, the fabricating manufacturer must: (1) 
Designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent for 
service of process if the fabricating manufacturer is not located in 
the United States (49 CFR part 551, subpart D Service of Process on 
Foreign Manufacturers and Importers), and (2) submit to NHTSA 
identifying information on itself and on the products it manufactures 
to the FMVSS, not later than 30 days after the manufacturing process 
begins (49 CFR part 566 Manufacturer Identification).
    Summary of all benefits associated with the final rule. 
Incorporating IME Standard 23 into the HMR will result in annual 
quantified cost savings of approximately $19.5 million (see Table 11).

            Table 11--Benefits Associated With the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cost savings
                   Cost savings items                        per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry savings from no longer having to submit special         $80,025
 permit applications....................................
PHMSA savings from special permit application review....          40,158
Industry savings from no longer having to do tire checks      18,046,650
 prior to departures across public roads................
Savings to industry from remediation resulting from               90,000
 caking incidents experienced under current operations
 under special permits..................................
Minimum savings to the public from making IME Standard         1,300,000
 23 available to the public at no cost, updating and
 maintaining the publication............................
Reduced paperwork burden................................           4,757
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................      19,561,590
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Summary of Costs and Benefits From Adopting the Final Rule
    Under the final rule, the one-time costs are about $1.1 million and 
the recurring annual costs are about $1.4 million. The benefits account 
for approximately $19.6 million (see Table 12). The net present value 
of costs discounted at three percent and seven percent over 10 years 
are about $13.1 million and $11.0 million, respectively. The present 
value of the $19.6 million discounted at three percent and seven 
percent over 10 years is about $171.9 million and $147.0 million, 
respectively.

                           Table 12--Costs and Benefits Associated With the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Benefits (cost
                           Cost items                             One-time costs     Recurring     savings) per
                                                                                   annual costs        year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry applications for special permits.......................              $0              $0         $80,025
PHMSA review of special permit applications.....................               0               0          40,158
Tire pressure checks............................................               0               0      18,046,650
Fire extinguishers..............................................         419,650               0               0
Working pressure limit..........................................         462,000               0               0
Caking..........................................................               0               0          90,000
Periodic inspections/tests......................................               0       1,347,500               0
Nameplate.......................................................         192,500               0               0
Accident investigations.........................................               0          10,000               0
Driver training.................................................               0          20,000               0
Maintaining/updating IME Standard 23............................               0          50,000       1,300,000
Reduced paperwork burden........................................               0               0           4,757
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       1,074,150       1,427,500      19,561,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 79442]]

    The annualized costs of the rule discounted at three percent are 
$1.3 million and at seven percent are approximately $1.1 million (see 
Table 13). The annualized benefits at three percent are approximately 
$17.2 million and, at seven percent, $14.7 million. The annualized net 
benefits of the final rule at three percent are approximately $15.9 
million ($17.2 million in annualized benefits and $1.3 million in 
annualized costs) and at seven percent are approximately $13.6 million 
($14.7 million in annualized benefits and $1.1 million in annualized 
costs). Table 13 summarizes these annual values:

                                                         Table 13--Annual and Annualized Values
                                                                      [$ Millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Values                                2016     2017     2018     2019     2020     2021     2022     2023     2024     2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs.........................................................     $2.5     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4     $1.4
Benefits......................................................     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6     19.6
Net Benefits..................................................     17.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1     18.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annualized Values at 3% Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs.........................................................                                             1.3
Benefits......................................................                                            17.2
Net Benefits..................................................                                            15.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annualized Values at 7% Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs.........................................................                                             1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits......................................................                                            14.7
Net Benefits..................................................                                            13.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by state and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have ``substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.''
    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''), and the 
President's memorandum on ``Preemption'' published in the Federal 
Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693).\73\ This final rule preempts 
state, local and Indian tribe requirements but does not amend any 
regulation that has 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 
governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Federal hazardous material 
transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, contains an express preemption 
provision [49 U.S.C 5125(b)] preempting state, local and Indian tribe 
requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-05-22/pdf/E9-12250.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 materials; or
    (5) The designing, manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting, marking, 
maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or testing a package, container 
or packaging component that is represented, marked, certified, or sold 
as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.
    This final rule addresses covered subject items (2), (3), and (5) 
and would preempt any State, local, or Indian tribe requirements 
concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal requirements are 
``substantively the same'' as the Federal requirements. Furthermore, 
this final rule is necessary to update, clarify, and provide relief 
from regulatory requirements.
    Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at 49 
U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) that if PHMSA issues a regulation concerning any of 
the covered subjects, PHMSA must determine and publish in the Federal 
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date 
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of 
the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. 
PHMSA proposes the effective date of federal preemption will be 90 days 
from publication of the final rule in this matter in the Federal 
Register.

D. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule 
does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 
Furthermore, we did not receive any comments to the NPRM or requests 
for consultation from Indian tribes during this rulemaking process.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT 
Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, requires 
Federal agencies to conduct a separate analysis of the economic impact 
of rules on small entities, taking into account the particular concerns 
of small entities when developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating, 
and enforcing

