[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13624-13654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03366]



[[Page 13623]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 42

March 3, 2023

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, et al.





Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and Updating 
Regulatory Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 13624]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 178, and 180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0102 (HM-219D)]
RIN 2137-AF49


Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and 
Updating Regulatory Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes amendments to the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR) to update, clarify, improve the safety of, or 
streamline various regulatory requirements. Specifically, this 
rulemaking responds to 18 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the 
regulated community between May 2018 and October 2020 that requests 
PHMSA address a variety of provisions, including but not limited to 
those addressing packaging, hazard communication, and the incorporation 
by reference of certain documents. These proposed revisions maintain or 
enhance the existing high level of safety under the HMR while providing 
clarity and appropriate regulatory flexibility in the transport of 
hazardous materials.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by May 2, 2023. PHMSA will consider 
late-filed comments to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by identification of the docket 
number (PHMSA-2020-0102 [HM-219D]) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, 
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. All 
comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS), including any personal information.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents, 
including the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) or comments 
received, go to www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations Office 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both 
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain 
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as 
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or 
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the 
submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission 
containing CBI as ``PROPIN'' for ``proprietary information.'' 
Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven Andrews, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA receives that is not specifically 
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews, 202-366-8553, Office 
of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
III. Review of Petitions and Issues
IV. Section-by-Section Review
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
    B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT 
Procedures and Policies
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    H. Environmental Assessment
    I. Environmental Justice
    J. Privacy Act
    K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
    L. Executive Order 13211
    M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

    The Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal agencies to give 
interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or 
repeal a rule (See 5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA regulations specify that 
persons petitioning PHMSA to add, revise, or remove a regulation in the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180) 
must file a petition for rulemaking containing adequate support for the 
requested action. (See 49 CFR 106.100) PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR 
in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by shippers, 
carriers, manufacturers, and industry representatives, and welcomes 
petitions from any interested stakeholder or member of the public with 
suggested changes to improve the HMR.
    PHMSA expects that the proposed revisions would maintain the high 
safety standard currently achieved under the HMR while providing 
clarity and appropriate regulatory flexibility in the transport of 
hazardous materials. PHMSA also notes that--insofar as adoption of the 
petitions as proposed could reduce delays and interruptions of 
hazardous materials shipments during transportation--the proposed 
amendments may also lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and safety 
risks to minority, low-income, underserved, and other disadvantaged 
populations and communities in the vicinity of interim storage sites 
and transportation arteries and hubs. A detailed discussion of the 
petitions and proposals can be found in Section III of this NPRM.
    PHMSA proposes to:
     Allow for appropriate flexibility of packaging options in 
the transportation of compressed natural gas in cylinders.
     Streamline the approval application process for the repair 
of specific DOT specification cylinders.
     Provide greater clarity on the filling requirements for 
certain cylinders used to transport hydrogen and hydrogen mixtures.
     Facilitate international commerce and streamline packaging 
and hazard communication requirements by harmonizing the HMR with 
international regulations to allow the shipment of de minimis amounts 
of poisonous materials.
     Provide greater clarity by requiring a specific marking on 
cylinders to indicate compliance with certain HMR provisions.
     Streamline hazard communication requirements by allowing 
appropriate

[[Page 13625]]

marking exceptions under certain conditions for the transportation of 
lithium button cell batteries installed in equipment.
     Provide greater flexibility and accuracy in hazard 
communication by allowing additional descriptions for certain gas 
mixtures.
     Increase the safe transportation of explosives by updating 
certain Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) documents currently 
incorporated by reference.
     Modify the definition of ``liquid'' to include the test 
for determining fluidity (penetrometer test) prescribed in the 
agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by 
Road (ADR).
     Incorporate by reference a Compressed Gas Association 
(CGA) publication C-20-2014, ``Requalification Standard for Metallic, 
DOT and TC 3-series Gas Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic 
Examination,'' Second Edition, which will eliminate the need for some 
existing DOT special permits and allow alternative methods for the 
requalification of cylinders. This revision would eliminate the need 
for special permit applications and renewals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PHMSA notes that it has received a petition to incorporate 
by reference the 2021 version of this publication https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2022-0030/document. PHMSA is 
currently conducting a technical review and cost evaluation of this 
publication. PHMSA welcomes comments, data, and information on 
whether it should consider incorporating the 2021 version into any 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Incorporate by reference the updated Appendix A of CGA 
publication C-7-2020, ``Guide to Classification and Labeling of 
Compressed Gases,'' Eleventh Edition.
     Incorporate by reference the CGA publication C-27-2019, 
``Standard Procedure to Derate the Service Pressure of DOT 3-Series 
Seamless Steel Tubes, First Edition.''
     Incorporate by reference the CGA publication CGA C-29-
2019, ``Standard for Design Requirements for Tube Trailers and Tube 
Modules, First Edition.''
     Incorporate by reference the CGA publication CGA V-9-2019, 
``Compressed Gas Association Standard for Compressed Gas Cylinder 
Valves, Eighth Edition.''

II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR part 51

    According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A-
119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,'' 
Government agencies must use voluntary consensus standards wherever 
practical in the development of regulations.
    PHMSA currently incorporates by reference into the HMR all or the 
relevant parts of several standards and specifications developed and 
published by standard development organizations (SDO). In general, SDOs 
update and revise their published standards every two to five years to 
reflect modern technology and best technical practices. The National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA; Pub. L. 104-
113) directs Federal agencies to use standards developed by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies in lieu of government-written standards 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards bodies develop, establish, 
or coordinate technical standards using agreed-upon procedures. OMB 
issued Circular A-119 to implement section 12(d) of the NTTAA relative 
to the utilization of consensus technical standards by Federal 
agencies. This circular provides guidance for agencies participating in 
voluntary consensus standards bodies and describes procedures for 
satisfying the reporting requirements in the NTTAA. Consistent with the 
requirements of the NTTAA and its statutory authorities, PHMSA is 
responsible for determining which currently referenced standards should 
be updated, revised, or removed, and which standards should be added to 
the HMR. Revisions to materials incorporated by reference in the HMR 
are handled via the rulemaking process, which allows the public and 
regulated entities to provide input. During the rulemaking process, 
PHMSA must also obtain approval from the Office of the Federal Register 
to incorporate by reference any new materials. Regulations of the 
Office of the Federal Register require that agencies detail in the 
preamble of an NPRM the ways the materials it proposes to incorporate 
by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, or how the 
agency worked to make those materials reasonably available to 
interested parties. (See 1 CFR 51.5.)
    IME standards are free and accessible to the public on the 
internet, with access provided through the IME website at https://www.ime.org/products/category/safety_library_publications_slps. The CGA 
references are available for interested parties to purchase in either 
print or electronic editions through the CGA organization website at 
https://portal.cganet.com/Publication/index.aspx. The UN manual of test 
and criteria is available at https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/manual/Rev7/Manual_Rev7_E.pdf and The European Agreement 
concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 
can be found at https://unece.org/about-adr. The specific standards are 
discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section review.
    The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this 
document and have already been approved for the locations in which they 
appear: ASTM D 4359, CGA TB-25, ISO 6406:2005(E), and ISO 
16148:2016(E). No changes are proposed.

III. Review of Petitions and Issues

A. Transportation of Compressed Natural Gas/Methane in UN Pressure 
Receptacles

    In its petition (P-1714),\2\ CGA requests that PHMSA consider an 
amendment to 49 CFR 173.302b to implement packaging restrictions for 
the transportation of compressed natural gas (CNG) and methane in 
United Nations (UN) seamless steel pressure receptacles with a tensile 
strength greater than 950 MPa. For the purposes of the HMR, ``UN1971, 
Methane, compressed'' is compressed natural gas that is at least 98 
percent methane and free of corroding components. CGA expresses concern 
regarding the growth in transport of CNG and methane in these 
packagings and wants to ensure the safety of the receptacles in this 
service. CGA provides historical context of PHMSA's predecessor agency 
imposing similar packaging restrictions for CNG transported in certain 
DOT specification cylinders (see 49 CFR 173.302a(a)(4)). These 
restrictions were intended to limit the effect of impurities in the 
CNG, such as hydrogen sulfide, on the structural integrity of the steel 
used in the manufacture of the cylinders. CGA cites several studies on 
the corrosive effects of natural gas contaminants on a cylinder and 
notes that the contaminants are usually noncorrosive in the absence of 
liquid water. Finally, CGA highlights an October 27, 1977, incident in 
which two people were killed, four people were injured, and a 
compressor station was damaged when a DOT specification 3T seamless 
steel cylinder ruptured while being filled with natural gas 
contaminated with hydrogen sulfide and water. CGA's specific concern is 
in regard to UN seamless steel pressure receptacles with

[[Page 13626]]

ultimate tensile strengths greater than 950 MPa being used for the 
storage and transportation of CNG because higher strength UN seamless 
steel pressure receptacles are susceptible to embrittlement from CNG 
contaminants and embrittlement makes the receptacles more susceptible 
to fracture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ P-1714--CGA (PHMSA-2018-0054), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, use of UN pressure receptacles for CNG and methane in 
transportation is subject to the general requirements for shipment of 
compressed gases in 49 CFR 173.301, additional general requirements of 
UN pressure receptacles in 49 CFR 173.301b, and the filling 
requirements of cylinders with non-liquefied (permanent) gases in 49 
CFR 173.302. However, under current regulations there are no additional 
requirements specific to the use of UN pressure receptacles in CNG or 
methane service.
    CGA requests that 49 CFR 173.302b be revised to include conditions 
for the transportation of CNG and methane in UN stainless steel 
pressure receptacles. The CGA petition states that natural gas/methane 
can be safely transported in UN/International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) steel pressure receptacles under the following 
conditions: (1) the product is non-liquefied gas; (2) the UN seamless 
steel pressure receptacle has a maximum tensile strength not greater 
than 950 MPa (137,750 psig) and bears an ``H'' mark indicating that the 
cylinder is manufactured from a specific type of steel that is intended 
to prevent hydrogen embrittlement; (3) there is a drain tube for each 
UN tube; and (4) the moisture content and concentration of the 
corroding components in the product conforms to the requirements in 49 
CFR 173.301b(a)(2). Specifically, the requirements in 49 CFR 
173.301b(a)(2) state that gases or gas mixtures must be compatible with 
the UN pressure receptacle and valve materials as prescribed for 
metallic materials in ISO 11114-1:2012(E). In addition, CGA requests 
new text that clarifies the requirements for transporting methane gas 
with a purity of at least 98 percent within a UN seamless steel 
pressure receptacle.
    PHMSA's previously considered this issue under petition P-1661 \3\ 
submitted by CGA on July 15, 2015. That petition was denied due to its 
conflict with the requirements in 49 CFR 173.302a(a)(4) for DOT 
specification 3AAX and 3T cylinders when used in methane service. 
Currently, Sec.  173.302a(a)(4) only allows methane that is non-
liquefied, has a minimum purity of 98 percent, and is commercially free 
from corroding components to be filled in specification (3AX, 3AAX, and 
3T) cylinders. PHMSA agreed that DOT specification 3T cylinders with a 
tensile strength in the range of 135-155 kilopounds per square inch 
(ksi) [931-1,069 megapascals per square inch (MPa)] and steel 
embrittlement can become a safety issue. However, DOT specification 3AX 
and 3AAX cylinders typically have strength below 135 ksi (931 MPa), and 
steel embrittlement is usually not a safety concern. In its denial 
letter, PHMSA encouraged CGA to consider a revised petition and limit 
cylinders to steel strengths below 950MPa for UN/International 
Standards Organization (ISO) cylinders made in accordance with ISO 
9899-1 and IS011120 standards. This is because had PHMSA proposed P-
1661, it would have caused conflicting requirements for methane 
shipments in specification (3AAX, 3T, etc.) cylinders versus shipments 
in UN/ISO steel cylinders (ISO 9809-1 and ISO 11120 standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ P-1661--CGA (PHMSA-2015-0169), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2015-0169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to PHMSA's denial of P-1661, CGA submitted a new 
petition (P-1714) that addresses PHMSA's concerns by not including DOT 
3T specification cylinders where steel embrittlement poses an 
unreasonable risk. As a result of PHMSA's technical review of CGA 
petition (P-1714), and because it requested regulatory amendments for 
shipment of methane (including CNG with a methane content of 98 percent 
or greater) only in UN cylinders, PHMSA determined that the proposals 
in P-1714 would be limited to pressure receptacles where steel 
embrittlement is not a safety issue. Additionally, PHMSA notes this 
revision will align HMR references to UN cylinders with equivalent DOT 
specification cylinders. PHMSA further agrees that CNG, other than 
methane, can cause steel embrittlement in seamless steel pressure 
receptacles with tensile strengths greater than 950 MPa. Therefore, 
PHMSA believes the changes outlined in the CGA petition P-1714 will 
improve the safe transportation of CNG.
    PHMSA conducted an economic review of this petition and expects 
these proposed amendments would not result in any material changes in 
costs or operations for market participants because they are accepted 
industry practices and address an important safety concern. To the 
degree that market participants are currently transporting low-purity 
methane in high-tensile strength receptacles, affected participants 
would be required to use substitute packaging. Similarly, the proposed 
change may provide safety benefits to the extent there is any 
noncompliance with the practice presented by CGA. A more detailed 
discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the PRIA posted in 
the docket to this rulemaking. DOT seeks comment on the number of 
shipments that may currently be made where substitute packaging would 
be required under the proposal.
    Therefore, PHMSA has determined that there is merit in the CGA 
petition to amend the requirements for transporting CNG with methane in 
certain UN seamless stainless steel cylinders. Amending these 
requirements will enhance safety by authorizing CNG of less than 98 
percent methane only in pressure receptacles where steel embrittlement 
is unlikely to occur. PHMSA proposes to add Sec.  173.302b(f) to 
specify these requirements for transporting CNG in UN specification 
pressure receptacles.

B. Threading and Repair of Seamless DOT 3-Series Specification 
Cylinders and Seamless UN Pressure Receptacles

    In its petition (P-1716),\4\ FIBA Technologies, Inc. (FIBA) 
requests PHMSA consider a revision to the requirements for repairing 
seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders and seamless UN pressure 
receptacles manufactured without external threads, and also to 
authorize the performance of this work without requiring prior approval 
from PHMSA. Specifically, this petition requests that PHMSA authorize 
machining new threads on a previously manufactured seamless cylinder or 
seamless UN pressure receptacle without requiring an approval. Further, 
FIBA requests that PHMSA expand the population of UN pressure 
receptacles eligible for repair work. Regarding external threads, in 
accordance with the current Sec.  180.212(b)(2), repair work not 
requiring prior approval is limited to the ``rethreading'' of DOT 
specification 3AX, 3AAX, or 3T cylinders or a UN pressure receptacle 
mounted in multiple-element gas containers (MEGC).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ P-1716--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0074), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0074.
    \5\ A multiple-element gas container is an assembly of UN 
cylinders, tubes, or bundles of cylinders interconnected by a 
manifold and assembled within a framework. The term includes all 
service equipment and structural equipment necessary for the 
transport of gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIBA notes there are older DOT specification 3AAX cylinders that 
were not equipped with external neck threads at the time of 
manufacture. These cylinders were manufactured in the 1960s and were 
mounted onto a semi-trailer by inserting the tube neck into a

[[Page 13627]]

flange on the semi-trailer bulkhead and then secured in place using set 
screws. FIBA argues that these methods have been mostly abandoned in 
favor of a threaded tube neck because a threaded flange and anti-
rotation pins provide a more secure connection. Moreover, risk will be 
reduced by a threaded neck surface and flange connection, rather than a 
neck with no threads and pins, because the threaded neck and flange 
more securely mount the cylinders and tubes within the MEGC or motor 
vehicle (tube trailer or frame). Pins do greater damage to the tube 
than a threaded neck and flange because of the penetration depth 
required to achieve a secure connection. Section 180.212(b)(2) already 
allows the repair of damaged threads, which can be so worn as to be the 
same as a tube manufactured with no outer diameter neck threads. FIBA 
argues that there is no difference between threads no longer capable of 
joining the tube neck to the flange and a tube neck having no threads 
from the start. The same threading process will be performed on the 
tube with worn threads as the tube with no threads. Additionally, the 
same CGA C-23 evaluation process used to determine suitability of the 
tube neck for rethreading will be used to confirm the suitability of 
the neck for threading.
    Based on a technical review of this petition, PHMSA expects that 
authorizing the threading of DOT 3AX, 3AAX manufactured without 
external threads, or 3T specification cylinders or UN pressure 
receptacles would enhance safety by authorizing a more secure method of 
connecting MEGC pressure receptacles. PHMSA concludes this is an 
improvement over the previous method of using setscrews to secure the 
tubes, a process that results in indentations being carved into the 
tube necks as the tube jostles during transport. Moreover, DOT did not 
originally authorize the threading of previously manufactured cylinders 
due to a lack of standardized safe threading practices at the time 
PHMSA adopted provisions for these cylinders. Lastly, PHMSA determined 
that the machining of neck threads or rethreading of seamless UN 
pressure receptacles should be authorized regardless of whether the 
receptacle is mounted in a MEGC. As such, standardization in the area 
of cylinder connections is vital to reducing damage to the cylinder 
necks and thus to reducing hazardous materials releases. In summary, 
the technical review of this petition expects the proposed revision 
would improve safety by ensuring a more secure connection to the motor 
vehicle.
    This proposed revision is not expected to impose any costs to 
industry. Further, it is expected that the proposed changes would 
provide appropriate regulatory flexibility and potential cost-savings 
(i.e., avoided costs associated with an unnecessary approval 
application process or use of an outdated securement method) without 
any impact on safety. A more detailed discussion of this economic 
analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise Sec.  180.212(b)(2) to allow 
the machining of external threads on all seamless DOT specification 
3AX, 3AAX, or 3T cylinder or a seamless UN pressure receptacle 
originally manufactured without external threads. Additionally, PHMSA 
is proposing to authorize the machining of neck threads or rethreading 
of UN pressure receptacles regardless of whether the receptacle is 
mounted in a MEGC.