[[Page 79443]]

regulations. Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, each final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is required to address:
    1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule.
    2. A summary of the significant issues raised by public comments in 
response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a summary of 
the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made in the final rule as a result of such comments.
    3. The kind and number of small entities to which the final rule 
will apply.
    4. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements of the final rule.
    5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities consistent with 
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of 
the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency was rejected.
    A discussion of these requirements follows.
1. Need for the Rule
    The objective of this rulemaking is to develop a set of standards 
related to the safe transportation of bulk explosives in CTMVs that 
will no longer require the need to apply for or become a party to a 
special permit, as the standard will be in the HMR. This rulemaking 
action is necessary to provide regulatory flexibility and relief while 
protecting public health, welfare, safety, and the environment. The 
final rule will be beneficial to stakeholders by reducing paperwork for 
industry and government while maintaining an appropriate level of 
safety, which promotes safer transportation practices. Finally, this 
rulemaking action facilitates commerce and eliminates unnecessary 
regulatory requirements. The intended effects of this rulemaking would 
provide enhanced flexibility for industry transporting hazardous 
materials in commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of safety. 
The rulemaking would amend the HMR by incorporating IME Standard 23 and 
therefore include the requirements of nine special permits that were 
used to create IME Standard 23.
2. Comments Received on the NPRM Relating to Small Entity Impact
    PHMSA did not receive any comments specifically relating to the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. A more extensive 
discussion of the comments relating to the impact of the requirements 
proposed in the NPRM is provided in Section 2.7 of the Final Rule 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
    For the HM-233D NPRM, PHMSA received two sets of comments from IME 
and one set of comments from R&R.\74\ \75\ IME strongly opposed 
including the FSS requirement in the HM-233D rulemaking and provided 
numerous arguments and data to back up their point of view. These 
included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Retrieved from http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=PHMSA-2011-0345.
    \75\ Other comments received from the Dangerous Goods Advisory 
Council and the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles 
are supportive of the rulemaking and IME's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. No deaths and serious injuries have been attributable to 
hazardous materials carried on MBTs.
    2. There is no guarantee that a FSS will be operational after a 
crash.
    3. The Natural Resources Canada FSS will increase the cost of a MBT 
by 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent.
    IME also opposed the specifics of the requirement for EBDDs in the 
HM-233D rulemaking, stating that they would support an EBDD requirement 
that harmonizes with the Canadian standard. R&R argued for 
clarifications needed to be made to the HM-233D rulemaking, in 
particular, to draw a clearer delineation between MBTs and ACTVs that 
carry one commodity.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of 
Small Entities To Which the Final Rule Will Apply
    By amending the HMR, this action will likely affect only existing 
holders of the nine special permits. Firms newly engaged in the 
transportation of bulk explosives will benefit from the elimination of 
the special permit application process. Manufacturers of MBTs will also 
be affected by the final rule, as they have to comply with the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard part of the rule.
    PHMSA data detailing the applications from firms for the special 
permits under consideration show that 100 firms were involved in 
obtaining permits for the nine special permits referred to above.\76\ 
All were applications for renewals, party-to status, or modifications. 
Of the 100 firms, we found 83 percent to be small and 17 percent to be 
large. The size of firm was determined using the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standard.\77\ SBA bases the size standard on 
the firm's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
and either average number of employees or average annual revenue. The 
NAICS code, number of employees, and annual revenue were mostly found 
on Manta.\78\ When there was no information on revenue or employees in 
Manta, FindTheCompany was used.\79\ In the data, five percent of firms 
did not have an associated NAICS code, and three percent of firms did 
not have revenue or employee information. As small firms are less 
likely to have public information associated with them, these firms 
were classified as small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Accessed and downloaded for the nine special permits 
impacted by HM-233D in May 2015 (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/sp-a/special-permits/search).
    \77\ SBA. Table of small business standards matched to North 
American Industry Classification System codes. Retrieved from 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
    \78\ Manta. http://www.manta.com.
    \79\ FindTheCompany. http://www.findthecompany.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were 29 different NAICS codes, as shown in the following 
Table 14. Of the 100 firms, 83 were small businesses.

                               Table 14--Number of Small Businesses by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Number of     Percentage of
                           NAICS code                                Number of         small           small
                                                                    businesses      businesses      businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
424690..........................................................              25              24              96
325920..........................................................              18              14              78
484230..........................................................              10               6              60
238910..........................................................               9               6              67
236115..........................................................               2               2             100
236210..........................................................               2               2             100
237110..........................................................               2               1              50

[[Page 79444]]

 
237310..........................................................               2               2             100
237990..........................................................               2               2             100
423990..........................................................               2               2             100
484121..........................................................               2               1              50
541990..........................................................               2               2             100
212311..........................................................               1               1             100
212312..........................................................               1               1             100
213111..........................................................               1               1             100
213113..........................................................               1               1             100
213115..........................................................               1               0               0
238220..........................................................               1               1             100
238990..........................................................               1               1             100
423610..........................................................               1               0               0
444110..........................................................               1               1             100
484110..........................................................               1               1             100
485999..........................................................               1               0               0
488210..........................................................               1               1             100
531130..........................................................               1               1             100
561499..........................................................               1               1             100
562112..........................................................               1               1             100
813920..........................................................               1               1             100
999900..........................................................               1               1             100
Not available...................................................               5               5             100
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             100              83              83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHMSA Special Permits Database and Econometrica calculations.

4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule
    The RIA estimated the number of CTMVs to be 1,824, of which 1,540 
were estimated to be MBTs and 284 were estimated to be ACTVs. PHMSA 
assumes a uniform distribution of MBTs among small and large firms, 
even though large firms operate a significant proportion of the MBTs in 
service.\80\ Thus, small firms operate 1,278 MBTs (1,540 MBTs in 
service * 83 percent small business entities) and 236 ACTVs (284 ACTVs 
in service * 83 percent small business entities), giving a total of 
1,514 CTMVs, as shown in the following Table 15:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Based on data from the 2015 Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration Motor Carrier Management Information System Catalog, 
8 firms have 100 or more CTMVs in their fleets, so a more complex 
analysis would remove those 8 large firms and 800 CTMVs from the 
calculations. Thus, the analysis presented in this Final Rule 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis may actually overstate the impact on 
small businesses.

                        Table 15--Number and Types of Trucks Operated by Small Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percentage        Trucks
                                                                                    operated by     operated by
                          Type of truck                            Total trucks        small           small
                                                                                    businesses      businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBT.............................................................           1,540              83           1,278
ACTV............................................................             284              83             236
CTMV............................................................           1,824              83           1,514
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: RIA and Econometrica calculations.