C. Clarification of the Requirements for Certain Non-Liquefied 
Compressed Gases

    In its petition (P-1717),\6\ FIBA requests that PHMSA consider an 
amendment to 49 CFR 173.302a(c) of the HMR for the special filling 
limits for DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders 
containing Division. 2.1 (flammable) gases. Final rule HM-233F \7\ 
adopted Department of Transportation Special Permit (DOT-SP) 6530 \8\ 
into the HMR. This revision authorized the transportation in commerce 
of hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen in 
certain cylinders filled to 10 percent in excess of their marked 
service pressure. As part of the HM-233F final rule, PHMSA adopted 
safety control measures in paragraph (c)(3) of 49 CFR 173.302a instead 
of paragraph (c). In its petition, FIBA requests that PHMSA amend 49 
CFR 173.302a(c)(3) to clarify that the requirements in 49 CFR 
173.302a(c)(3)(i)-173.302a(c)(3)(ii) are independent provisions. FIBA 
asserts this proposed revision will accurately reflect the technical 
conditions associated with the design and manufactured properties of 
DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ P-1717--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0075), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0075.
    \7\ 81 FR 3635 (Jan. 21, 2016).
    \8\ DOT SP-6530, https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP6530.pdf/2018019065/SP6530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIBA also submitted petition (P-1725) \9\ requesting further 
amendments to Sec.  173.302a(c), concurrent with those requested in P-
1717. Specifically, FIBA requests that the plus sign (+) be added 
following the test date marking on a DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 
and 3AAX cylinder filled with hydrogen or mixtures of hydrogen with 
helium, argon, or nitrogen to signify that the cylinder may be filled 
to 10 percent in excess of its marked service pressure. Furthermore, 
the petition requests that cylinders qualifying for the special filling 
limit in Sec.  173.302a(c) also be equipped with a pressure relief 
device (PRD) in accordance with CGA S-1.1 (2011), rather than the 
requirements in Sec.  173.302a(c)(4), which could potentially conflict 
with each other. CGA S-1.1 prescribes standards for selecting the 
correct PRD to meet the requirements of Sec.  173.301(f) for more than 
150 gases. It also provides guidance on when a PRD can be optionally 
omitted and when its use is prohibited, as well as direction on PRD 
manufacturing, testing, operational parameters, and maintenance. At the 
time FIBA submitted P-1725, CGA S-1.1 (2011) had not been incorporated 
by reference into the HMR. Since then, the HM-234 final rule \10\ was 
published, which incorporated by reference CGA S-1.1 (2011) into the 
HMR and outlines the PRD requirements for cylinders filled with a gas 
and offered for transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ P-1725--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0112), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0112.
    \10\ 85 FR 85380 (Dec. 28, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The plus sign marking (+) is associated with a commonly applied 
provision in the HMR that authorizes a DOT specification cylinder to be 
filled to 10 percent in excess of its marked pressure. FIBA states that 
the plus sign marking (+) is an important means of communicating to 
cylinder refillers that a cylinder can be filled to 10 percent more 
than its marked service pressure and, thus, should be added to the 
special filling requirements in Sec.  173.302a(c).
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the proposals in both 
petitions along with DOT-SP 6530 and the HM-233F final rule. After this 
review, PHMSA agrees with FIBA that the safety control measures within 
DOT-SP 6530 were independent provisions. PHMSA intended to adopt those 
provisions into the HMR as independent provisions and inadvertently 
adopted two of the safety controls in Sec. Sec.  173.302(c)(3)(i) and 
(ii) as paragraphs of Sec.  173.302a(c)(3). In addition, PHMSA concurs 
that the proposed revisions to require the plus

[[Page 13628]]

sign (+) on DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders filled 
with hydrogen or mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen 
would improve the safety of filling these cylinders by providing 
clarity on the conditions for special filling limits and helping 
prevent the overfilling of unauthorized cylinders. Finally, PHMSA 
agrees that cylinders in hydrogen service that are filled to 10 percent 
in excess of its marked pressure should be equipped with a PRD that is 
selected as to type, location, and quantity, and tested in accordance 
with CGA S-1.1 in the same manner as is generally required for 
cylinders filled with a gas in accordance with Sec.  173.301(f) instead 
of Sec.  173.302a(c)(4). PHMSA determined that CGA S-1.1 provides much 
greater specificity than Sec.  173.302a(c)(4) about the type of 
pressure relief device required for a particular gas service. 
Therefore, PHMSA proposes to remove the PRD requirements of 49 CFR 
173.302a(c)(4) and instead require compliance with the PRD requirements 
of 49 CFR 173.301(f). This latter provision requires that, with certain 
exceptions, a cylinder filled with a gas and offered for transportation 
must be equipped with one or more PRDs sized and selected as to type, 
location, and quantity, and tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1.
    The proposed amendments associated with P-1717 would provide 
greater clarity on requirements for cylinder design and manufacture, 
and would not represent any incremental, quantifiable safety effects 
because PHMSA already authorizes the transportation in commerce of 
hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen in 
certain cylinders filled to more than 10 percent of their marked 
service pressures. These proposed amendments would also not impose any 
new or incremental cost because they merely reorganize the regulations 
for clarity. Additionally, while the proposed amendments associated 
with P-1725 would create a new requirement, PHMSA anticipates the 
amendment would result in only minimal incremental costs to the 
industry, and impose only minimal, regulatory burden on small 
businesses or other entities. The additional request that the cylinders 
qualified for the special filling limit be equipped with pressure 
relief devices in accordance with CGA S-1.1 is not expected to add any 
additional cost on affected industries or entities. Currently, Sec.  
173.302a(c)(4) contains the same requirements as CGA S-1.1 and 
therefore the addition of the CGA S-1.1 requirement will not cause any 
new additional costs beyond those already accounted for previously. A 
more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this proposal can 
be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise Sec.  173.302a(c) to reflect 
the safety provisions currently in Sec.  173.302a(c)(3)(i) and (ii) are 
independent material construction requirements under paragraph (c) as 
new paragraphs (c)(4) and (5). Moreover, PHMSA proposes to add a 
requirement in Sec.  173.302a(c)(7) to require the plus sign (+) 
following the test date marking to indicate compliance with paragraph 
(c) indicating that the cylinder is allowed to be filled to more than 
10 percent of its marked service pressure. Lastly, PHMSA proposes to 
replace the PRD requirements--found in current Sec.  173.302a(c)(4)--
with a new Sec.  173.302a(c)(6). The new provision would require that 
cylinders must be equipped with PRDs sized and selected as to type, 
location, and quantity and tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1 (2011) 
and Sec.  173.301(f).

D. De Minimus Quantities of Poisonous Materials

    In its petition (P-1718),\11\ the Council on Safe Transportation of 
Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) requests that PHMSA amend Sec.  
173.4b to harmonize the de minimis exceptions for Division 6.1, Packing 
Group (PG) I (no inhalation hazard) materials with international 
regulations, including the International Civil Aviation Organization 
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air 
(ICAO TI) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG 
Code). The de minimis exceptions in the HMR provide relief from the 
general requirements of the HMR for certain hazardous materials shipped 
in extremely small quantities. The maximum quantity allowed in order to 
utilize the de minimis exception per inner receptacle is 1 mL for 
authorized liquids and 1 g for authorized solids. Additionally, the 
aggregate quantity per package may not exceed 100 mL for liquids and 
100 g for solids. The exception also requires cushioning and package 
testing requirements, along with specific provisions for certain 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ P-1718--COSTHA (PHMSA-2018-0077), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    International harmonization includes adopting changes in the HMR to 
improve regulatory consistency with international regulations and 
standards, such as the IMDG Code, the ICAO TI, and the UN 
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods--Model Regulations 
(UN Model Regulations). Harmonization facilitates international trade 
by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or 
inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous 
materials. Safety is enhanced by creating a uniform framework for 
compliance. As the volume of hazardous materials transported in 
international commerce continues to grow, harmonization is increasingly 
important. Moreover, the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law 
(49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs PHMSA to participate in relevant 
international standard-setting bodies and promotes consistency of the 
HMR with international transport standards to the extent practicable.
    The exceptions in the HMR for de minimis quantities were initially 
adopted in the HM-224D/HM-215J final rule \12\ in Sec.  173.4b of the 
HMR and were intended to align with the provisions for de minimis 
exceptions found in the ICAO Technical Instructions and IMDG Code. 
However, HM-224D/HM-215J addressed exceptions for de minimis quantities 
of only Division 6.1, PG II and PG III hazardous materials. As noted in 
the PHMSA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) reference number (Ref. No.) 
17-0138,\13\ PHMSA considered exceptions for de minimis quantities of 
only Division 6.1, PG II and PG III hazardous materials in response to 
a petition for rulemaking. PHMSA now proposes harmonizing the de 
minimis provisions for Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) 
materials with the ICAO TI or IMDG Code in this NPRM, in response to 
COSTHA's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 74 FR 2200 (Jan. 14, 2009).
    \13\ PHMSA LOI 17-0138, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/17-0138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COSTHA petition to harmonize the scope of the applicability of 
the de minimis exceptions with international standards by including 
Division 6.1, PG I materials (no inhalation hazard) would except de 
minimis shipments from the hazardous communication requirements 
otherwise associated with these shipments. A technical review of this 
petition found the inclusion of de minimis quantities for Division 6.1, 
PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials into the international 
regulations can be traced back to working paper ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2009/
45,\14\ which was submitted by the United States. Based

[[Page 13629]]

on the review of this working paper, PHMSA asserts that Division 6.1, 
PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials should be included as part of the 
de minimis exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Working paper ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2009/45, https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2009/ac10c3/ST-SG-AC10-C3-2009-45e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary concern regarding the transportation of a Division 6.1, 
PG I (no inhalation hazard) material is leakage from a package and 
potential human exposure. A leak of such a material poses a risk to 
human health by poisoning. To counter these concerns, this hazard is 
mitigated by the conditions for transportation in the de minimis 
exceptions, namely, imposing limitations on the quantities allowed to 1 
mL or 1 g per inner receptacle. In addition, 49 CFR 173.4b requires 
that inner receptacles have removable closures sealed by wire, tape, or 
other positive means (see Sec.  173.4b(a)(2)), which limits the 
possibility for leakage. Furthermore, a Division 6.1 PG I material that 
does not pose an inhalation hazard equally poses no vaporization risk 
should the package rupture. Lastly, de minimis packages are required to 
have cushioning and absorbent material that are not reactive with the 
hazardous material and can absorb the entirety of the package's 
contents if the receptacle ruptures. These requirements severely limit 
the risk of exposure presented by transportation of these materials.
    While maintaining safety as described in the prior paragraph, the 
proposed harmonization would not impose any direct costs on industry 
and could provide cost savings to shippers by providing the option to 
ship Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials under the de 
minimis provisions that provide alternative communication and packaging 
requirements associated with the preparation of these packages. In 
total, PHMSA estimates that the proposal would result in cost savings 
of approximately $160,000 annually. A more detailed discussion of the 
economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, upon review of the COSTHA petition to revise the de 
minimis quantities exception to include Division 6.1, PG I materials 
(no inhalation hazard), PHMSA proposes to revise Sec.  173.4b to 
include Division 6.1, PG I materials (no inhalation hazard) to the list 
of authorized materials in Sec.  173.4b(a) PHMSA expects expanding the 
de minimis exceptions to Division 6.1, PG I materials (no inhalation 
hazard) to maintain the safety of transportation of hazardous materials 
and provide cost savings through alternative packaging options.

E. Clarification of the Marking Requirements for Button Cell Lithium 
Batteries Contained in Equipment

    In its petition (P-1726),\15\ COSTHA requests that PHMSA amend 49 
CFR 173.185(c)(3) to clarify that lithium button cell batteries 
installed in equipment are excepted from the marking requirement and 
not subject to the quantity per package or per consignment limitation. 
Currently, Sec.  173.185(c)(3) states that, ``Each package must display 
the lithium battery mark except when a package contains button cell 
batteries installed in equipment (including circuit boards), or no more 
than four lithium cells or two lithium batteries contained in 
equipment, where there are not more than two packages in the 
consignment.'' In its petition, COSTHA asserts that the language and 
grammar used to convey the exception from display of the lithium 
battery mark has led some in industry to interpret the exception for 
button cell batteries to be dependent on the number of cells in a 
package or the number of packages in the consignment. Industry has made 
several requests for letters of interpretation--12-0261,\16\ 14-
0013,\17\ 15-0171,\18\ and 16-0172 \19\--which illustrates the 
confusion within the regulated community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ P-1726--COSTHA (PHMSA-2019-0002), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0002.
    \16\ PHMSA LOI 12-0261; https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120261.pdf.
    \17\ PHMSA LOI 14-0013; https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2014/140013.pdf.
    \18\ PHMSA LOI 15-0171; https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150171.pdf.
    \19\ PHMSA LOI 16-0172; https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2017/160172.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA published final rule HM-224F \20\ to revise the HMR 
applicable to the transport of lithium cells and batteries, consistent 
with the UN Model Regulations, the ICAO Technical Instructions, and the 
IMDG Code. As part of final rule HM-224F, PHMSA consolidated the 
requirements for shipping and transporting lithium cells and batteries 
into Sec.  173.185 by:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 79 FR 46011 (August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Requiring cells and batteries to be tested in accordance 
with the latest revisions to the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria and 
requiring manufacturers to retain evidence of successful completion of 
UN testing.
     Eliminating the exceptions for small cells and batteries 
in air transportation, except with respect to extremely small cells 
packed with or contained in equipment.
     Providing relief for (1) the shipment of low production 
run and prototype batteries and, (2) batteries being shipped for 
recycling or disposal.
    In its petition, COSTHA presents grammatical and typographical 
changes to Sec.  173.185(c)(3) to clarify the applicability of the 
lithium battery mark exception for button cell batteries installed in 
equipment. Consistent with the petition, PHMSA proposes revisions that 
clarify the exception in Sec.  173.185(c)(3) applies when a package 
contains only button cell batteries installed in equipment; or when 
there is a consignment consisting of two packages or less, and each 
package contains no more than four lithium cells or two batteries 
installed in equipment.
    This proposed change to the HMR is neither expected to result in a 
cost to industry nor a change to the safety requirements for packages 
containing lithium button cell batteries contained in equipment. The 
proposed revision simply clarifies how the exception is applied for 
better understanding by the reader. Since PHMSA already authorizes this 
lithium battery mark exception, the proposed change would not represent 
a quantifiable safety effect. Qualitatively, improved regulatory 
clarity will assist the regulated community in complying with the 
requirement and properly exercising the exception. Some entities were 
reasonably confused by the current text and applied the required mark 
unnecessarily. To the extent this occurred, the proposed revision could 
provide economic benefit while maintaining safety. PHMSA believes there 
is limited risk in excepting packages of button cell lithium batteries 
installed in equipment from the lithium battery mark. A more detailed 
discussion of the economic analysis of this proposal can be found in 
the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise the introductory language in 49 
CFR 173.185(c)(3) to clarify that lithium button cell batteries 
installed in equipment are not subject to any quantity per package or 
consignment limitations when applying the exception.