    A discussion of the impacts of the final rule on small businesses 
is included below.
Costs to Small Businesses
    Costs associated with tire pressure checks. IME Standard 23 
contains a requirement to check tire pressure before the initial trip 
of the day. This would be part of a routine pre-trip inspection and is 
not expected to add costs.
    Costs associated with fire extinguishers. IME Standard 23 requires 
a minimum of two fire extinguishers rated 4-A:40B:C. IME estimates that 
approximately 25 percent of the MBTs in service would need to acquire 
and affix the fire extinguishers. Assuming these MBTs are distributed 
uniformly across all firms, small businesses will need to acquire and 
affix fire extinguishers to 320 MBTs (1,278 MBTs * 0.25 MBTs in service 
would need to acquire and affix the fire extinguishers) at a total cost 
of $348,800 [($250 for the fire extinguishers + $280 labor costs + $560 
vehicle downtime) * 320 MBTs]. This is expected to be a one-time cost.
    Costs associated with working pressure limits. IME Standard 23 
limits the maximum allowable working pressure of an MBT cargo tank to 
35 pounds per square inch. IME estimates that at most 10 percent of the 
MBTs would need a retrofit to meet this standard. Assuming these MBTs 
are distributed uniformly across all firms, small businesses will need 
to retrofit 128 MBTs (1,278 MBTs * 0.10 MBTs

[[Page 79445]]

would need a retrofit to meet this standard) at a total cost of 
$384,000 ($3,000 for the retrofit * 128 MBTs). This is a one-time cost.
    Costs associated with periodic tests and inspections of non-DOT 
specification cargo tanks. IME Standard 23 requires that non-DOT 
specification cargo tanks be inspected essentially in the same way as 
specification tanks. This requires competence training of inspectors 
and physical inspections as described in Appendix B of IME Standard 23. 
IME estimates that 25 percent of the MBTs with non-specification tanks 
are not in compliance with IME Standard 23 in this regard. Assuming 
these MBTs are distributed uniformly across all firms, small businesses 
will need to conduct tests and inspections on 320 MBTs (1,278 MBTs * 
0.25 MBTs with non-specification tanks are not in compliance with IME 
Standard 23 in this regard) at an annual cost of $1,120,000 ($3,500 per 
inspection and test * 320 MBTs). This is a recurring cost.
    Costs associated with the nameplate. IME Standard 23 requires that 
a nameplate be affixed to the vehicle describing its design 
characteristics. PHMSA assumes that all MBTs will need to affix a 
nameplate. For small businesses, the total cost associated with the 
nameplate is $159,750 ($125 per nameplate * 1,278 MBTs). This is a one-
time cost.
    Costs associated with accident investigations and driver training 
after preventable accidents. IME Standard 23 requires companies to 
provide PHMSA with an incident investigation report of all CTMV 
crashes. This report may be an internal investigation because: (1) Some 
companies are self-insured, and (2) some insurance companies will not 
allow their reports to be released. An independent accident 
investigation of a CTMV crash would be conducted only if PHMSA requests 
it. IME estimates that under IME Standard 23 this would be necessary 
once a year. An independent accident investigation of a MBT or ACTV 
crash costs about $10,000. In addition, four incidents per year will 
require driver training at the cost of $20,000 ($5,000 per training * 4 
incidents). Assuming incidents over time are distributed uniformly 
among all firms, small businesses will have an expected annual cost of 
$24,900 per year [($10,000 for investigations + $20,000 for training) * 
0.83 small entities].
    Costs summary. The total one-time cost borne by small businesses 
associated with the final rule is $892,550; approximately $90,000 per 
year over a 10-year period. The total recurring cost borne by small 
businesses is expected to be $1,144,900 per year. The following Table 
16 summarizes these costs.

                Table 16--Cost of Final Rule Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Cost item                  One-time cost    Annual cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Extinguishers......................        $348,800  ..............
Working Pressure Limit..................         384,000  ..............
Periodic Test and Inspections...........  ..............      $1,120,000
Nameplate...............................         159,750  ..............
Accident investigations and driver        ..............          24,900
 training...............................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         892,550       1,144,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: RIA and Econometrica calculations.

Benefits to Small Businesses
    Savings from applications. Incorporating IME Standard 23 into the 
HMR will eliminate nine special permits and the costs associated with 
preparing and submitting applications for these special permits. 
Assuming the 97 special permit applications per year are distributed 
uniformly among small and large firms, small businesses account for 
approximately 81 (97 * 0.83 small entities) applications per year. 
Thus, small businesses will save $66,825 (81 special permit 
applications * $825 per special permit party-to or renewal application) 
per year.
    Savings from tire pressure checks. The special permits require that 
tires must be checked and the pressure of each tire recorded before 
each departure onto or across a public road, which adds a cost of 
$18,046,650 annually to operating requirements for the 1,824 CTMVs in 
service, a cost not incurred by any other hazardous materials trucking 
operation. Under the incorporation of IME Standard 23 into the HMR, the 
mandate to check and record tire pressures before each on-road 
departure would no longer apply. This will represent a cost saving of 
$14,978,720 ($18,046,650 for operating requirements * 0.83 small 
entities) per year to small businesses.
    Savings from caking remediation. The caking requirement in IME 
Standard 23 will eliminate the cost of remediating caking in the bulk 
packaging. Assuming the 7.5 caking incidents per year are distributed 
uniformly among small and large firms, the caking requirement will 
represent a cost savings of $74,700 ($12,000 to remediate caking * 7.5 
caking incidents per year * 0.83 small entities) per year.
    Benefits summary. The total cost savings for small businesses 
associated with the final rule are estimated at $15,120,245 ($66,825 
savings from applications + $14,978,720 savings from tire pressure 
checks + $74,700 savings from caking remediation) per year (see 
following Table 17). The benefits far outweigh the costs.

          Table 17--Annual Benefits Associated With Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual cost
                   Cost savings items                         savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications............................................         $66,825
Tire pressure checks....................................      14,978,720
Caking remediation......................................          74,700
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................      15,120,245
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: RIA and Econometrica calculations.

5. Steps Taken To Mitigate the Impact of the Rule on Affected Small 
Entities
    PHMSA has not excluded small entities from any of the requirements 
of the final rule. However, PHMSA has removed the FSS and emergency 
shut-off/battery disconnect device requirements--included in the 
proposed rule--from the final rule, which will mitigate many of the 
cost impacts of the rule for small entities. Since costs are 
distributed evenly across firms, but large firms have higher revenues 
than small firms, the reduced costs would have a larger impact on 
small-firm profitability than on large-firm profitability.

[[Page 79446]]

An Identification of All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 
Conflict With the Final Rule
    PHMSA is revising the HMR by amending the regulations to establish 
standards for the safe transportation of bulk explosives. The final 
rule has a detailed explanation of all the requirements. None of the 
existing Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final 
rule.
Conclusion
    This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive 
Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance 
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of 
draft rules on small entities are properly considered. In summary, the 
final rule provides substantial benefits to small entities as 
demonstrated above.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2137-0051, entitled 
``Rulemaking, Special Permits, and Preemption Requirements.'' This 
final rule may result in a decrease in the annual burden and costs 
under OMB Control Number 2137-0051 due to adopting changes to 
incorporate IME Standard 23 and certain provisions contained in certain 
widely-used or longstanding special permits that have an established 
safety record.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to 
respond to an information collection 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 final rule identifies revised information collection requests 
that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements in 
this final rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect 
changes in this final rule and estimates that the information 
collection and recordkeeping burdens would be revised as follows:

    OMB Control No. 2137-0051:
    Net Decrease in Annual Number of Respondents: 100.
    Net Decrease in Annual Responses: 100.
    Net Decrease in Annual Burden Hours: 200.
    Net Decrease in Annual Burden Costs: $5,000.

    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be 
directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards (PHH-12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, 
Telephone (202) 366-8553.

G. 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 contained in the heading of 
this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of 
$155 million or more to either state, local or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

I. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375, 
requires that federal agencies consider the consequences of major 
Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require federal 
agencies to conduct an environmental review considering: (1) The need 
for the action; (2) alternatives to the action; (3) probable 
environmental impacts of the action and alternatives; and (4) the 
agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process [40 CFR 
1508.9(b)].
1. Introduction
    PHMSA is amending the HMR by establishing standards for the safe 
transportation of bulk explosives. This rulemaking specifically focuses 
on reviewing the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)'s Safety 
Library Publication 23 (IME Standard 23): Recommendations for the 
Transportation of Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, 
Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids, Class 3, and Corrosives, Class 8 in 
Bulk Packagings and nine special permits related to multipurpose bulk 
trucks (MBTs) used to transport various explosives, oxidizers, 
flammable liquids, and corrosive liquids on the same transport vehicle. 
The objective of this rulemaking is to develop a set of standards 
related to the safe transportation of these materials in MBTs that will 
no longer require a special permit because the standard will be in the 
HMR.
    Through this final rule PHMSA is incorporating IME Standard 23 and 
establishing requirements of general applicability governing the 
transportation of bulk explosive materials. In addition, PHMSA is 
requiring compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS).
2. Background
    This rulemaking is responsive to two petitions for rulemaking 
submitted by industry representatives, P-1557 concerning the 
elimination of the need to operate under special permits by 
incorporating them into the HMR, and P-1583 concerning the 
incorporation of an industry standard publication. Further, developing 
these requirements would provide wider access to the regulatory 
flexibility currently only offered by special permit and competent 
authorities.
    This rulemaking specifically focuses on reviewing IME Standard 23: 
Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, Division 1.5, 
Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids, Class 3, 
and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk Packagings and nine special permits 
related to MBTs used to transport various explosives, oxidizers, 
flammable liquids, and corrosive liquids on the same transport vehicle. 
The objective of this rulemaking is to develop a set of standards 
related to the safe transportation of these materials in MBTs that will 
no longer require the need to apply for a special permit as the 
standard will be in the HMR.
    This final rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
5103(b), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for 
the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in 
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The 49 U.S.C. 5117(a) 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit 
from a regulation prescribed in 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 of the 
Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law to a person 
transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way 
that achieves a safety level at least

[[Page 79447]]