F. Incorporate by Reference CGA C-20 (2014)

    In its petition (P-1727),\21\ CGA requests that PHMSA incorporate 
by

[[Page 13630]]

reference CGA C-20 (2014), ``Requalification Standard for Metallic, DOT 
and TC 3-Series Gas Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic Examination, 
Second Edition.'' CGA also proposes to revise Sec.  180.205 to reflect 
the ultrasonic examination (UE) methods authorized by CGA C-20. CGA C-
20 are an industry standard for the periodic requalification of certain 
metallic DOT and Transport Canada (TC) 3-series cylinders and tubes. 
CGA asserts that the incorporation by reference of CGA C-20 would 
eliminate the need for many special permits that authorize the use of 
UE methods and would harmonize the various UE methods to requalify 
these pressure receptacles. CGA further asserts that this standard 
would establish a uniform set of techniques, uniform acceptance and 
rejection criteria, and a standard calibration method used during the 
requalification process of these 3-series gas cylinders and tubes, in 
contrast to the current special permits, which vary on the requirements 
associated with use of the UE nondestructive testing methodology for 
requalification. Finally, the petition asserts that the incorporation 
by reference of CGA C-20 would enhance public safety by clarifying and 
mandating consistent requalification practices using UE throughout the 
gas industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ P-1727--CGA (PHMSA-2019-0007), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CGA C-20 identifies and describes the various acceptable UE methods 
that may be used in place of the baseline HMR requirements (e.g., 
internal visual inspection and hydrostatic requalification methods) 
used to examine certain metallic DOT/TC 3-series gas cylinders and 
tubes. This standard also specifies the allowable flaw acceptance/
rejection criteria.
    Under the HMR, requalification periods for DOT/TC 3-series 
specification cylinders range from three to 12 years, depending on the 
specification under which each cylinder was made (e.g., 3, 3AA, etc.). 
Periodic requalification ensures the safety of cylinders by checking 
for leaks and damage that might threaten the integrity of a cylinder. 
Cylinders are requalified using volumetric expansion testing, proof 
pressure testing, and external and internal visual inspections. 
Currently, special permits are required to use UE in lieu of the 
requalification requirements in Sec.  180.205.
    CGA notes that the increased use of UE necessitates clear and 
consistent instruction in the application of this technical method, as 
well as the adherence to proper calibration and acceptance/rejection 
criteria. CGA asserts that the proposed modifications ensure that this 
requalification method is applied consistently to safeguard cylinder 
serviceability.
    PHMSA participated in the task force meetings, provided technical 
assistance during the development of CGA C-20, and completed a 
technical review of the final standard. PHMSA's technical review 
determined that the CGA C-20 standard will positively impact safety by 
prescribing appropriate procedures for applying UE as the 
requalification method for DOT/TC 3-series cylinders and tubes.
    The total cost savings for industry regarding requalification using 
CGA C-20 is based on the number of active special permits and the costs 
associated with periodic renewal of the special permit. We estimate 
average annual industry cost savings of $14,613 due to companies no 
longer being required to apply for a special permit. A more detailed 
discussion of the economic analysis of this proposal can be found in 
the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    PHMSA also proposes to revise 49 CFR 180.205(i) to state that when 
a cylinder containing hazardous materials is condemned, the requalifier 
must stamp the cylinder ``CONDEMNED'' and affix a readily visible label 
on the cylinder stating: ``UN REJECTED, RETURNING TO ORIGIN FOR PROPER 
DISPOSITION.'' PHMSA also is clarifying that the requalifier may only 
transport the condemned cylinder by private motor vehicle carriage to a 
facility capable of safely removing the contents of the cylinder. PHMSA 
also notes the publication of the third edition of CGA-20 in 2021 and 
solicits comment regarding whether this rulemaking should consider 
incorporating by reference the 2021 edition rather than the 2014 
edition. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to add a reference to CGA C-20, 
``Methods For Ultrasonic Examination Of Metallic, DOT And TC 3-Series 
Gas Cylinders And Tubes, Second Edition'' in 49 CFR 171.7 and revise 49 
CFR 180.205 to reflect the UE methods authorized by CGA C-20.

G. Gas Mixtures Containing Components Defined as Liquefied Gases

    In its petition (P-1728),\22\ CGA proposes that PHMSA authorize an 
alternative description of gas mixtures containing components defined 
as liquefied gases. The CGA petition would revise the HMR to allow for 
a gas mixture with components that meet the definition of liquefied 
compressed gas in Sec.  173.115(e) to be described as a ``compressed 
gas'' when the partial pressures of the liquefied gas components of the 
mixture are intentionally reduced so that liquefaction does not occur 
at 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F). CGA requests in its petition that special 
provisions be added to Column 7 in the Sec.  172.101 Hazardous Material 
Table (HMT) applicable to liquefied gas mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ P-1728--CGA (PHMSA-2019-0018), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some compressed gas mixtures contain components that when shipped 
in their pure form would be considered a liquefied gas. However, when 
the gas is in a mixture, it can be manipulated to be entirely gaseous 
at its intended use temperature of 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F) by reducing 
the components' partial pressures. Partial pressure is the pressure 
that would be exerted by one of the gases in a mixture if it occupied 
the same volume on its own. The sum of all components' partial 
pressures equals the total pressure of the mixture. Therefore, partial 
pressure can be lowered by lowering pressure generally (e.g., by 
lowering temperatures or increasing volume) or altering the ratio of 
gases in the mixture.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of this petition and agrees with 
CGA that when the gas is in a mixture, it can be manipulated to be 
entirely gaseous at its intended use temperature of 20[deg]C (68 
[deg]F) by reducing the components' partial pressures. PHMSA notes that 
during transportation, the gas mixture or its components may partially 
liquefy, forming condensation on the container wall, if ambient 
temperatures are lower than 20[deg]C (68 [deg]F), but still above -
50[deg]C (-58 [deg]F). When the mixture returns to its use temperature, 
the condensation will transform back to the gaseous state. There are 
scenarios where a gas mixture might contain a component that meets the 
definition of a liquefied compressed gas, and under small temperature 
changes, a cloud or condensation could build up inside the cylinder. 
This could lead to the ``liquefied compressed gas'' description 
potentially misrepresenting the cylinder's contents to first responders 
and end users. Moreover, while CGA does not cite a safety concern with 
the current requirements under the HMR, they do note that there can be 
confusion among stakeholders when the content of a cylinder is 
described as a liquefied compressed gas but resembles a non-liquefied 
compressed gas during transportation and use. Thus, PHMSA has 
determined that the proposed change is safety neutral or slightly 
improves safety. However, PHMSA disagrees with the CGA petition to use 
a special provision to allow for the description of a gas mixture with 
components that meet the

[[Page 13631]]

definition of liquefied compressed gas to be described as a 
``compressed gas.'' Instead, PHMSA believes that the most appropriate 
change is to amend the definition of a non-liquified compressed gas in 
Sec.  173.115(e), as revising the regulatory text provides a clearer 
connection for all stakeholders who ship these gases. Nonetheless, 
PHMSA appreciates any comments on this proposal.
    This revision to the HMR is not expected to result in any cost to 
industry or impose any regulatory burden on small businesses. Given 
that industries already must describe shipments of these materials on a 
shipping paper and communicate information about the material and the 
hazard on the package, there would be little to no cost on entities to 
change the hazard communication. A more detailed discussion of this 
economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to allow certain mixtures of gas with 
component(s) considered liquefied gas in accordance with 49 CFR 
173.115(e) to be described as a ``compressed gas'' and considered a 
non-liquefied gas in accordance with Sec.  173.115(d). PHMSA proposes 
to revise Sec.  173.115(e) to clarify that gas mixtures with 
component(s) considered liquefied gases may be described using the 
appropriate hazardous materials description of a non-liquified 
compressed gas in 49 CFR 172.101 HMT when the partial pressure(s) of 
the liquefied gas component(s) in the mixture are reduced so that the 
mixture is entirely in the gas phase at 20[deg]C (68 [deg]F).

H. Incorporate by Reference CGA C-23 (2018)

    In its petition (P-1729),\23\ CGA proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference CGA C-23 (2018), ``Standard for Inspection of DOT/TC 3 
series and ISO 11120 Tube Neck Mounting Surfaces, Second Edition'' into 
49 CFR 171.7 of the HMR. CGA also proposes that PHMSA revise 49 CFR 
180.205 and 180.207 to reference the requirements in CGA C-23. CGA C-23 
defines a tube as a seamless pressure vessel authorized for 
transportation only when horizontally mounted on a motor vehicle or in 
an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) framework. Tube 
modules are also commonly known as skid containers, ISO skids, ISO 
containers, or multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs). Sections 
180.205 and 180.207 outline the general requirements for the 
requalification of specification cylinders and UN pressure receptacles. 
The CGA petition would require all requalifiers of tube trailers, skid 
containers, or MEGCs to periodically disassemble equipment and perform 
an examination of tube neck mounting surfaces in accordance with CGA C-
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ P-1729--CGA (PHMSA-2019-0059), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These tubes are typically mounted to a semitrailer by engaging the 
threaded surface on either end of the tube with flanges built into the 
bulkheads located on opposing ends of the trailer. Although secured in 
place, these mounting points support the full weight of the tube and 
during transportation are subjected to jostling, temperature changes 
and all the dynamic forces associated with the acceleration/
deceleration of the transport vehicle. Consequently, the constant 
motion and wear between the tube's threaded mounting surfaces and the 
flanges causes, over time, the deterioration of the mounting threads. 
This deterioration necessitates the periodic disassembly of the tubes 
from the trailer to inspect them. Therefore, CGA C-23 provides 
instructions on how to inspect and evaluate DOT/TC 3-Series and ISO 
11120 tubes that are 12 ft (3.7 m) or longer, have an outside diameter 
greater than or equal to 18 inches (457 mm), and are supported by a 
neck mounting surface. In addition, CGA C-23 provides methods to assess 
the integrity of tube necks, including but not limited to damage to 
mounting threads or to pin or set screw marks, as well as other damage. 
The assessment as outlined in C-23 provides a method for the 
identification of rejected tubes so that they can be removed from 
service, thereby improving the safe transportation of these 
horizontally-mounted cylinder types.
    CGA C-23 was developed in response to an incident where a DOT 
specification 3AAX cylinder was ejected from a semitrailer and ruptured 
upon initial impact with the roadway. CGA determined that the root 
cause of the ejection, which contributed to the severity of the 
incident, was the condition of the connection between the tube neck and 
flange. CGA asserts that CGA C-23 will enhance the inspection process 
to include the inspection of the tube mounting and replacement of 
flanges.
    The HMR currently do not reference CGA C-23, but PHMSA references 
the standard as a safety control in DOT special permits, such as DOT 
SP-14206.\24\ These special permits allow for the requalification of 
DOT specification cylinders and UN tubes by UE or acoustic emission 
testing (AET), with a follow-up UE instead of the hydrostatic test 
currently required under the HMR. These methods are used to ensure the 
cylinders and tubes remain qualified for hazardous materials service. 
Moreover, the UE and AET methods are non-destructive methods of 
examination, that are alternatives to the hydrostatic method. 
Additionally, the HMR do not require periodic inspection and evaluation 
of the tube neck mounting surfaces. The CGA petition would enhance 
transportation safety of these larger cylinders and tubes by including 
inspection of the tube mounting threads as part of the requalification 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ DOT SP-14206, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP14206.pdf/offerserver/SP14206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new language from CGA would require both specification 
DOT 3-series and UN tubes that are 12 feet or longer, with an outside 
diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches and supported by the neck 
mounting surface during transportation in commerce, to be inspected at 
least every 10 years in accordance with CGA C-23. CGA also proposes new 
language in 49 CFR 180.205(d) and 180.207(d) to require DOT 3-series 
and UN tubes that show evidence of corrosion to the neck threads to be 
removed and examined in accordance with CGA C-23 before being rejected 
or returned to service.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the CGA petition and 
determined that the incorporation by reference of CGA C-23 will enhance 
safety by implementing a periodic inspection of the mounting of these 
tubes. Moreover, the requirements of CGA C-23 are consistent with the 
safety controls referenced in DOT-SP 14206. There are also improvements 
offered by the CGA C-23 standard versus the procedures outlined in DOT-
SP 14206, such as a table that contains specific dimensional values for 
use in defining acceptance criteria for tubes with local thin areas 
(LTA). However, PHMSA found the CGA proposals in Sec. Sec.  
180.205(d)(5) and 180.207(d)(1)(iii) requiring the disassembly of the 
tube module when visible corrosion in the neck region is present to be 
too vague. Therefore, PHMSA is referencing the figures and descriptions 
provided in Section 4.2 of the CGA C-23 standard for extreme neck 
thread wear conditions in Sec. Sec.  180.205(d)(5) and 
180.207(d)(1)(iii) to clarify conditions when disassembly of the tube 
module is required.

[[Page 13632]]

    PHMSA has determined that incorporating by reference CGA C-23 into 
the HMR would enhance safety for industry and stakeholders by codifying 
the tube neck thread inspection procedures. PHMSA estimates there will 
be a one-time cost for industry participants to purchase the CGA C-23 
standard. With respect to inspections, there may be some minimal 
administrative costs associated with special permit holders' permits to 
reflect the codification of CGA C-23-2018 into the code, but these 
special permit holders should have been following the requirements of 
CGA C-23-2018 already. A more detailed discussion of this economic 
analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 171.7 to incorporate by 
reference CGA C-23 ``Standard for Inspection of DOT/TC 3-Series and ISO 
11120 Tube Neck Mounting Surfaces, 2nd Edition.'' PHMSA also proposes 
to add 49 CFR 180.205(c)(5) to state that DOT 3-series cylinders 
horizontally mounted on a motor vehicle or in a framework, and longer 
than 12 feet shall be inspected in accordance with CGA C-23 every 10 
years; and add 49 CFR 180.205(d)(5) to specify conditions (as outlined 
in Section 4.2 of CGA C-23) requiring removal and inspection in 
accordance with CGA C-23. The current 49 CFR 180.205(d)(5) requiring 
testing and inspection if the Associate Administrator determines that 
the cylinder may be in an unsafe condition is renumbered as paragraph 
(d)(6). PHMSA is also proposing to revise 49 CFR 180.205(i)(2)(i)(C) to 
state that the requalifier must stamp the cylinder ``CONDEMNED'' and 
affix a readily visible label on the cylinder stating: ``UN REJECTED, 
RETURNING TO ORIGIN FOR PROPER DISPOSITION'' for a condemned cylinder 
contains hazardous materials. The requalifier may only transport the 
condemned cylinder by private motor vehicle carriage to a facility 
capable of safely removing the contents of the cylinder. Finally, PHMSA 
proposes to add 49 CFR 180.207(d)(1)(ii) to state that steel UN tubes 
horizontally mounted on a motor vehicle or in a framework, and longer 
than 12 feet shall be inspected in accordance with CGA C-23 every 10 
years; and to specify conditions (as outlined in Section 4.2 of CGA C-
23) requiring removal and inspection in accordance with Section 6 of 
CGA C-23. (The text at the current 49 CFR 180.207(d)(1) would be 
renumbered as paragraph (d)(1)(i)).

I. Incorporate by Reference IME Safety Library Publication 23 (SLP-23)

    In its petition (P-1731),\25\ the IME proposes that PHMSA 
incorporate by reference an updated version of IME SLP-23 (2021), 
titled ``Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, Division 
1.5; Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1; and Combustible Liquids 
in Bulk Packaging.'' IME states that these revisions and improvements 
to the standard reflect technological advances and best practices in 
the industry that will maintain a high level of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ P-1731--IME (PHMSA-2019-0062), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SLP-23 (2021) outlines the requirements for transporting certain 
explosives and ammonium nitrate emulsions, classified as oxidizers, to 
ensure their safe and efficient transport in bulk packagings by 
highway, vessel, and rail. These bulk packagings can either be DOT 
specification or non-DOT specification packagings (e.g., cargo tanks or 
portable tanks) adapted to accommodate the physical and chemical 
properties of the bulk explosives, oxidizers, or fuel oil transported. 
SLP-23 (2021) makes several non-substantive changes and editorial 
clarifications from the previous publication. Non-substantive changes 
include changing the structure of SLP-23 to read more consistently with 
the HMR and editorial revisions.
    Substantive changes to SLP-23 (2021) include:
     Deletion of the Vented Pipe Test (VPT) in Appendix A.
    Currently, SLP-23 (2011) requires both bulk Division 1.5 explosives 
and Division 5.1 ammonium nitrate emulsions to pass the VPT. The 
proposed updated SLP-23 removes the VPT test for these materials. IME 
asserts that the VPT is not applicable to Division 5.1 and Division 1.5 
materials and adds that as outlined in portable tank instruction TP 32 
(applicable to UN0331, UN0332, and UN3377 materials), the VPT is 
required only to demonstrate suitability for containment in tanks as an 
oxidizer for ammonium nitrate-based emulsions (ANEs) classified as 
Division 5.1, UN3375. Additionally, IME notes that a significant change 
to the requirements applicable to the testing of ANEs was approved by 
the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods at 
its 54th Session (Nov/Dec 2018). Under the new testing regime, 
acceptance criteria will require passing either test series 8(a), 8(b), 
and 8(c), or if the substance fails the 8(c) test (i.e., the ``Koenen 
Test'') and the substance had a time to reaction in that test longer 
than 60 seconds and a water content greater than 14 percent, the 
material would be required to pass test series 8(a), 8(b), and 8(e). 
Test 8(e) is the Minimum Burning Pressure test (MBP). IME noted that 
industry is currently gathering data to determine whether use of the 
MBP test obviates the need for the VPT because, in essence, the VPT is 
a scaled-up Koenen Test and, therefore, has the same limitations 
associated with extended time of heating.
     Allowing operators to continually monitor driver 
qualifications and training instead of conducting an annual audit, as 
currently required in SLP-23 (2011).
    IME notes that the current requirement for an ``annual audit'' is 
inadequate to ensure that driver qualification and training programs 
are comprehensive, effective, and being implemented properly. IME 
believes that limiting oversight of the program to an annual audit 
provides less assurance that operators are compliant than would a 
requirement to continually monitor the driver qualification program.
    In addition, IME requests revisions to the HMR that coincide with 
the incorporation by reference of SLP-23 (2021). IME requests the 
adoption of DOT-SP 8723, which authorizes ``UN0332, Explosive, 
Blasting, type E,'' ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion,'' and 
``UN3139, Oxidizing liquid n.o.s. (PG II)'' to be transported in IM 101 
and 102 portable tanks. IME explains that continuing to operate under 
DOT-SP 8723 imposes additional administrative costs to both industry 
and PHMSA and that one of the advantages of incorporating by reference 
SLP-23 (2011) into the HMR was the elimination of SPs governing bulk 
transportation of certain materials manufactured and used by the 
commercial explosives industry. IME asserts that failure to include the 
provisions from DOT-SP 8723 was an oversight when SLP-23 (2011) was 
originally incorporated by reference into the HMR. In addition to the 
administrative cost savings noted above, IME adds that the conversion 
of SPs into regulations provides certainty to the regulated community 
and increases transparency for government, stakeholders, and the 
public. IME proposes that TP codes be assigned to ``UN0332, Explosive, 
blasting, type E,'' ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion,'' and 
``UN3139, Oxidizing liquid, n.o.s., PG II'' to authorize the use of IM 
101 and 102 portable tanks when transported under SLP-23 (2021). 
Lastly, IME proposes a revision to Sec.  173.251 to state that this 
section is not

[[Page 13633]]

applicable when UN3375 is transported in IM 101 or 102 portable tanks 
in accordance with SLP-23 (2021).
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the revisions to SLP-23 
(2021) and concurs with IME that most of the changes in IME SLP-23 
(2021) are either non-substantive or editorial in nature. PHMSA does 
not believe, however, that sufficient data was provided by IME to no 
longer require the VPT for Division 1.5 blasting explosives and 
Division 5.1 ANEs when transported in bulk. While it is true that the 
UN Subcommittee has discussed whether the VPT is beneficial for ANEs 
when transported in bulk, the discussions are still in preliminary 
stages and pending further review by the UN Subcommittee. If these 
provisions are adopted by the UN, PHMSA may consider changes to VPT 
requirements in a future international harmonization rulemaking. 
Additionally, if data can be provided in response to this NPRM that 
demonstrate that the VPT is no longer needed for these materials, PHMSA 
can consider such data in the development of the final rule. In this 
NPRM, PHMSA proposes to retain the requirement that Division 1.5 
blasting explosives and Division 5.1 ANEs are subject to the VPT, and 
we have proposed to add a reference to the UN Test Series 8(d) in 49 
CFR 171.7(dd)(5) and 172.102(c)(1), SP 148.
    PHMSA also concurs with IME that an annual audit is inadequate to 
ensure that driver qualification and training programs are 
comprehensive, effective, and being implemented properly. A continual 
monitoring program better ensures compliance with the driver 
qualification requirements. While the timing of the oversight of 
requirements would change--i.e., continuous monitoring instead of an 
annual audit--the current elements of the qualification and training 
program would remain unchanged.
    Lastly, PHMSA concurs that there is sufficient merit to adopt the 
provisions of DOT-SP 8723 to authorize ``UN0332, Explosive, blasting, 
type E,'' ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion,'' and ``UN3139, 
Oxidizing liquid, n.o.s., PG II'' to be transported in IM 101 and 102 
portable tanks when shipped under SLP-23 (2021). This would include a 
conforming revision to indicate that 49 CFR 173.251 does not apply when 
UN3375 material is transported in IM 101 or 102 portable tanks in 
accordance with SLP-23. PHMSA has determined that these revisions would 
maintain the safety of bulk transport of these materials because the 
SLP-23 (2011) standard currently incorporated by reference already 
authorizes larger bulk quantities consistent with the hazardous 
material offered in accordance with DOT-SP 8723 and has a safety record 
of use for 10 years.
    PHMSA expects the changes proposed by IME in this petition to 
streamline regulatory requirements without a negative impact on safety. 
PHMSA quantified the effects of removing the administrative 
requirements of applying for a special permit and estimates the average 
annual cost savings to be $6,120 per year. There are several other 
effects of this proposal that may result in costs, cost savings, and 
benefits, but these results are less certain and are described 
qualitatively. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis of 
this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    PHMSA asserts that the incorporation by reference of SLP-23 (2021) 
will enhance safety by adopting technological advances and best 
practices used in the bulk explosives industry. PHMSA proposes to 
incorporate by reference of SLP-23 (2021), ``Recommendations for the 
Transportation of Explosives, Division 1.5; Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, 
Division 5.1; and Combustible Liquids in Bulk Packaging'' into 49 
CFR171.7(r)(2) and replace the 2011 edition currently in the HMR. PHMSA 
also proposes to revise special provision 148 to clearly state that the 
VPT requirements in SLP-23 (2011) would still apply. PHMSA also 
proposes to add new special provision TP48 to 49 CFR 172.102(c)(8) to 
authorize the use of IM 101 and 102 portable tanks for ANEs when 
transported under SLP-23 (2021). PHMSA proposes to assign TP48 to the 
following UN numbers in 49 CFR 172.102 of the HMT: ``UN0332, Explosive, 
blasting, type E,'' ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion,'' and 
``UN3139, Oxidizing liquid, n.o.s., PG II.'' Lastly, PHMSA proposes to 
revise 49 CFR 173.251 to state that this section is not applicable when 
``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion'' is transported in IM 101 or 102 
portable tanks in accordance with SLP-23 (2021).

J. Revision of Testing and Marking of UN Specification Packagings

    In its petition (P-1732),\26\ the Sporting Arms and Ammunition 
Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. (SAAMI) proposes that PHMSA amend 49 CFR 
178.503(a)(6) by allowing UN performance-oriented boxes (e.g., UN 4A, 
4B, or 4N for steel, aluminum, or other metal boxes, respectively) to 
be marked with the last two digits of the year of testing certification 
rather than the last two digits for year of manufacture. Additionally, 
the SAAMI petition proposes to add an additional selective testing 
variation in 49 CFR 178.601(g) to allow for variation of packagings 
that include articles containing solid hazardous materials, packed in 
inner packagings without further testing, subject to certain 
conditions. SAAMI requests that this variation also allow for an 
increase in dimensions of the outer packaging of the combination 
packaging based on the tested design type. Lastly, the SAAMI petition 
proposes to revise the frequency of periodic retesting for combination 
packagings in 49 CFR 178.601 from 24 months to 60 months. PHMSA needs 
more time to evaluate this final proposal and therefore it is not 
proposing the amendment in this rulemaking. However, PHMSA may consider 
this proposal in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ P-1732--SAAMI (PHMSA-2019-0069), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the marking proposal, the marking requirements in 49 
CFR 178.503(a)(6) currently require packages to be marked with the last 
two digits of the year of manufacture. SAAMI asserts that the year of 
manufacture is meant to tie the packaging to a specific certification 
(i.e., tied to design qualification testing and periodic retesting to a 
UN standard). SAAMI asserts that while the date of manufacture is 
informative, this degree of specificity is not necessary for safety or 
enforcement purposes. SAAMI adds that because the retesting of the 
design type occurs every two years,\27\ industries incur costs to 
change the year of manufacture marking on packagings that are still 
being produced under the same design test. (PHMSA notes that this 
conclusion is based on the presumption that manufacturers of 
combination packagings are operating at the minimum test frequency of 
retesting every 24 months.) SAAMI asserts that allowing marking of the 
last two digits of the year of packaging certification on packagings is 
considered an acceptable substitute to the current regulatory 
requirement in 49 CFR 178.503(a)(6) and eliminates the need to change 
printing plates annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The periodic retest requirements for combination packagings 
call for conducting design qualification retesting at least once 
every 24 months. See Sec.  178.601(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the proposal to authorize 
boxes marked with the last two digits of the year of testing 
certification marked rather than the year of manufacture. PHMSA 
believes that this proposal will

[[Page 13634]]

maintain the current safety standard for these packaging types. PHMSA 
has determined, consistent with SAAMI's petition, that the only likely 
effect of the proposed revision is that packaging manufacturers that 
periodically retest packagings less frequently than annually would not 
need to update printing plates annually, and instead would only need to 
update plates biennially, resulting in a small reduction in regulatory 
burden.
    With regard to the selective testing variation proposal, 49 CFR 
178.601 contains the general requirements for the testing of non-bulk 
UN performance-oriented packagings and packages. Specifically, 49 CFR 
178.601(g) contains packaging variations that allow for the selective 
testing of packagings that differ only in minor respects from a tested 
design type. SAAMI proposes in its petition to create an additional 
packaging variation under 49 CFR 178.601(g) to include small arms 
ammunition--specifically, ``Cartridges for weapons, inert projectile(s) 
or blank (UN0012 and UN0014); Primers, cap type (UN0044); and Cases, 
cartridge, empty with primer (UN0055)--packed in inner packages.'' 
Specifically, SAAMI proposes allowing inner packagings of ammunition to 
be assembled and transported without packaging testing, provided that 
the outer packaging of a combination package of articles successfully 
passes the tests in accordance with 49 CFR 178.603 and 178.606. 
Additionally, the SAAMI petition proposes for the packaging variation 
to allow for larger packages to use the certification of a smaller 
tested package.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the SAAMI proposal for a new 
selective testing variation to allow for limited testing of combination 
packagings for small arms ammunition and components. PHMSA concurs with 
the proposal to allow for a variation in combination packagings used 
for materials classified as UN0012, UN0014, UN0044, and UN0055 without 
further testing. PHMSA has determined that allowing for a variation in 
the packagings used to ship UN0012, UN0014, UN0044, and UN0055 will not 
lead to a reduction in safety because PHMSA does not expect this minor 
package variation to affect the performance of the package. PHMSA does 
not, however, propose to adopt the SAAMI proposal to allow for an 
increase in external dimensions of the outer package (i.e., allow 
larger packages) based on the tested design type. This proposal is 
novel to the extent that no current packaging variation in 49 CFR 
178.601(g) of the HMR allows for an increase in size of a packaging 
from a tested design type and SAAMI did not provide a safety 
justification to support such a change. Without this additional data, 
PHMSA cannot make a determination that increasing the size of a package 
from a tested design type will not lead to a decrease in safety.
    PHMSA conducted an economic evaluation of the proposal to amend 
Sec.  178.503(a)(6) to allow the year of test certification to be 
marked on specification boxes instead of the month and year of 
manufacture. For this proposal, PHMSA estimated annualized cost savings 
of approximately $150,000. PHMSA also conducted an economic evaluation 
of the proposal to amend Sec.  178.601(g) to allow specified inner 
packagings to be assembled and transported without testing under 
certain conditions. For this proposal, PHMSA estimates annualized cost 
savings of approximately $750,000 if this proposal were to be adopted. 
Together, PHMSA estimates that these two proposals will yield an 
annualized cost savings of $900,000. A more detailed discussion of the 
economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to 
the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to amend Sec.  178.503(a)(6) to allow 
adding the last two digits of the year of certification be marked on 
type 4 packagings as an alternative to the year of manufacture. In 
addition, PHMSA proposes a new packaging variation in Sec.  
178.601(g)(6) to authorize selective testing of packagings containing 
``Cartridges for weapons, inert projectile(s) or blank (UN0012 and 
UN0014), Primers, cap type (UN0044), and Cases, cartridge, empty with 
primer (UN0055).'' Inner packagings intended to contain these materials 
may be assembled and transported without testing provided that the 
outer packaging of a combination packaging successfully passes the 
tests in accordance with 49 CFR 178.603 and 178.606, and the gross mass 
does not exceed that of the tested type. Further, PHMSA solicits 
comment on whether this testing variation should be expanded to other 
types of articles containing solid hazardous materials, such as 
fireworks. PHMSA asks that comments include the associated cost savings 
of any such expansion.

K. Authorizing Smaller Combustible Placard on IBCs

    In its petition (P-1734),\28\ Evonik proposes that PHMSA revise 49 
CFR 172.514(c) by adding an option for smaller placards for 
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) carrying combustible liquids by 
adopting the provisions in DOT-SP 16295 \29\ into the HMR. This would 
allow shippers to transport IBCs containing combustible liquids 
(NA1993) bearing a combustible placard sized to be consistent with the 
label size specifications in 49 CFR 172.407(c). Section 172.407(c) 
requires diamond shaped labels to be at least 100 mm (3.9 inches) on 
each side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ P-1734--Evonik (PHMSA-2019-0089), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0089.
    \29\ DOT SP-16295, https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP16295.pdf/2018080498/SP16295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HMR requires placards to be at least 250 mm (9.84 inches) on 
each side. Section 172.514(c) prescribes the exceptions for placarding 
bulk packages. Specifically, paragraph (c)(4) authorizes IBCs to be 
labeled in accordance with part 172, subpart E. However, IBCs 
transporting combustible liquids do not qualify for that exception 
because there is no authorized label for combustible liquids.
    Evonik states in its petition that a smaller-sized combustible 
placard would allow for more space for proper placarding and marking 
placement due to the commonly limited space available to display hazard 
information on the IBC side plates and panels. Moreover, Evonik states 
that a smaller placard provides a level of safety equivalent to the 
requirements in 49 CFR 172.514(c)(4), where an IBC is authorized to be 
labeled instead of placarded (e.g., flammable labels vs. flammable 
placards), and in 49 CFR 172.406(e)(6), where duplicate labels are not 
required on two sides or two ends of an IBC with a volume of 1.8 m\3\ 
(64 cubic feet) or less (approximately 478 gallons). Because these 
exceptions are allowed for hazardous materials considered to pose 
greater danger than combustible liquids, Evonik asserts the reduction 
in size for combustible placards will maintain a safe level of hazard 
communication for transport of combustible liquids in IBCs.
    While this proposal is not technical in nature, PHMSA concludes 
that--from a policy and safety perspective--this amendment does not 
change the safety requirements for the transportation of an IBC, but 
will provide greater flexibility by making more space available for 
other necessary information on the IBC. Additionally, this amendment 
would not result in any cost to industry or impose any new regulatory 
burden to industry. There will be a marginal cost savings due to 
current special permit holders no longer needing to apply to renew 
their special permits. A more

[[Page 13635]]

detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this proposal can be 
found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 172.514(c)(4) to allow 
IBCs containing combustible liquids to be placarded with a combustible 
placard that meets the label size specifications in Sec.  172.407(c). 
PHMSA notes that this petition was focused on allowing a smaller 
placard size for IBCs. Yet, Sec.  172.514(c) authorizes labels--
essentially a smaller-sized placard--instead of placards for other 
types of bulk packagings (e.g., a portable tank having a capacity of 
less than 3,785 L (1000 gallons). PHMSA solicits comment on whether 
this rulemaking should also authorize smaller placards for other bulk 
packagings containing combustible liquids authorized to use a label 
instead of a placard, and the associated cost savings of such 
authorization.