equal to the safety level required under the law, or consistent with 
the public interest, if a required safety level does not exist. The 
final rule amends the regulations by incorporating provisions from 
certain widely used and longstanding special permits that have 
established a history of safety and that may, therefore, be converted 
into the regulations for general use.
3. Purpose and Need
    PHMSA amends the HMR to establish standards for the safe 
transportation of bulk explosives. Developing such provisions of the 
HMR is intended to provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility 
that currently only is offered by way of obtaining a special permit. 
For example, the adoption of a regulatory standard in the HMR would 
eliminate the need for persons who hold a special permit to apply for 
renewal in the future.
    In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the HMR by amending the 
regulations to establish standards for the safe transportation of bulk 
explosives. The following is a description of the action and the need 
for the action.
a. Incorporation of IME Standard 23 Into the HMR
    Action: PHMSA incorporates IME Standard 23 and establishes 
requirements of general applicability governing the transportation of 
bulk explosive materials. As such, PHMSA revises the 49 CFR 171.7 table 
of material incorporated by reference to include IME Standard 23, and 
establish a new section for the bulk explosives requirements.
    Need: PHMSA has concluded that the incorporation of IME Standard 23 
into the HMR will provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility 
currently only offered by special permit and competent authorities. 
PHMSA believes this will benefit the government and the industry, as it 
will eliminate the need for firms to apply individually to transport 
certain classes of bulk materials in MBTs, provide regulatory 
flexibility and relief while maintaining an high level of safety, 
promote safer transportation practices, facilitate commerce, reduce 
paperwork burdens, and eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements.
b. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for New Construction and 
Modified Multipurpose Bulk Trucks
    Action: New or modified multipurpose bulk trucks constructed 120 
days after the publication date of the final rule must be in compliance 
with the FMVSS found in 49 CFR part 571, as applicable. Furthermore, 
the multipurpose bulk truck manufacturer must maintain a certification 
record ensuring the final manufacturing is in compliance with the 
FMVSS, per the certification requirements found in 49 CFR part 567. 
These certification records must be made available to DOT 
representatives upon request.
    Need: This specifies that all new construction and modified MBTs 
must conform to the FMVSS requirements.
4. Public Involvement
    This rulemaking is responsive to two petitions for rulemaking 
submitted by industry representatives, P-1557 concerning the 
elimination of the need to operate under special permits by 
incorporating them into the HMR, and P-1583 concerning the 
incorporation of an industry standard publication. Developing these 
requirements would provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility 
currently only offered by special permit and competent authorities.
5. Market Segments Affected and Requirements of the Final Rule
    This final rule incorporates elements of nine special permits that 
authorize multipurpose bulk truck operations not specifically permitted 
under the HMR. The amendments will eventually eliminate the need for 
current grantees to reapply for renewal of special permits every four 
years and for PHMSA to process those renewal applications. It will also 
allow other operators to transport bulk explosives without a special 
permit, provided that the operators conform to the requirements of this 
rule, including those explicitly stated in IME Standard 23.
6. Alternatives Considered
    Alternative 1: No Action.
    This would not be the preferred alternative. Under this option, 
PHMSA would continue existing requirements for special permits to 
transport bulk explosives by taking no action. However, PHMSA believes 
that there are considerable benefits (both environmental and economic) 
to taking action provided that a high level of safety is maintained. If 
no action is taken there will be no beneficial or adverse environmental 
effects compared to the status quo. Finally, this alternative would not 
impose any costs, but it would prevent the opportunity to realize any 
efficiency benefits.
    Alternative 2: PHMSA Defers to Voluntary Standards.
    This would not be the preferred alternative. Under this option, 
PHMSA will defer to voluntary standards developed through organizations 
or trade associations. PHMSA will likely participate in standard-
setting to develop standards that meet safety criteria that are in the 
interest of the United States. While compliance with voluntary 
standards is thought to be high by industry participants, firms do not 
have to comply with them, since they are voluntary. This creates some 
concern since the non-adoption may mean that those firms may not comply 
with minimum safety standards. A review of this alternative leads to a 
possibility that important environmental safety measures would not be 
implemented as completely as they would under alternative (5). For 
example, the provisions: (1) Any non-DOT specification cargo tanks, 
portable tanks, sift-proof closed vehicles and closed bulk bins must be 
qualified, inspected, and maintained essentially the same as a DOT-
specification bulk container (as set out in Appendix B of IME Standard 
23); and (2) inspectors conducting inspections of non-DOT non-
specification tanks must meet training qualifications outlined in 
Appendix B, would not be implemented if this alternative (#2: PHMSA 
Defers to Voluntary Standards) was selected. While there may be certain 
beneficial environmental effects with this alternative, there are 
certainly drawbacks too. Furthermore, this alternative does not ensure 
the level of safety that alternative (5) would because firms may not 
comply with a voluntary standard.
    Alternative 3: Incorporate Special Permits That Have a Good Safety 
Record Into the HMR.
    This would not be the preferred alternative. Under this option, 
PHMSA would incorporate seven of the nine special permits into the HMR. 
These seven special permits have very good safety records. By 
incorporating these special permits, PHMSA would need to work through 
the Federal rulemaking process to modify the HMR in response to 
technological enhancements and other matters relating to the 
transportation of the bulk explosives covered under the seven special 
permits. It may be more advantageous to incorporate standards developed 
by industry than for PHMSA to develop its own standards and incorporate 
them into the HMR. There may be beneficial environmental effects with 
this alternative, but not to the extent of the final action because 
this alternative is not as comprehensive.
    Alternative 4: Adopt Other National or International Standards.
    This would not be the preferred alternative. Under this option, 
PHMSA

[[Page 79448]]

would adopt other national or international standards, such as those 
used by Canada, Australia, or the United Nations. These other standards 
do not conform well to existing U.S. law and to the nine special 
permits. For example, the U.S. Bridge Law (USBL) provides known 
standards for bridge construction, by, among other requirements, 
placing restrictions on the overall size of MBTs in service in the 
United States. Other standards do not conform to the USBL. Also, these 
standards are implemented in ways that may not be possible within the 
regulatory framework in the United States. This alternative will not 
have beneficial environmental effects beyond the status quo.
Alternative 5: Incorporate IME Standard 23 Into the HMR With Additional 
Features
    This option is the preferred alternative, because it would provide 
regulatory flexibility without imposing burdensome costs. IME Standard 
23 recommends standards for MBT straight trucks that typically 
transport multiple hazardous materials in support of blasting 
operations and articulated cargo tanks that carry a single bulk 
blasting agent or oxidizer. Under this option, PHMSA would incorporate 
IME Standard 23 into the HMR with additional features. This rulemaking 
specifically adopts a combination of features, including incorporating 
by reference (IBR) the Institute of Makers of Explosives' (IME) Safety 
Library Publication No. 23 ``Recommendations for the Transportation of 
Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, 
Combustible Liquids, Class 3 and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk 
Packaging'' (referred to as IME Standard 23), and complying with 
certain NHTSA requirements. The requirements are more comprehensive and 
have stricter standards than the nine special permits, and may 
eliminate some duplicative functions covered by other industry 
standards. While IME Standard 23 may need to be re-evaluated and 
changed to keep pace with technological enhancements and other matters, 
IME will perform this and publish the revised standards free of charge. 
IME Standard 23 was developed with input of IME members, stakeholders, 
and PHMSA. There are beneficial effects with the final action that are 
superior to those achieved by the other alternatives, and these 
environmental benefits (direct, indirect, and cumulative) are discussed 
below.
7. Analysis of Environmental Impacts
    Routes used to transport bulk explosives traverse a variety of 
environments--from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated 
rural areas. PHMSA manages the transportation of specific hazardous 
materials, including bulk explosives, with special permits that must 
achieve a level of safety at least equal to the level of safety 
achieved when transported under the HMR.
    The physical environment potentially affected by the final rule 
includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), 
cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological 
resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and 
their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and 
special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and 
animal species and their habitat, national and state parklands, 
biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly 
adjacent to and within the vicinity of roads and routes used in the 
transportation of bulk explosives.
    The final rule incorporates IME Standard 23 into the HMR and 
eliminates nine special permits. IME Standard 23 is more comprehensive 
and has stricter standards than the nine special permits, and it may 
eliminate some duplicative functions covered by other industry 
standards.
    Direct Effects: The final rule will not increase and may decrease 
the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving bulk 
explosives, as IME Standard 23 is more comprehensive and has stricter 
standards than the existing special permits. PHMSA assessment suggests 
that there are no adverse significant environmental impacts associated 
with the final rule.
    Indirect Effects: The final rule will not increase and may decrease 
the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving bulk 
explosive, and thus will not have an adverse indirect effect on the 
environment. PHMSA assessment suggests that there are no adverse 
significant environmental impacts associated with the final rule.
    Cumulative Effects: The final rule will not increase and may 
decrease the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving 
bulk explosives, as IME Standard 23 is more comprehensive and has 
stricter standards than the existing special permits. PHMSA assessment 
suggests that there are no adverse significant environmental impacts 
associated with the final rule.
8. Comments From Agencies and Public
    In considering the potential environmental impacts of the final 
action, PHMSA does not anticipate that permitting the new alternative 
would result in any significant impact on the human environment because 
the process through which special permits for bulk explosives are 
developed and certified has historically demonstrated an equivalent 
level of safety of the HMR.
9. Conclusion
    Given that this rulemaking amends the HMR to permit an alternative 
with equivalent and established safety records, these changes in 
regulation have the potential to increase safety and environmental 
protections. In the NPRM PHMSA solicited comments about potential 
environmental impacts associated with this rulemaking from other 
agencies, stakeholders, and citizens; and we did not receive anything 
specific to these issues.

J. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts 
associated with significant variations between domestic and 
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the 
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In 
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation 
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that 
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. 
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or 
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), 
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging 
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, 
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of

[[Page 79449]]

international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate 
domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to 
exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards 
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have 
assessed the effects of the final rule to ensure that it does not cause 
unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this rulemaking is 
consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade 
Agreement Act, as amended.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g. specification of 
materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
    This final rule involves one technical standard: IME Standard 23, 
IME Safety Library Publication No. 23 (IME Standard 23), ``SLP 23: 
Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives Division 1.5, 
Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids Class 3, 
and Corrosives Class 8 in Bulk Packagings,'' October 2011 version. This 
consensus technical standard is listed in 49 CFR 171.7.

M. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a 
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66 
FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under the Executive Order, a ``significant 
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally 
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates, or is expected to 
lead to the promulgation of, a final rule or regulation (including a 
notice of inquiry, advance NPRM, and NPRM) that (1)(i) is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order 
and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action.
    PHMSA has evaluated this action in accordance with Executive Order 
13211. See the environmental assessment section for a more thorough 
discussion of environmental impacts and the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. PHMSA has determined that this action will not have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Consequently, PHMSA has determined that this regulatory action 
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive 
Order 13211.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

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

49 CFR Part 172

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

49 CFR Part 173

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

49 CFR Part 177

    Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending title 49 CFR 
chapter I, subchapter C, as follows:

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101-410 section 4 
(28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-134, section 31001; 49 CFR 1.81 
and 1.97.

0
2. In Sec.  171.7, paragraph (r)(2) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  171.7  Reference material.

* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (2) IME Standard 23, IME Safety Library Publication No. 23 (IME 
Standard 23), Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, 
Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, Combustible 
Liquids, Class 3, and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk Packaging, October 
2011, into Sec. Sec.  173.66(intro); 177.835(d).
* * * * *

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

0
3. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 
1.97.

0
4. In Sec.  172.101, the Hazardous Materials Table is amended by 
revising the following entries to read as follows:


Sec.  172.101  Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.

* * * * *

[[Page 79450]]