L. Incorporate by Reference IME Safety Library Publication 22 (SLP-22)

    In its petition (P-1736),\30\ IME proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference IME SLP-22 (2019), ``Recommendations for the Safe 
Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with Certain Other Explosive 
Materials.'' The HMR currently incorporates by reference the IME SLP-22 
(2007) version in the HMR at 49 CFR 171.7(r)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ P-1736--IME (PHMSA-2019-0167), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IME notes that DOT has long accepted the SLP-22 publication and its 
recommendations for the safe transportation of detonators in a vehicle. 
SLP-22 (2007) is referenced in 49 CFR 173.63 and 177.835. IME notes 
that much of the SLP-22 standard has remained virtually unchanged since 
1972 and has proven effective for the safe transportation of 
detonators. None of millions of shipments of detonators and explosives 
made using SLP-22 have resulted in a mass-detonation. The primary 
intent of SLP-22 is not to prevent mass detonation, but instead to 
allow sufficient time in the event of a transportation incident, such 
as fire, to evacuate bystanders to a safe distance. Testing conducted 
by IME has shown that transporting detonators in an undamaged box 
constructed to the standard set forth in SLP-22 will prevent, for 30 
minutes or longer, mass detonation.
    SLP-22 (2019) reflects necessary changes and improvements to the 
SLP-22 (2007) edition and includes technical corrections, practical 
improvements, and deletion of outdated practices.
    Specifically, changes to SLP-22 include:
     Providing clarity on the text ``other positions may be 
acceptable'' by specifying alternative placement of SLP-22 packages or 
containers on a motor vehicle based on vehicle cargo space 
configuration.
     Consistent with the alternative positions, adding a 
constraint to limit positions of a container on the vehicle as far as 
possible from the points on the vehicle that are most susceptible to 
high temperature fires due to accidents or severe mechanical failures 
(e.g., the vehicle fuel tank).
     Adding reference to IME SLP-23 for containers mounted on a 
cargo tank motor vehicle.
     Adding a requirement that structural components (i.e., 
latches) must be bolted or welded to the steel in the wall of the 
container or compartment.
     Allowing alternative materials of construction subject to 
certain performance standards (i.e., constructed of or covered with 
non-sparking material).
     Adopting several revisions that provide clarity and 
correct typographical errors.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of each revision included in 
SLP-22 (2019) and has concluded that these changes will either maintain 
or enhance the safety of transporting detonators by highway with other 
explosive materials. PHMSA supports the overall intent to allow more 
time for evacuation should there be an incident. PHMSA proposes to 
incorporate by reference SLP-22 (2019). PHMSA has concluded that the 
specifications proposed in Section C.9 of the document are adequate to 
provide the flexibility to allow for alternative materials of 
construction without compromising safety.
    PHMSA conducted an economic analysis of the IME proposal and found 
that the changes made to sections C.1 and C.1.a provide more 
flexibility for businesses in their placement of SLP-22 boxes while 
still meeting safety standards. The proposed changes to section C.1.c 
regarding padlocks could result in annual cost savings of approximately 
$2,000, assuming a small percentage of vehicles (0.1 percent) take 
advantage of the one-time cost savings associated with purchasing new 
padlocks. C.9's allowance of alternative materials in the construction 
of SLP-22 boxes may result in cost savings of approximately $875,000 
per year. These cost savings, however, are contingent on the quantity 
and type of material substitutions made by SLP-22 box manufacturers, 
which is uncertain. A more detailed discussion of this economic 
analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket 
for the rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 171.7(r)(1) to reference 
IME SLP-22 (2019). In addition, PHMSA proposes to make an editorial 
revision to 49 CFR 171.7(r)(1) by inserting a space between ``IME 
Standard 22,'' and ``IME'' in the first line and amend the date to read 
``June 2019.''

M. Definition of a Liquid

    In its petition (P-1738),\31\ COSTHA proposes that PHMSA modify the 
definition of a liquid in 49 CFR 171.8 to include the test for 
determining fluidity--ISO 2137:1985 (penetrometer test)--prescribed in 
section 2.3.4 of Annex A of the ADR. Section 171.8 states that a liquid 
means a material, other than an elevated temperature material, with a 
melting point or initial melting point of 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F) or 
lower at a standard pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 pounds per square 
inch). A viscous material for which a specific melting point cannot be 
determined must be subjected to the procedures specified in ASTM D 4359 
(1990), ``Standard Test Method for Determining Whether a Material is 
Liquid or Solid.'' The UN Model Regulations, ICAO Technical 
Instructions, and IMDG Code all include the penetrometer test as an 
alternative to performing the ASTM D 4359 test method in determination 
of whether a material is a liquid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ P-1738--COSTHA (PHMSA-2019-0233), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2019-0233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, COSTHA states that there have been no recorded 
instances of determination of liquidity using the ADR penetrometer test 
increasing the risk to safety while in transportation. COSTHA adds that 
under the current system, a material manufactured outside the United 
States and classified using the penetrometer test may not be reshipped 
within the United States without first performing the ASTM D 4359 test 
method. The HMR does not authorize the ADR penetrometer test as a 
method for determining if a material is a liquid, and thus, any hazard 
classification based on this result is not valid in the United States. 
This results in increased cost for shippers to conduct additional 
testing and creates a barrier to importing materials into the United 
States.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the COSTHA proposal to 
harmonize the HMR definition with international

[[Page 13636]]

use of the ADR penetrometer test for determination of a liquid. The 
test proposed, ISO 2137:1985, as identified in the ADR under section 
2.3.4, is referenced in the UN Model Regulations Volume 1, 20th edition 
in section 1.2.1, Definitions, Liquid and in the UN Manual of Tests and 
Criteria 7th edition as a footnote reference to UNMR 1.2.1 at the end 
of 20.4.1.5. PHMSA finds that the ISO test is more empirical in nature 
than ASTM D 4359 and provides better understanding of the physical 
properties of the tested material. Therefore, PHMSA believes the 
adoption of penetrometer test into the HMR will provide a level of 
safety equal or greater to the currently approved ASTM test method. 
Lastly, the addition of the penetrometer test into the HMR will allow 
for more flexibility to offerors by providing an additional option for 
the testing of liquids. An economic analysis of this petition could not 
validate the estimates from the petitioner that suggest cost savings 
from this proposal. A more detailed discussion of this economic 
analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    For the reasons stated in this section, PHMSA proposes to revise 
the definition of a liquid in 49 CFR 171.8 to reference the test for 
determining fluidity (penetrometer test) prescribed in section 2.3.4 of 
Annex A of the ADR.

N. Incorporate by Reference Updated CGA C-7 (2020)

    In its petition (P-1744),\32\ CGA proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference the updated Appendix A of CGA publication C-7 (2020), 
``Guide to Classification and Labeling of Compressed Gases'', Eleventh 
Edition, into the HMR at 49 CFR 171.7(n)(8). Currently, the HMR 
incorporates by reference CGA C-7 (2014), ``Guide to Classification and 
Labeling of Compressed Gases,'' Tenth Edition. The HMR currently 
authorizes the marking of a Dewar flask or a cylinder in accordance 
with CGA C-7 (2014), Appendix A instead of labeling (see 49 CFR 
172.400a). CGA states that an update is needed to CGA C-7, Tenth 
Edition (2014) to address changes made to Appendix A in the Eleventh 
Edition (2020), such as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ P-1744--CGA (PHMSA-2020-0104), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2020-0104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Providing greater flexibility in display of the hazard 
class by allowing it to be displayed on one or two lines.
     Clarifying that the marking system elements must meet 
certain minimum size requirements.
     Providing an example of the CGA marking system for 
multiple hazard diamonds that are overlapped.
    CGA C-7 (2020) states the general principles for labels and 
markings of cylinders and provides recommended minimum requirements for 
many hazardous gases and selected liquids used in such cylinders.
    PHMSA conducted a technical review of this petition, including a 
review of the revised Appendix A to C-7 (2020), and found that the 
proposed changes are minor and primarily editorial clarifications. 
PHMSA concludes that these editorial revisions in Appendix A to CGA C-7 
(2020) will not negatively impact hazard communication.
    PHMSA conducted an economic review of this petition and found no 
quantifiable benefits associated with this change. However, the 
proposed changes found in Appendix A to CGA C-7 (2020) would provide 
clearer guidance to the regulated community and thus increase 
compliance. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of 
this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 171.7(n)(8) to reference 
CGA C-7 (2020), ``Guide to Classification and Labeling of Compressed 
Gases'', Eleventh Edition.

O. Incorporate by Reference CGA C-27 (2019)

    In its petition (P-1746),\33\ CGA proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference CGA C-27 (2019), ``Standard Procedure to Derate the 
Service Pressure of DOT 3-Series Seamless Steel Tubes,'' First Edition. 
PHMSA notes that this publication defines ``tube'' as a seamless steel 
pressure vessel with openings at both ends and with a water capacity of 
120 L or greater. CGA proposes to revise 49 CFR 180.212(a)(1) to allow 
for repairs of a seamless steel DOT 3-series cylinder at a repair 
facility that holds a valid ``K'' number approval, issued under the 
provisions in 49 CFR 107.805. Cylinder owners would be permitted to 
apply to reduce the service pressure of cylinders in accordance with 
CGA C-27. Approved facilities would then process these applications to 
determine if a DOT 3-Series cylinder rejected for insufficient minimum 
wall thickness could be derated from the original marked service 
pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ P-1746--CGA (PHMSA-2020-0116), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2020-0116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CGA C-27 provides a standard procedure to derate the service 
pressure of DOT 3-series seamless steel tubes with local thin areas in 
the walls of the tube that do not meet the minimum thickness criteria 
of the specification. Derating is the lowering of the maximum allowable 
service pressure of a cylinder due to thinning of a cylinder's walls to 
extend the life of the cylinder. In accordance with CGA C-27, any tube 
with a suspect thin area found during AET, UE, or visual inspection 
must be evaluated in accordance with CGA C-20. If the tube does not 
meet the minimum thickness requirements in Section 4b of CGA C-27, a 
cylinder owner may apply to PHMSA to reduce the marked service pressure 
of the cylinders, in accordance with Section 4c of CGA C-27. The 
procedure to derate a tube must be performed by a DOT-approved repair 
facility. CGA C-27 does not apply to tubes that have been condemned 
from any requalification method. Cylinder repair shops must be approved 
by PHMSA to have the authority to repair a cylinder. These companies 
receive a K-number from PHMSA, and the K-number approval indicates 
whether a company is authorized to perform repairs or rebuilds of 
cylinders, and in this case, DOT 3-series tubes.
    CGA asserts that the incorporation by reference of CGA C-27 will 
minimize inquiries to PHMSA by standardizing and codifying the existing 
process under the PHMSA document, ``Guidance for Applications to Down-
Rate the Service Pressure of DOT Seamless Steel Cylinders (Rev. 3/27/
13),'' \34\ and provide persons seeking to derate a tube with 
instruction on pertinent information to submit to PHMSA in a logical 
and consistent manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/PHMSA-2020-0116-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA conducted a technical review of the proposals in the 
petition, including a review of CGA C-27, and found that the proposed 
method for pressure derating of tubes is essentially the same as what 
is outlined in the PHMSA guidance document. Both documents provide 
instructions on how persons should conduct an initial inspection using 
CGA C-6 (2013), ``Standard for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed 
Gas Cylinders,'' to establish that the tube is in good physical, 
serviceable condition for pressure derating with no rejectable 
corrosion, pitting, dents, gouges, or other defects. If deemed suitable 
for pressure derating, the tube should undergo 100 percent ultrasonic 
testing (UT) to establish a minimum sidewall thickness on which to base 
the new reduced service pressure. The methodology used in calculation 
of the new service pressure is the same as the current methodology

[[Page 13637]]

used to determine the allowable service pressure for DOT 3-series 
seamless steel cylinders found in the HMR at 49 CFR 178.36 (3A and 
3AX), 49 CFR 178.37 (3AA and 3AAX), and 49 CFR 178.38 (3B). The 
calculations should then be certified by the tube manufacturer, or by 
the Independent Inspection Agency (IIA) if the tube manufacturer is no 
longer in service or available. IIAs are approved by the Associate 
Administrator to perform a review of a company's inspection or 
requalification operation. In summary, the PHMSA technical review found 
that the procedures in CGA C-27 are equivalent to the procedure 
established in the PHMSA guidance document for pressure derating of 
tubes and should have no impact on safety.
    PHMSA conducted an economic evaluation of this petition and found 
that no benefits or additional costs other than the cost to obtain the 
publication are expected as a result of the proposed changes in this 
petition. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this 
proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference CGA C-27 
``Procedure to Derate the Service Pressure of DOT 3-Series Seamless 
Steel Tubes'', First Edition, in 49 CFR 171.7. PHMSA also proposes to 
add 49 CFR 180.212(a)(4) for instruction on derating of a cylinder 
reference to CGA C-27.

P. Incorporate by Reference CGA C-29 (2019)

    In its petition (P-1747),\35\ CGA proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference CGA C-29 (2019), ``Standard for Design Requirements for 
Tube Trailers and Tube Modules,'' First Edition, which would supersede 
CGA TB-25 (2018), ``Design Considerations for Tube Trailers.'' CGA also 
proposes conforming revisions to 49 CFR 173.301 to replace references 
to CGA TB-25 with references to CGA C-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ P-1747--CGA (PHMSA-2020-0117), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2020-0117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CGA C-29 defines basic design requirements for tube trailers and 
tube modules to maintain structural integrity during normal conditions 
of handling and transport. A tube trailer or tube module manufactured 
in accordance with this standard is less likely to have a separation of 
the tubes from the trailer or bundle or an unintentional release of 
product when subjected to the multidirectional forces that can occur 
during a highway collision, including a rollover accident. Under this 
standard, tube modules must meet the loading and accident protection 
standards that are applied to tube trailers.
    In its petition, CGA outlines the changes between the CGA TB-25 
(currently incorporated by reference in Sec.  171.7) and CGA C-29. 
Examples of these revisions include:
     Changing the Technical Bulletin to a CGA Standard.
     Changing the title of the document to ``Standard for 
Design Requirements for Tube Trailers and Tube Modules.''
     Adding a scope section that specifies that CGA C-29 is not 
applicable to a multiple-element gas container (MEGC) because MEGC 
design requirements are found in 49 CFR 178.75.
     Providing several examples of testing and methods that 
meet the requirement of verifiable performance testing and analytical 
methods within the basic design requirements section.
     Changing ``should'' to ``shall'' in several places within 
the document to provide a standard that includes enforceable language.
     Referencing CGA C-23, ``Standard for Inspection of DOT/TC 
3 Series and ISO 11120 Tube Neck Mounting Surfaces,'' Second Edition.
    CGA developed CGA C-29 to supersede TB-25 and asserts that CGA C-29 
provides a more optimal level of safety for the public and a 
satisfactory performance standard when cylinders are mounted on motor 
vehicles or in frames for transportation. In addition, CGA asserts that 
C-29 provides more enforceable language, whereas TB-25 does not (i.e., 
use of ``shall'' vs. ``should'').
    A technical review of the petition and supporting documents found 
that CGA C-29 is technically accurate, consistent with CGA TB-25, and 
provides safety improvements for the transport of tube trailers. 
Additionally, PHMSA concludes that tube trailers or modules 
manufactured in accordance with CGA C-29 are less likely to have 
separation of tubes from the trailer or bundle, which could result in 
the unintentional release of hazardous materials, when subjected to 
multidirectional forces that can occur in highway collisions, including 
rollover accidents. Therefore, PHMSA asserts the incorporation by 
reference of CGA C-29 will enhance the safe transportation of hazardous 
materials in tube trailers.
    PHMSA conducted an economic evaluation and found that most 
operators are already following the guidelines in CGA C-29 and thus 
there are limited quantifiable economic benefits. The largest potential 
source of benefits from mandatory adoption is enhanced safety through a 
more standardized qualification and testing regime. Minor economic 
benefits might also be derived from the editorial and definitional 
clarifications provided in the updated CGA requirements. Should these 
changes make requirements for operators clearer and easier to follow, 
that would support compliance with the regulation. A more detailed 
discussion of the economic analysis of this proposal can be found in 
the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference CGA C-29 
``Standard for Design Requirements for Tube Trailers and Tube 
Modules'', First Edition, into 49 CFR 171.7 and remove the references 
to CGA TB-25, ``Design Considerations for Tube Trailers.'' PHMSA also 
proposes to revise 49 CFR 173.301(i) to replace references to CGA TB-25 
with references to CGA C-29.

Q. Incorporate by Reference CGA V-9 (2019)

    In its petition (P-1748),\36\ CGA proposes that PHMSA incorporate 
by reference CGA V-9 (2019), ``Compressed Gas Association Standard for 
Compressed Gas Cylinder Valves,'' Eighth Edition. The HMR currently 
references the Seventh Edition of CGA V-9 (2012). The major updates to 
CGA V-9 (2019) ensure continuity and consistency with the testing 
requirements of ISO 10297, ``Gas cylinder--Cylinder valves--
Specification and Type Testing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ P-1748--CGA (PHMSA-2020-0124), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2020-0124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CGA V-9 (2019) standard covers compressed gas cylinder valve 
design, selection, manufacture, and use, including performance 
requirements such as operating temperature limits, pressure ranges, and 
flow capabilities. The standard also includes requirements for 
materials, inlet and outlet connections, cleaning, qualification and 
production testing, maintenance, and reconditioning. In addition, CGA 
V-9 (2019) includes guidelines and requirements for the design, 
material selection, testing, and marking of cylinder valve protection 
caps. Finally, the standard provides a listing of valve types and 
associated drawings and their application and limitations.
    A technical review of CGA V-9 (2019) verified updates and revisions 
made to CGA V-9 (2012), which is currently incorporated by reference in 
the HMR. PHMSA found these revisions were primarily editorial in 
nature, except for the revision to harmonize CGA V-9 (2019) with the 
testing requirements of ISO 10297. Because PHMSA has already

[[Page 13638]]

incorporated by reference ISO 10297 in the HMR, there is no technical 
reason to not incorporate by reference the updated version of CGA V-9 
(2019), which references the ISO 10297 standard. In addition, because 
CGA-V-9 (2019) now references ISO 10297, it will allow greater 
flexibility in selecting and qualifying valves and thus avoid redundant 
compliance with both ISO 10297 and CGA V-9 (2019).
    PHMSA asserts that this proposal should result in benefits to the 
industry, as CGA V-9 (2019) allows the use of listed valves in other 
standards, such as those qualified to ISO 10297, thereby avoiding or 
minimizing additional qualification costs. Manufacturers and users of 
compressed gas cylinder valves would no longer need to conduct two 
different tests to satisfy ISO 10927 (as currently required by the HMR) 
and CGA V-9 (2019). A more detailed discussion of this economic 
analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise Sec.  171.7(n)(26) to replace 
CGA V-9 (2012), ``Compressed Gas Association Standard for Compressed 
Cylinder Valves'', Seventh Edition, with CGA V-9 (2019), ``Compressed 
Gas Association Standard for Compressed Cylinder Valves,'' Eighth 
Edition.

R. Phaseout of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule 
\37\ to issue regulations implementing certain provisions of the 
American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act,\38\ as enacted on 
December 27, 2020. One provision of the AIM Act mandates the phasedown 
of HFCs--a group of chemicals commonly referred to as refrigerants 
because of their primary use for cooling and refrigeration applications 
like air conditioning--by at least 85 percent by 2036. HFCs are highly 
potent greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the 
planet. The Act directs the EPA to implement the phasedown by issuing a 
fixed quantity of transferrable production and consumption allowances, 
which producers and importers of hydrofluorocarbons must hold in 
quantities equal to the number of hydrofluorocarbons they produce or 
import. For the time period of 2022-2050, the EPA estimates the 
rulemaking will avoid cumulative emissions of 4,560 million metric tons 
of exchange value equivalent \39\ of HFCs in the United States with a 
present value of cumulative net benefits of $272.7 billion.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 86 FR 55116 (Oct. 5, 2021).
    \38\ https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/aim-act.
    \39\ EPA uses the term ``exchange value equivalent'' to provide 
a common unit of measure between HFCs and the AIM Act defines 
``exchange value'' as the value assigned to a regulated substance 
(i.e., a regulated HFC).
    \40\ 86 FR 55116 (Oct. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA final rule implements a two-stage approach that first 
prohibits additional disposable cylinders--i.e., non-refillables--from 
being introduced to the market by January 1, 2025, and secondly 
prohibits sales altogether by January 1, 2027. A primary example of a 
non-refillable cylinder authorized for transport of HFCs is a DOT 39 
cylinder. In the final rule, EPA notes that the AIM Act gives the 
agency broad authority to implement these prohibitions relating to the 
sale or distribution, or offer for sale or distribution, of regulated 
substances that were illegally produced or imported.
    In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to adopt the same prohibition on the 
filling and transportation of certain HFCs in non-refillable cylinders 
to align with EPA's efforts to fulfill the AIM Act mandate and combat 
climate impacts, and to avoid potential confusion by industry if PHMSA 
were to continue to authorize these materials in non-refillable 
cylinders while prohibited by EPA. Currently in the HMR, the filling of 
cylinders with liquefied compressed gases such as these HFCs is 
authorized in Sec.  173.304. To align with the EPA prohibition on the 
import, filling, and use of non-refillable cylinders as part of the 
phaseout of HFCs, PHMSA proposes to revise the Sec.  173.304(d) 
transportation requirements for refrigerant gases. First, PHMSA 
proposes to move the current paragraph (d) requirements to a new 
paragraph (d)(1) regarding refrigerant and dispersant gases. Second, 
PHMSA proposes to create a new paragraph (d)(2) to add a list of HFCs 
that would no longer be permitted to be filled and transported in non-
refillable cylinders. These HFCs include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chemical name                         Common name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF2CHF2..................................  HFC-134.
CH2FCF3...................................  HFC-134a.
CH2FCHF2..................................  HFC-143.
CHF2CH2CF3................................  HFC-245fa.
CF3CH2CF2CH3..............................  HFC-365mfc.
CF3CHFCF3.................................  HFC-227ea.
CH2FCF2CF3................................  HFC-236cb.
CHF2CHFCF3................................  HFC-236ea.
CF3CH2CF3.................................  HFC-236fa.
CH2FCF2CHF2...............................  HFC-245ca.
CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3...........................  HFC-43-10mee.
CH2F2.....................................  HFC-32.
CHF2CF3...................................  HFC-125.
CH3CF3....................................  HFC-143a.
CH3F......................................  HFC-41.
CH2FCH2F..................................  HFC-152.
CH3CHF2...................................  HFC-152a.
CHF3......................................  HFC-23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this proposal would phase out the import or domestic 
filling of a listed HFC in a non-refillable cylinder by January 1, 
2025, and would prohibit the offering of HFCs identified in this 
section in a non-refillable cylinder after January 1, 2027. Lastly, 
this proposal provides a phaseout exception for small cans (i.e., an 
aerosol can) containing less than two pounds of a listed HFC that has a 
self-sealing valve and meets the valve specification requirements in 40 
CFR 82.154(c)(2)--i.e., the EPA specifications for self-sealing valves.

S. Emergency Processing of Special Permits

    Section 107.117 of the HMR outlines the conditions necessary for 
applicants who apply for emergency processing of their special permit 
request. PHMSA occasionally issues a special permit that the Associate 
Administrator determines is needed to address an imminent safety issue, 
a threat to national security, or to prevent significant economic loss. 
(See 49 CFR 107.117(a)) However, PHMSA has found it necessary to add an 
additional criterion due to situations arising that require processing 
of an emergency special permit but is not clearly outlined in the 
current 49 CFR 107.117(a). To meet this need, PHMSA is proposing to add 
a new paragraph (a)(4) to provide clarification that the Associate 
Administrator may also approve emergency processing of a special permit 
in support of certain essential governmental functions--both foreign 
and domestic. For example, a foreign government request for the 
emergency processing of a special permit application regarding the 
timely movement of a hazardous material--from or through the United 
States--in support of law enforcement, life safety (e.g., providing 
health services items or equipment containing hazardous materials 
during a pandemic), or judicial activities may qualify under the new 
paragraph. Separately, to provide clarification of 49 CFR 
107.117(a)(2), we are proposing to split the current paragraph (a)(2) 
into two distinct paragraphs--(a)(2) and (3).

IV. Section-by-Section Review

    Below is a section-by-section description of the changes being 
proposed.

[[Page 13639]]

A. Section 107.117

    49 CFR 107.117 outlines situations when emergency processing of 
special permits may be appropriate. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to 
add 49 CFR 107.117(a)(4) to clarify that PHMSA may use emergency 
processing of special permits in support of essential governmental 
functions. Separately, to provide clarification of 49 CFR 
107.117(a)(2), we are proposing to split the current clauses into two 
distinct paragraphs--(a)(2) and (3).

B. Section 171.7

    Section 171.7 lists all standards incorporated by reference into 
the HMR that are not specifically set forth in the regulations. In this 
NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following 
publications by CGA, IME, and the UN:
     CGA C-7 (2020), Guide to Classification and Labeling of 
Compressed Gases, (Eleventh Edition), into 49 CFR 172.400a. This 
publication has been prepared as a guide for the classification and 
labelling of compressed gases. It is general in nature and does not 
cover all circumstances for each individual cylinder type or lading.
     CGA C-20 (2014), Requalification Standard for Metallic, 
DOT and TC 3-Series Gas Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic 
Examination (Second Edition), into 49 CFR 180.205. This publication is 
used for the requalification of seamless cylinders and tubes using UE. 
It is general in nature and does not cover all circumstances for each 
individual cylinder type or lading.
     CGA C-23 (2018), Standard for Inspection of DOT/TC 3 
Series and ISO 11120, Tube Neck Mounting Surfaces (Second Edition), 
into 49 CFR 180.205 and 180.207. This publication applies to the 
inspection and evaluation of DOT/TC 3-Series and ISO 11120 tubes 12 ft 
(3.7 m) or longer with an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 
in (457 mm) that are supported by the neck mounting surface. It is 
general in nature and does not cover all circumstances for each 
individual cylinder type or lading.
     CGA C-27 (2019), Standard Procedure to Derate the Service 
Pressure of DOT 3-Series Seamless Steel Tubes (First Edition), into 49 
CFR 180.212. This publication provides a standard procedure to derate 
the service pressure of DOT 3-series seamless steel tubes with local 
thin areas (LTA) that do not meet the minimum wall thickness of certain 
DOT specifications. It is general in nature and does not cover all 
circumstances for each individual cylinder type or lading.
     CGA C-29 (2019), Standard for Design Requirements for Tube 
Trailers and Tube Modules, (First Edition), into 49 CFR 173.301. This 
publication defines basic design requirements for tube trailers and 
tube modules, manufactured or modified on or after May 11, 2009, to 
maintain structural integrity during normal conditions of handling and 
transport. It is general in nature and does not cover all circumstances 
for each individual cylinder type or lading. Tube trailers manufactured 
or modified before May 11, 2009, can continue to follow the 
requirements in TB-25 ``Design Considerations for Tube Trailers.'' Any 
modifications to the tube trailer, however, should be done in 
accordance with CGA C-29.
     CGA V-9 (2019), Compressed Gas Association Standard for 
Compressed Gas Cylinder Valves, (Eight Edition), into 49 CFR 173.301. 
This publication covers cylinder valve design, manufacture, and use 
including performance requirements such as operating temperature 
limits, pressure ranges, and flow capabilities. It is general in nature 
and does not cover all circumstances for each individual cylinder type 
or lading.
     SLP-22 (2019), Recommendations for the Safe Transportation 
of Detonators in a Vehicle with Certain Other Explosive Materials into 
49 CFR 173.63 and 177.835. This publication outlines the guidelines for 
the safe transportation of detonators in commercial transportation.
     SLP-23 (2021), Recommendations for the Transportation of 
Explosives, Division 1.5; Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1; and 
Combustible Liquids in Bulk Packaging into 49 CFR 173.66 introductory 
text and 177.835(d). This publication specifies the requirements for 
the transportation in bulk packaging of certain Class 1 and Class 5 
hazardous materials essential to commercial blasting operations.
     European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage 
of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), which is already incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  171.23, into 49 CFR 171.8. The European Agreement 
concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 
outlines regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous 
goods by road within the EU and other countries that are party to the 
agreement. This publication presents the European Agreement, the 
Protocol Signatures, the annexes, and the amendments. In addition to a 
new title, the 2020 edition of this document includes amendments 
necessary to ensure harmonization of ADR with the UN Model Regulations, 
additional amendments adopted by the Working Group on Tanks as well as 
amendments proposed by the Working Group on Standards.
     United Nations' Recommendations on Test Series 8: 
Applicability of Test Series 8(d), June 2019, into 49 CFR 
172.102(c)(1), special provision 148. This test series is used to 
determine if an ammonium nitrate emulsion, suspension or gel, 
intermediate for blasting explosives (ANE), is insensitive enough for 
inclusion in Division 5.1, and to evaluate the suitability for 
transport in tanks.
    Additionally, CGA has moved to a new headquarters location. 
Therefore, we have proposed a revision to 49 CFR 171.7(n) accordingly.

C. Section 171.8

    Section 171.8 defines terms used throughout the HMR that have broad 
or multi-modal applicability. PHMSA proposes to modify the definition 
of liquid in Sec.  171.8 to include the test for determining fluidity 
(penetrometer test) prescribed in section 2.3.4 of Annex A of the ADR 
as an alternative method for determining if a material is a liquid.

D. Section 172.101

    The HMT is contained in Sec.  172.101. The HMT lists 
alphabetically, by proper shipping name, those materials that have been 
designated hazardous materials for the purpose of transportation. It 
provides information used on shipping papers, package marking, and 
labeling, as well as other pertinent shipping information for hazardous 
materials. PHMSA proposes to amend the HMT by referencing special 
provision TP48 in Column 7 of the HMT for the following HMT entries: 
``UN0332, Explosive, Blasting, type E'', ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate 
emulsion'', and ``UN3139, Oxidizing liquid n.o.s. (PG II)''.

E. Section 172.102

    Section 172.102 lists special provisions applicable to the 
transportation of specific hazardous materials. Special provisions 
contain packaging requirements, prohibitions, and exceptions applicable 
to quantities or forms of hazardous materials. PHMSA proposes to add a 
new special provision ``TP48'' to allow the use of IM 101 and 102 
portable tanks when transported in accordance with SLP-23. In addition, 
PHMSA is proposing to revise special provision ``148'' to require 
materials assigned this provision to be subject to the Vented Pipe Test 
(VPT). This ensures continued performance of

[[Page 13640]]

VPT requirements in the absence of required use of the test in the 
proposed update of the incorporation by reference of IME SLP-23.

F. Section 172.514

    Section 172.514 prescribes the placarding requirements for bulk 
packagings. PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 172.514(c)(4) to allow an 
option to use a placard that meets the label specification size 
requirements in 49 CFR 172.407(c) for combustible liquids transported 
in IBCs.

G. Section 173.4b

    Section 173.4b prescribes exceptions for transporting certain 
hazardous materials in de minimis quantities. PHMSA proposes to revise 
paragraph (a) to include Division 6.1, PG I materials (no inhalation 
hazard) in the list of materials authorized for this exception.