                                                                                                Sec.   172.101--Hazardous Materials Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Hazardous                                                                                                  (8) Packaging (Sec.   173.* * *)            (9) Quantity limitations           (10) Vessel stowage
                      materials                                                                             Special      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Symbols       descriptions and   Hazard class    Identification         PG          Label codes    provisions (Sec.
                   proper  shipping   or  division         Nos.                                             172.102)        Exceptions       Non-bulk          Bulk          Passenger    Cargo aircraft     Location          Other
                        names                                                                                                                                              aircraft/rail       only
(1)               (2)..............  (3)...........  (4).............  (5)...........  (6)...........  (7)..............  (8A)..........  (8B)..........  (8C)..........  (9A)..........  (9B)..........  (10A).........  (10B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Acetic acid        8.............  UN2790..........  II............  8.............  148, A3, A6, A7,   154...........  202...........  242...........  1 L...........  30 L..........  A               ..............
                   solution, not                                                                        A10, B2, IB2,
                   less than 50                                                                         T7, TP2.
                   percent but not
                   more than 80
                   percent acid, by
                   mass.
                  Acetic acid        8.............  UN2790..........  III...........  8.............  148, IB3, T4, TP1  154...........  203...........  242...........  5 L...........  60 L..........  A               ..............
                   solution, with
                   more than 10
                   percent and less
                   than 50 percent
                   acid, by mass.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Ammonium nitrate   5.1...........  UN2067..........  III...........  5.1...........  52, 148, 150,      152...........  213...........  240...........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  B.............  25, 59, 60,
                   based fertilizer.                                                                    B120, IB8, IP3,                                                                                                    66, 117, 124*
                                                                                                        T1, TP33.
                  Ammonium nitrate   5.1...........  UN3375..........  II............  5.1...........  147, 148, 163,     None..........  231...........  251...........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  D.............  25, 59, 60,
                   emulsion or                                                                          IB2, IP16.                                                                                                         66, 124
                   Ammonium nitrate
                   suspension or
                   Ammonium nitrate
                   gel,
                   intermediate for
                   blasting
                   explosives.
D...............  Ammonium nitrate-  1.5D..........  NA0331..........  II............  1.5D..........  148..............  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  03............  25, 19E
                   fuel oil mixture
                   containing only
                   prilled ammonium
                   nitrate and fuel
                   oil.
                  Ammonium nitrate,  5.1...........  UN2426..........  ..............  5.1...........  148, B5, T7......  None..........  None..........  243...........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  D.............  59, 60, 124
                   liquid (hot
                   concentrated
                   solution).
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Ammonium nitrate,  5.1...........  UN1942..........  III...........  5.1...........  148, A1, A29,      152...........  213...........  240...........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  A.............  25, 59, 60,
                   with not more                                                                        B120, IB8, IP3,                                                                                                    66, 116, 124
                   than 0.2%                                                                            T1, TP33.
                   combustible
                   substances,
                   including any
                   organic
                   substance
                   calculated as
                   carbon, to the
                   exclusion of any
                   other added
                   substance.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G...............  Articles,          1.4S..........  UN0349..........  II............  1.4S..........  101, 148, 382....  None..........  62............  None..........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  01............  25
                   explosive, n.o.s.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Boosters, without  1.1D..........  UN0042..........  II............  1.1D..........  148..............  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  04............  25
                   detonator.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
D G.............  Combustible        Comb liq......  NA1993..........  III...........  None..........  148, IB3, T1, T4,  150...........  203...........  241...........  60 L..........  220 L.........  A               ..............
                   liquid, n.o.s..                                                                      TP1.

[[Page 79451]]

 
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Cord, detonating,  1.1D..........  UN0065..........  II............  1.1D..........  102, 148.........  63(a).........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  04............  25
                   flexible.
                  Cord, detonating,  1.4D..........  UN0289..........  II............  1.4D..........  148..............  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  75 kg.........  02............  25
                   flexible.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G...............  Corrosive liquid,  8.............  UN3265..........  I.............  8.............  A6, B10, T14,      None..........  201...........  243...........  0.5 L.........  2.5 L.........  B.............  40
                   acidic, organic,                                                                     TP2, TP27.
                   n.o.s.
                  .................  ..............  ................  II............  8.............  148, B2, IB2,      154...........  202...........  242...........  1 L...........  30 L..........  B.............  40
                                                                                                        T11, TP2, TP27.
                  .................  ..............  ................  III...........  8.............  IB3, T7, TP1,      154...........  203...........  241...........  5 L...........  60 L..........  A.............  40
                                                                                                        TP28.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Detonator          1.4B..........  UN0361..........  II............  1.4B..........  103, 148.........  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  75 kg.........  05............  25
                   assemblies, non-
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
                  Detonator          1.4S..........  UN0500..........  II............  1.4S..........  148, 347.........  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  01............  25
                   assemblies, non-
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
                  Detonators,        1.1B..........  UN0030..........  II............  1.1B..........  148..............  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  05............  25
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
                  Detonators,        1.4B..........  UN0255..........  II............  1.4B..........  103, 148.........  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  75 kg.........  05............  25
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
                  Detonators,        1.4S..........  UN0456..........  II............  1.4S..........  148, 347.........  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  01............  25
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Detonators, non-   1.4S..........  UN0455..........  II............  1.4S..........  148, 347.........  63(f), 63(g)..  62............  None..........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  01............  25
                   electric, for
                   blasting.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Explosive,         1.1D..........  UN0081..........  II............  1.1D..........  148..............  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  04............  25, 19E, 21E
                   blasting, type A.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Explosive,         1.5D..........  UN0331..........  II............  1.5D..........  105, 106, 148....  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  03............  25, 19E
                   blasting, type B
                   or Agent
                   blasting, Type B.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Explosive,         1.1D..........  UN0241..........  II............  1.1D..........  148..............  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  04............  25, 19E
                   blasting, type E.
                  Explosive,         1.5D..........  UN0332..........  II............  1.5D..........  105, 106, 148....  None..........  62............  None..........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  03............  25, 19E
                   blasting, type E
                   or Agent
                   blasting, Type E.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
                  Hypochlorite       8.............  UN1791..........  II............  8.............  148, A7, B2, B15,  154...........  202...........  242...........  1 L...........  30 L..........  B.............  26
                   solutions.                                                                           IB2, IP5, N34,
                                                                                                        T7, TP2, TP24.
                  .................  ..............  ................  III...........  8.............  IB3, N34, T4,      154...........  203...........  241...........  5 L...........  60 L..........  B.............  26
                                                                                                        TP2, TP24.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G...............  Nitrites,          5.1...........  UN3219..........  II............  5.1...........  148, IB1, T4, TP1  152...........  202...........  242...........  1 L...........  5 L...........  B.............  46, 56, 58,
                   inorganic,                                                                                                                                                                                              133
                   aqueous
                   solution, n.o.s.
                  .................  ..............  ................  III...........  5.1...........  IB2, T4, TP1.....  152...........  203...........  241...........  2.5 L.........  30 L..........  B.............  46, 56, 58,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           133
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G...............  Oxidizing liquid,  5.1...........  UN3139..........  I.............  5.1...........  62, 127, A2, A6..  None..........  201...........  243...........  Forbidden.....  2.5 L.........  D.............  56, 58, 138
                   n.o.s.
                  .................  ..............  ................  II............  5.1...........  62, 127, 148, A2,  152...........  202...........  242...........  1 L...........  5 L...........  B.............  56, 58, 138
                                                                                                        IB2.
                  .................  ..............  ................  III...........  5.1...........  62, 127, 148, A2,  152...........  203...........  241...........  2.5 L.........  30 L..........  B.............  56, 58, 138
                                                                                                        IB2.

[[Page 79452]]

 
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G...............  Oxidizing solid,   5.1...........  UN1479..........  I.............  5.1...........  62, IB5, IP1.....  None..........  211...........  242...........  1 kg..........  15 kg.........  D.............  56, 58, 106,
                   n.o.s..                                                                                                                                                                                                 138
                  .................  ..............  ................  II............  5.1...........  62, IB8, IP2,      152...........  212...........  240...........  5 kg..........  25 kg.........  B.............  56, 58, 106,
                                                                                                        IP4, T3, TP33.                                                                                                     138
                  .................  ..............  ................  III...........  5.1...........  62, 148, IB8,      152...........  213...........  240...........  25 kg.........  100 kg........  B.............  56, 58, 106,
                                                                                                        IP3, T1, TP33.                                                                                                     138
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 79453]]

* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  172.102(c)(1), special provision 148 is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  172.102  Special provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    148. For domestic transportation, this entry directs to Sec.  
173.66 for:
    a. The standards for transporting a single bulk hazardous material 
for blasting by cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMV); and
    b. The standards for CTMVs capable of transporting multiple 
hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-bulk packagings (i.e., 
a multipurpose bulk truck (MBT)).
* * * * *

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND 
PACKAGINGS

0
6. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 
1.97.


0
7. In Subpart C, Sec.  173.66 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  173.66  Requirements for Bulk Packagings of Certain Explosives 
and Oxidizers.

    When Sec.  172.101 of this subchapter specifies that a hazardous 
material may be transported in accordance with this section (per 
special provision 148 in Sec.  172.102(c)(1)), only the bulk packagings 
specified for these materials in IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 
of this subchapter) are authorized, subject to the requirements of 
subparts A and B of this part and the special provisions in Column 7 of 
the Sec.  172.101 table. See Section I of IME Standard 23 for the 
standards for transporting a single bulk hazardous material for 
blasting by cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMV), and Section II of IME 
Standard 23 for the standards for CTMVs capable of transporting 
multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-bulk 
packagings (i.e., a multipurpose bulk truck (MBT) authorized to 
transport the Class 1 (explosive) materials, Division 5.1 (oxidizing) 
materials, Class 8 (corrosive) materials, and Combustible Liquid, 
n.o.s., NA1993, III, as specified in IME Standard 23 (also see Sec.  
177.835(d) of this subchapter)). In addition, the requirements in 
paragraph (a) of this section apply to: A new multipurpose bulk truck 
constructed after April 19, 2016; and a modified existing multipurpose 
bulk truck after April 19, 2016 (see Sec.  173.66(b) regarding the term 
modified).
    (a) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). Multipurpose 
bulk trucks must be in compliance with the FMVSS found in 49 CFR part 
571, as applicable. Furthermore, the multipurpose bulk truck 
manufacturer must maintain a certification record ensuring the final 
manufacturing is in compliance with the FMVSS, in accordance with the 
certification requirements found in 49 CFR part 567. These 
certification records must be made available to DOT representatives 
upon request.
    (b) Modified. The term modified means any change to the original 
design and construction of a multipurpose bulk truck (MBT) that affects 
its structural integrity or lading retention capability, (e.g. 
rechassising, etc.). Excluded from this category are the following:
    (1) A change to the MBT equipment such as lights, truck or tractor 
power train components, steering and brake systems, and suspension 
parts, and changes to appurtenances, such as fender attachments, 
lighting brackets, ladder brackets; and
    (2) Replacement of components such as valves, vents, and fittings 
with a component of a similar design and of the same size.

PART 177--CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC HIGHWAY

0
8. The authority citation for part 177 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; sec. 112 of Pub. L. 103-311, 108 
Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994); sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 
405, 805 (2012); 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.


0
9. In Sec.  177.835, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  177.835  Class 1 materials.

* * * * *
    (a) Engine stopped. No Class 1 (explosive) materials may be loaded 
into or on or be unloaded from any motor vehicle with the engine 
running, except that the engine of a multipurpose bulk truck (see 
paragraph (d) of this section) and the engine of a cargo tank motor 
vehicle transporting a single bulk hazardous material for blasting may 
be used for the operation of the pumping equipment of the vehicle 
during loading or unloading.
* * * * *
    (d) Multipurpose bulk trucks. When Sec.  172.101 of this subchapter 
specifies that Class 1 (explosive) materials may be transported in 
accordance with Sec.  173.66 of this subchapter (per special provision 
148 in Sec.  172.102(c)(1)), these materials may be transported on the 
same vehicle with Division 5.1 (oxidizing) materials, or Class 8 
(corrosive) materials, and/or Combustible Liquid, n.o.s., NA1993 only 
under the conditions and requirements set forth in IME Standard 23 
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) and paragraph (g) of this 
section. In addition, the segregation requirements in Sec.  177.848 do 
not apply.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2015, under the 
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Marie Therese Dominguez,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-31880 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P