H. Section 173.115

    Section 173.115 prescribes definitions for Class 2, Divisions 2.1, 
2.2, and 2.3 hazardous materials. PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 
173.115(e) to state that gas mixtures with component(s) that are 
liquefied gases may be described using the appropriate hazardous 
materials description of a non-liquified compressed gas in the HMT at 
49 CFR 172.101 when the partial pressure(s) of the liquefied 
component(s) in the mixture are reduced so that the mixture is entirely 
in the gas phase at 20 [deg]C.

I. Section 173.185

    Section 173.185 prescribes the requirements for packaging and 
transporting lithium cells and batteries. PHMSA proposes to revise 
paragraph (c)(3) to clarify that lithium button cell batteries 
installed in equipment are not subject to any per package or 
consignment limitations.

J. Section 173.251

    Section 173.251 outlines the bulk packaging requirements for 
ammonium nitrate emulsion, suspension, or gel. PHMSA proposes to revise 
49 CFR 173.251 to state that this section is not applicable when 
``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion'' is transported in IM 101 or 102 
portable tanks in accordance with SLP-23 (2021).

K. Section 173.301

    Section 173.301 outlines the general requirements for shipment of 
compressed gases and other hazardous materials in cylinders, UN 
pressure receptacles, and spherical pressure vessels. PHMSA proposes to 
revise 49 CFR 173.301 to replace references to CGA TB-25 with 
references to CGA C-29.

L. Section 173.302a

    Section 173.302a specifies the additional requirements for shipment 
of non-liquefied (permanent) compressed gases in specification 
cylinders. PHMSA proposes to revise paragraph (c) by redesignating 49 
CFR 173.302a(c)(3)(i) and (ii) as 49 CFR 173.302a(c)(4) and (5) to 
properly reflect that the safety provisions currently in 49 CFR 
173.302a(c)(3)(i) and (ii) are independent material construction 
requirements under paragraph (c). PHMSA also proposes to add paragraph 
(c)(6) to require that cylinders be equipped with pressure relief 
devices sized and selected as to type, location, and quantity, and 
tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1 (previously in paragraph (c)(4)). 
Lastly, PHMSA proposes to add paragraph (c)(7) to require a plus sign 
(+) be added following the test date marking on the cylinder to 
indicate compliance with paragraph (c) of this section.

M. Section 173.302b

    Section 173.302b describes the additional requirements for shipment 
of non-liquefied (permanent) compressed gases in UN pressure 
receptacles. PHMSA proposes to revise this section by adding a new 
paragraph (f) to specify packaging restrictions for transporting 
compressed natural gas and methane in UN seamless steel pressure 
receptacles. For methane and natural gas with a methane content of 98 
percent or greater, the maximum tensile strength of the UN seamless 
steel pressure receptacle may not exceed 1100 MPa (159,542 psi), and 
the contents must be free of corroding components. For natural gas with 
methane content of less than 98 percent, the maximum tensile strength 
of the UN seamless steel pressure receptacle may not exceed 950 MPa 
(137,750 psi). Additionally, each discharge end of a UN refillable 
seamless steel tube must be equipped with an internal drain tube, and 
the moisture content and concentration of the corroding components must 
conform to the requirements in Sec.  173.301b(a)(2).

N. Section 173.304

    Section 173.304 contains the requirements for the filling of 
cylinders with liquefied compressed gases. Paragraph (d) specifies 
authorized cylinders for the transportation of refrigerant and 
dispersant gases. PHMSA proposes to revise this paragraph by adding a 
list of the HFCs that are being phased out for use and transportation 
to align with the EPA implementation of the AIM Act. Additionally, 
PHMSA proposes language to outline the phaseout dates and exceptions 
for the transportation of HFCs listed in this section.

O. Section 178.503

    Section 178.503 prescribes the requirements for the marking of non-
bulk performance-oriented packagings. PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 
178.503(a)(6) to allow 4-series boxes to be marked with the last two 
digits of the year of certification in lieu of the year of manufacture 
as currently required in the HMR.

P. Section 178.601

    Section 178.601 prescribes the general requirements for the testing 
of non-bulk performance-oriented packagings and packages. PHMSA 
proposes to redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) through (8) as paragraphs 
(g)(7) through (9) and add new paragraph (g)(6) to allow packages 
tested with articles containing solid hazardous materials without 
intermediate packaging(s) to be assembled with any intermediate 
packaging(s) without further testing. Moreover, PHMSA is revising the 
redesignated paragraph (g)(8) approval provision to include new 
paragraph (g)(6), such that paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) are 
referenced in the revised paragraph (g)(8).

Q. Section 180.205

    Section 180.205 prescribes the general requirements for 
requalification of specification cylinders. PHMSA proposes to revise 
this section to incorporate provisions consistent with CGA C-20-2014, 
``Requalification Standard for Metallic, DOT and TC 3-Series Gas 
Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic Examination'' (Second Edition), 
which allow for the use of UE for cylinder requalification. PHMSA 
proposes to revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (f) to specify that a cylinder 
requalified using UE must be visually inspected in accordance with 
paragraph (e)(1). Additionally, PHMSA proposes to add a new paragraph 
(h) to specify that requalification using UE must be done in accordance 
with CGA C-20 and by a facility approved by PHMSA for performing UE 
operations. PHMSA proposes revisions to paragraphs (i) and (j) to 
specify the rejection requirements for a cylinder that fails 
requalification tests.
    PHMSA also proposes to add Sec.  180.205(c)(5). This paragraph will 
specify that a DOT 3-series specification cylinder that is 12 feet or 
longer with an outside diameter greater than or equal to

[[Page 13641]]

18 inches and supported by the neck mounting surface during 
transportation in commerce must be inspected at least every 10 years in 
accordance with CGA C-23. Lastly, PHMSA proposes to add paragraph 
(d)(5) to specify the conditions for removal and examination of 
cylinders in accordance with CGA C-23.

R. Section 180.207

    Section 180.207 prescribes the requirements for the requalification 
of UN pressure receptacles. PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 
180.207(d)(1) to require that each seamless steel UN pressure 
receptacle that is 12 ft or longer with an outside diameter greater 
than or equal to 18 in supported by the neck mounting surface during 
transportation in commerce be inspected at least every 10 years in 
accordance with CGA C-23. In addition, PHMSA proposes to specify 
conditions for removal and examination of the cylinder in accordance 
with CGA C-23.

S. Section 180.209

    Section 180.209 describes the requalification requirements for 
specification cylinders. PHMSA proposes an editorial revision to 
paragraphs (d) and (m) to reference 49 CFR 180.205(j) instead of 49 CFR 
180.205(i).

T. Section 180.212

    Section 180.212 specifies the requirements for the repair of 
seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders and seamless UN pressure 
receptacles. PHMSA is proposing to add 49 CFR 180.212(a)(4) to allow 
derating the service pressure of DOT 3-series seamless steel tubes. 
PHMSA also proposes to revise 49 CFR 180.212(b)(2) to: (1) allow, as a 
repair, the external threading of a DOT 3-series cylinder or a seamless 
UN pressure receptacle manufactured without external threads; and (2) 
not limit external rethreading to UN pressure receptacles mounted in a 
MEGC.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is published under the authority of Federal 
Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (Federal Hazmat Law; 49 U.S.C. 
5101 et seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including 
security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign 
commerce.'' The Secretary has delegated the authority granted in the 
Federal Hazmat Law to the PHMSA Administrator at 49 CFR 1.97. This 
rulemaking proposes to amend several sections of the HMR in response to 
18 petitions for rulemaking received from the regulated community.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Background
    Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') requires 
that agencies ``should assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.'' 
Agencies should consider quantifiable measures and qualitative measures 
of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify. Further, 
Executive Order 12866 recommends that agencies maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a 
statute requires another regulatory approach. Similarly, DOT Order 
2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures'') requires that 
regulations issued by PHMSA, and other DOT Operating Administrations 
should consider an assessment of the potential benefits, costs, and 
other important impacts of the proposed action. Also, they should 
quantify (to the extent practicable) the benefits, costs, and any 
significant distributional impacts, including any environmental 
impacts.
    PHMSA is responding to 18 petitions that have been submitted by the 
public in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(e)) and PHMSA's rulemaking procedure regulations (49 CFR 106.95 and 
106.100). Overall, this proposed rule would maintain the continued safe 
transportation of hazardous materials while producing a net cost 
savings. PHMSA's findings are summarized here and described in further 
detail in the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA), which can 
be found in the regulatory docket (Docket ID: PHMSA-2020-0102) at 
www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Findings
    PHMSA estimates a present value of quantified net cost savings of 
approximately $15.18 million over a perpetual time horizon and $1.22 
million annualized at a 7 percent discount rate. These estimates do not 
include non-monetized and qualitative cost/cost savings discussed in 
the PRIA.
    PHMSA's cost savings analysis relies on the monetization of impacts 
for seven petitions included in this rulemaking. All these petitions 
have annualized cost savings. The following table presents a summary of 
the seven petitions that would have monetized impacts upon codification 
and contribute to PHMSA's estimation of quantified net cost savings.

                                        Table 1--Summary of Cost/Cost Savings of Petitions for Regulatory Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       All figures in $ USD. ``X'' indicates insignificant cost/savings
                                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
              Petition No.                              Rule provision                  Significant     One-time cost     Significant      Annual cost
                                                                                           costs           savings          benefits         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1718.................................  49 CFR 173.4b..............................               X                X                X          162,000
P-1727.................................  49 CFR 180.205.............................             500                X                X           28,000
P-1729.................................  49 CFR 171.7...............................         115,239                X          129,480                X
P-1731.................................  49 CFR 171.7(r)(2).........................               X                X                X            6,120
P-1732.................................  49 CFR 178.503(a)(6).......................               X                X                X          150,000
P-1734.................................  49 CFR 172.514(c)(4).......................               X                X                X              770
P-1736.................................  49 CFR 171.7(r)(1).........................               X                X                X          876,000
                                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ($USD).......................  ...........................................         115,739                X          129,480        1,222,890
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Present Value of Total Net Savings (One-Time Benefits--One-Time Costs + Future Annualized Net Benefit at 7 percent Discount)...      15,188,633
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13642]]

    In addition to these seven items, PHMSA described an additional 11 
items that may streamline regulatory compliance. While information gaps 
prevent quantification of cost savings for these items, PHMSA has 
determined that they provide relief from unnecessary requirements or 
provide additional flexibility without compromising safety.
Conclusion
    This NPRM is not considered a significant regulatory action within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and DOT policies and 
procedures. (See DOT Order 2100.6A.\41\) The economic effects of this 
regulatory action would not have an effect on the economy that exceeds 
the $100 million annual threshold defined by E.O. 12866, and that the 
regulatory action is not otherwise significant. PHMSA estimates a 
present value of quantified net cost savings of approximately $15.18 
million over a perpetual time horizon and $1.22 million annualized at a 
7 percent discount rate. Please see the PRIA in the regulatory docket 
for additional detail and a description of PHMSA's methods and 
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ DOT Order 2100.6A ``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures'' 
(June 7, 2021) at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-06/DOT-2100.6A-Rulemaking-and-Guidance-%28003%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13132

    This rulemaking was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'') and the 
presidential memorandum (``Preemption'') published in the Federal 
Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). 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 
rulemaking does not propose 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 government. Therefore, the consultation and 
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    Federal Hazmat Law contains a general preemption provision (49 
U.S.C. 5125(a)) in the event compliance with a state, local, or Indian 
tribe requirement is not possible or presents an obstacle to 
compliance. Additionally, Federal Hazmat Law contains an express 
preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) that preempts state, local, 
and Indian tribal requirements on:
    (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous 
materials.
    (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and 
placarding of hazardous materials.
    (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents 
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, 
contents, and placement of those documents.
    (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the 
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material.
    (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, 
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container 
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
transporting hazardous material.
    This proposed rule addresses covered subject items above and 
preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the 
``substantively the same'' standard. DOT has determined that this 
proposed rule would provide cost savings and regulatory flexibility to 
the regulated community without compromising safety. This rulemaking 
proposes to address 18 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the 
regulated community. PHMSA invites those with an interest in the issues 
presented to comment on the effect that the adoption of specific 
proposals may have on state or local governments.

D. Executive Order 13175

    This rulemaking was analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Executive Order 13175 
requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian 
tribal government representatives in the development of rules that 
significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities by imposing 
``substantial direct compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct 
effects'' on such communities or the relationship and distribution of 
power between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. PHMSA has 
determined that this rulemaking does not have substantial tribal 
implications. Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of 
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
    However, we invite Indian tribal governments to provide comments on 
the costs and effects that this NPRM could potentially have on tribal 
communities.

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

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996, requires Federal 
regulatory agencies to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) for any NPRM subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking 
under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless the agency head 
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that could 
be impacted by this proposal include all small entities engaged in the 
shipment of hazardous materials. PHMSA expects this proposed rule to 
facilitate new technologies or other changes that provide safety 
equivalence at lower cost, streamline or reduce recordkeeping and other 
paperwork and reporting requirements, and address other changes to 
reduce the regulatory burden of the HMR. PHMSA has individually 
evaluated each regulatory change contained in this rulemaking using 
available information and certifies that none of the proposed changes 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses. PHMSA is proposing some new requirements in this NPRM 
but does not expect these requirements to have a significant impact.
    These new requirements include:
    1. P-1714--The proposal adds a new packaging restriction for CNG 
and methane in seamless steel pressure receptacles. While this is a new 
requirement under the HMR, CGA stated in its petition that market 
participants already follow the proposed practices for UN/ISO 
cylinders. PHMSA, whose subject matter experts participate in the CGA 
membership meetings and conferences, has spoken with CGA members and 
corroborated this assertation; therefore, it does not anticipate that 
the proposed changes will have an impact on small businesses.
    2. P-1727--This petition incorporates by reference CGA C-20 (2014), 
``Requalification Standard for Metallic, DOT and TC 3-Series Gas 
Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic Examination, Second Edition.'' As 
part of the IBR of this new document, cylinder requalifiers must stamp 
the cylinder ``CONDEMNED'' and affix a readily visible label on the 
cylinder stating: ``UN REJECTED, RETURNING TO ORIGIN FOR PROPER 
DISPOSITION.''

[[Page 13643]]

However, PHMSA asserts there will be an overall positive impact on 
small business for three reasons. Firstly, most large and small 
affected entities are members of the CGA, allowing them free access to 
updated CGA reference materials. Secondly, substantially all affected 
entities already possess cylinder stamping equipment required to 
implement this regulation and stamping itself takes very little time. 
Thirdly, small businesses are expected to benefit from this change 
because small businesses are currently disproportionately burdened by 
the various special permit requirements that this stamping substitutes 
for. The time to stamp the cylinders is minimal, and overall, there 
will be positive impact on small businesses due to no longer needing to 
apply for a special permit.
    3. Phaseout of HFCs--This rulemaking harmonizes with the EPA 
phaseout of the use of non-refillable cylinders for the transportation 
of GHGs. While this revision does impose a cost to industry, this cost 
has already been accounted for in the EPA final rule. Therefore, the 
proposed revisions in this NPRM do not impose any additional new cost 
on industry.
    The remainder of the proposals in this NPRM are expected to result 
in cost savings/streamline regulatory requirements without impacting 
safety. As such, PHMSA's assessment of non-significant impact on small 
businesses can be found under the costs and benefits sections found 
within the PRIA.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM does not impose new information collection requirements. 
PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under OMB 
Control No. 2137-0051, entitled ``Rulemaking, Special Permits, and 
Preemption Requirements,'' expiring on November 30, 2024. This 
rulemaking eliminates the need for persons to renew a special permit, 
resulting in a decrease in burden. PHMSA estimates the reduction in 
information collection burden as follows:
    OMB Control No. 2137-0051: Rulemaking, Special Permits, and 
Preemption Requirements.
    Decrease in Annual Number of Respondents: 139.
    Decrease in Annual Responses: 139.
    Decrease in Annual Burden Hours: 208.5.
    Decrease in Annual Burden Cost: $0.
    PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection 
and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and 
maintaining these requirements for approval under this NPRM. Address 
written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the ADDRESSES 
section of this NPRM. PHMSA must receive comments regarding information 
collection burdens prior to the close of the comment period identified 
in the DATES section of this NPRM. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, no person is required to respond to a collection of information 
unless such collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control number.
    Please direct your requests for a copy of this information 
collection to Steven Andrews, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 
(PHH-12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et 
seq.) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory 
actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private 
sector. For any NPRM or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that 
may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in 1996 dollars in any 
given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written 
statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and 
benefits of the Federal mandate.
    As explained in the PRIA, available for review in the docket, this 
proposed rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates under the UMRA. 
It does not result in costs of $100 million or more in 1996 dollars to 
either state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
in any one year. Therefore, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not 
apply. A copy of the PRIA is available for review in the docket.

H. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) requires that Federal agencies analyze proposed actions to 
determine whether the action would have a significant impact on the 
human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality implementing 
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) requires 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. DOT Order 5610.1C 
(``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'') establishes 
departmental procedures for evaluation of environmental impacts under 
NEPA and its implementing regulations.
1. Purpose and Need
    In response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated 
community, PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR to update, clarify, or 
streamline various regulatory requirements. Specifically, PHMSA 
proposes amendments that include--but are not limited to--the 
following: incorporating by reference (IBR) multiple publications from 
CGA, IME, and the UN; allowing for greater flexibility of packaging 
options in the transportation of compressed natural gas in cylinders; 
streamlining the approval application process for the repair of 
specific DOT specification cylinders; providing greater clarity 
regarding the filling requirements for certain cylinders used to 
transport hydrogen and hydrogen mixtures; streamlining hazard 
communication by allowing marking exceptions under certain conditions 
during the transportation of lithium button cell batteries; and 
modifying the definition of liquid to include the test for determining 
fluidity (penetrometer test) prescribed in the ADR.
    These amendments are intended to promote safety, provide clarity 
and streamline regulatory requirements. The proposed changes were 
identified in response to petitions from stakeholders affected by the 
HMR. These proposed changes would clarify the HMR and enhance safety, 
while offering some net economic benefits.
    This action: (1) fulfills our statutory directive to promote 
transportation safety; (2) fulfills our statutory directive under the 
Administrative Procedure Act that requires Federal agencies to give 
interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or 
repeal a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)); (3) supports governmental efforts to 
eliminate unnecessary burdens on the regulated community; (4) addresses 
safety concerns raised by petitioners and removes identified regulatory 
ambiguity; and (5) simplifies and clarifies the regulations to promote 
understanding and compliance.
    These regulatory revisions would offer more efficient and effective 
ways of achieving the PHMSA goal of safe and secure transportation of 
hazardous materials in commerce, protecting both people and the 
environment.

[[Page 13644]]

2. Alternatives
    In proposing this rulemaking, PHMSA is considering the following 
alternatives:
    No Action Alternative: If PHMSA were to select the No Action 
Alternative, current regulations would remain in place and no 
provisions would be amended or added.
    Proposed Action Alternative: This alternative is the current 
proposal as it appears in this NPRM, applying to transport of hazardous 
materials by various transport modes (highway, rail, vessel and 
aircraft). The proposed amendments included in this alternative are 
more fully discussed in the preamble and regulatory text sections of 
this NPRM.
3. Analysis of Environmental Impacts
No Action Alternative
    If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current 
regulations would remain in place and no new provisions would be added. 
However, efficiencies gained through the proposals, which include 
harmonization in updates to transport standards, lists of regulated 
substances, definitions, packagings, markings requirements, shipper 
requirements, and modal requirements, would not be realized. Foregone 
efficiencies in the No Action Alternative also include freeing up 
limited resources to concentrate on hazardous materials transportation 
issues of potentially much greater environmental impact. Not adopting 
the proposed environmental and safety requirements in the NPRM under 
the ``No Action Alternative'' would result in a lost opportunity for 
reducing negative environmental and safety-related impacts. Greenhouse 
gas emissions would remain the same under the No Action Alternative. 
However, PHMSA expects that the No Action Alternative could have a 
modest negative impact on GHG emissions. PHMSA expects the provisions 
for the transportation of compressed natural gas/methane in UN pressure 
receptacles to have a minimal positive effect on greenhouse gas 
emissions. This would result from stricter packaging restrictions that 
should result in fewer failures of these packages resulting in fewer 
releases of materials into the environment. Therefore, by choosing the 
No Action Alternative, a potential reduction in GHG emissions would not 
be achieved.
Proposed Action Alternative
    When developing potential regulatory requirements, PHMSA evaluates 
those requirements to consider the environmental impact of each 
amendment. Specifically, PHMSA evaluates the risk of release and 
resulting environmental impact; the risk to human safety, including any 
risk to first responders; the longevity of the packaging; and if the 
proposed regulation would be carried out in a defined geographic area 
using specific resources, especially any sensitive areas and how they 
could be impacted by any proposed regulations. The regulatory changes 
proposed in this rulemaking have been determined to be clarification, 
technology/design updates, harmonization, regulatory flexibility, 
standard incorporation, or editorial in nature. As such, these 
amendments have little or no impact on the risk of release and 
resulting environmental impact, human safety, or longevity of the 
packaging. None of these amendments would be carried out in a defined 
geographic area because this is a nationwide rulemaking.
    The ``Proposed Action Alternative'' encompasses enhanced and 
clarified regulatory requirements, which would result in increased 
compliance and fewer negative environmental and safety impacts. This 
environmental assessment incorporates the safety analyses in the 
preamble sections of this NPRM. The table and list below summarize the 
possible environmental benefits, greenhouse gas emissions, and any 
potential negative impacts for the amendments proposed in the NPRM.

                             Summary of Probable Environmental Impacts by Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Proposed amendment(s) to HMR                                Probable environmental       Greenhouse gas
      (lettered as above herein)         Type of amendment(s)    impact(s) anticipated          emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P-1714--Transportation of           Regulatory Flexibility.  Minimal positive         Minimal positive
 Compressed Natural Gas/Methane in UN                            impacts.                 impacts.
 Pressure Receptacles.
2. P-1716--Threading and repair of     Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 seamless DOT 3-series specification
 cylinders and seamless UN pressure
 receptacles.
3. P-1717/P-1725--Clarification of     Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 the requirements for non-liquefied
 compressed gases.
4. P-1718--De minimus quantities of    Regulatory Flexibility-- No impacts.............  No impacts.
 poisonous materials.                   Harmonization.
5. P-1736--Clarification of the        Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 marking requirements for button cell
 lithium batteries contained in
 equipment.
6. P-1727--IBR of CGA C-20 (2014)....  Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
7. P-1728--Gas Mixtures Containing     Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 Components Defined as Liquefied
 Gases.
8. P-1729--Incorporation by reference  Standard Incorporation.  Minimal positive         No impacts.
 of CGA C-23 (2018).                                             impacts.
9. P-1731--IBR of IME's Safety         Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 Library Publication 23 (SLP-23).
10. P-1732--Revision of testing and    Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 marking of UN specification
 packagings.
11. P-1734--Authorizing smaller-sized  Regulatory Flexibility.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 combustible placard on IBCs.
12. P-1736--IBR of IME Safety Library  Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 Publication 22 (SLP-22).

[[Page 13645]]

 
13. P-1738--Definition of a Liquid...  Regulatory Flexibility-- No impacts.............  No impacts.
                                        Harmonization.
14. P-1744--Incorporate by reference   Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
 updated Appendix A to CGA C-7 (2020).
15. P-1746--IBR of CGA C-27 (2019)...  Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
16. P-1747--IBR of CGA C-29 (2019)...  Standard Incorporation.  Minimal positive         No impacts.
                                                                 impacts.
17. P-1748--IBR of CGA V-9 (2019)....  Standard Incorporation.  No impacts.............  No impacts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. P-1714--PHMSA proposes implementing packaging restrictions for 
the transportation of CNG and methane in UN seamless steel pressure 
receptacles with a tensile strength greater than 950 MPa. As discussed 
in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, PHMSA expects that 
proposed packaging restrictions should result in fewer failures of 
these packages resulting in fewer releases of materials into the 
environment. Additionally, because this proposed revision involves the 
transportation of GHGs, PHMSA expects that this proposed revision may 
have a minimal effect on the reduction of GHGs emissions.
    2. P-1716--PHMSA proposes revising the requirements for repairing 
seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders and seamless UN pressure 
receptacles manufactured without external threads and authorizing the 
performance of this work without requiring prior approval from PHMSA. 
This proposal provides regulatory flexibility while maintaining safety. 
As discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, PHMSA has 
determined that this is an improvement over the previous method of 
using setscrews to secure the tubes, which resulted in indentations 
being carved into the tube necks as the tube jostled during transport. 
Because this proposal should lower the risk of an incident, since this 
package is expected to increase safety, the proposal may result in 
positive environmental impacts due less risk of an accident in 
transportation. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision to 
result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    3. P-1717/P-1725--PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 173.302a(c) of the 
HMR for the special filling limits for DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 
and 3AAX cylinders containing Division. 2.1 (flammable) gases. As 
discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, these 
amendments would not represent any incremental, quantifiable safety 
effects because PHMSA already authorizes the transportation in commerce 
of hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen in 
certain cylinders filled to more than 10 percent of their marked 
service pressures. Therefore, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to 
have any impacts on the environment. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect 
any effects on GHG emissions.
    4. P-1718--PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 173.4b to harmonize the 
de minimis exceptions for Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) 
materials with international regulations. The release of Division 6.1, 
PG I materials, including toxic substances, poisons, and irritating 
material, can have a negative effect on human health and the 
environment due to toxicity levels of the material. However, as 
discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, because the 
proposed revision would authorize an existing exception for de minimis 
quantities of additional materials with appropriate safeguards, PHMSA 
does not expect any significant environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA 
does not expect any effects on GHG emissions.
    5. P-1726--PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 173.185(c)(3) to clarify 
that lithium button cell batteries installed in equipment are excepted 
from the marking requirement and not subject to the quantity per 
package or per consignment limitation. As discussed in Sections III and 
IV of this proposed rule, because this is not a new requirement and 
simply clarifies the current requirements in the HMR, PHMSA does not 
expect any environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this 
revision to result in any change in GHG emissions.
    6. P-1727--PHMSA proposes to IBR CGA C-20 (2014), ``Requalification 
Standard for Metallic, DOT and TC 3-Series Gas Cylinders and Tubes 
Using Ultrasonic Examination, Second Edition.'' CGA C-20 provides 
technical specification for the ultrasonic examination of cylinders. As 
discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, PHMSA expects 
that the use of ultrasonic examination will provide a level of safety 
at least equivalent to what is currently allowed under the HMR. PHMSA 
already allows for the ultrasonic examination of certain cylinders (see 
49 CFR 180.212 for example). Additionally, 49 CFR 180.205(f) will no 
longer require internal visual inspection for these cylinders once they 
have undergone ultrasonic examination, as these actions would be 
duplicative. PHMSA does not expect the incorporation by reference of 
CGC C-20 to have any environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not 
expect this revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    7. P-1728--PHMSA proposes to authorize an alternative description 
of gas mixtures containing components defined as liquefied gases. This 
proposal helps clarify confusion among stakeholders when the content of 
a cylinder is described as a liquefied compressed gas that resembles a 
non-liquefied compressed gas. As discussed in Sections III and IV of 
this proposed rule, PHMSA has determined that the proposed change is 
safety neutral or slightly improves safety and will provide regulatory 
flexibility to the regulated community without a reduction in safety. 
For these reasons, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to have any 
environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision 
to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    8. P-1729--PHMSA proposes to IBR CGA C-23 (2018), ``Standard for 
Inspection of DOT/TC 3 series and ISO 11120 Tube Neck Mounting 
Surfaces, Second Edition'' into the HMR at 49 CFR 171.7. As discussed 
in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, CGA C-23 provides an 
inspection standard that PHMSA expects will reduce the likelihood of a 
release from a DOT/TC 3 series cylinders. Thus, PHMSA expects this 
proposal to have a minimal positive environmental impact. PHMSA does 
not expect this revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    9. P-1731--PHMSA proposes to IBR an updated version of IME SLP-23 
(2021) titled, ``Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, 
Division 1.5; Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions,

[[Page 13646]]

Division 5.1; and Combustible Liquids in Bulk Packaging.'' As discussed 
in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, this updates a previously 
approved version of SLP-23 and provides necessary technical updates and 
regulatory flexibility. As part of the updated SLP-23, IME included 
packages designed for the safe transportation of Ammonium Nitrate 
Emulsions. As part of the review of the IME proposals, PHMSA determined 
these packages were adequate for the safe transportation of Ammonium 
Nitrate Emulsions. Thus, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to have 
any environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this 
revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    10. P-1732--PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 178.503(a)(6) by 
allowing the last two digits of the year of certification to be marked 
on a type 4 packagings, rather than the last two digits of the year of 
manufacture. As discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, 
PHMSA has determined that the only effect of the proposed revision is 
that package manufacturers would not need to update printing plates 
annually. Instead, they would only need to update plates biennially, 
resulting in a small reduction in regulatory burden. PHMSA expects that 
this proposal will provide regulatory flexibility to the regulated 
community without a reduction in safety. For these reasons, PHMSA does 
not expect this proposal to have any environmental impacts. Similarly, 
PHMSA does not expect this revision to result in any increase to GHG 
emissions.
    11. P-1734--PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 172.514(c) by 
incorporating the provisions in DOT SP-16295, which would add an option 
for smaller placards for IBCs carrying combustible liquids. As 
discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, this proposal 
does not change the safety requirements for the transportation or 
filling of an IBC. PHMSA expects that this proposal will provide 
regulatory flexibility to the regulated community without a reduction 
in safety. For these reasons, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to 
have any environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this 
revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    12. P-1736--IME proposes that PHMSA IBR IME SLP-22 (2019), 
``Recommendations for the Safe Transportation of Detonators in a 
Vehicle with Certain Other Explosive Materials.'' As discussed in 
Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, PHMSA conducted a technical 
review and examined each of these revisions included in SLP-22 (2019) 
and asserts that these changes will either maintain or enhance safety 
requirements. Additionally, PHMSA expects that this proposal will 
provide regulatory flexibility to the regulated community without a 
reduction in safety. The proposal may result in minor positive 
environmental impacts due to less packaging failures due to an increase 
in safety. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision to result in 
any increase to GHG emissions.
    13. P-1738--PHMSA proposes modifying the definition of liquids in 
49 CFR 171.8 to include the test for determining fluidity (penetrometer 
test), prescribed in section 2.3.4 of Annex A of the ADR. As discussed 
in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, PHMSA asserts that the 
proposed test is more empirical in nature and provides better 
understanding of the properties of the tested material and thus better 
hazard classification. PHMSA expects that this proposal will provide 
regulatory flexibility to the regulated community by offering an 
additional test method and will not result in a reduction in safety. As 
a result, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to have any environmental 
impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision to result in 
any increase to GHG emissions.
    14. P-1744--PHMSA proposes to IBR the updated Appendix A of CGA 
publication C-7 (2020), ``Guide to Classification and Labeling of 
Compressed Gases, Eleventh Edition,'' into the HMR at 49 CFR 
171.7(n)(8). As discussed in Sections III and IV of this proposed rule, 
this proposal updates a previously approved version of CGA C-7 and 
provides necessary technical updates and regulatory flexibility. PHMSA 
expects that this proposal will provide regulatory flexibility to the 
regulated community without any reduction in safety. As a result, PHMSA 
does not expect this proposal to have any environmental impacts. 
Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision to result in any 
increase to GHG emissions.
    15. P-1746--PHMSA proposes to IBR CGA C-27 (2019), ``Standard 
Procedure to Derate the Service Pressure of DOT 3-Series Seamless Steel 
Tubes, First Edition.'' As discussed in Sections III and IV of this 
proposed rule, PHMSA has determined that the proposed method for 
pressure derating of tubes is essentially the same as what is outlined 
in current PHMSA guidance. PHMSA expects that this proposal will 
provide regulatory flexibility to the regulated community without a 
reduction in safety. Therefore, PHMSA does not expect this proposal to 
have any environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this 
revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    16. P-1747--PHMSA proposes to IBR CGA C-29 (2019), ``Standard for 
Design Requirements for Tube Trailers and Tube Modules, First 
Edition,'' which would supersede CGA TB-25 (2018), ``Design 
Considerations for Tube Trailers.'' As discussed in Sections III and IV 
of this proposed rule, PHMSA concludes that tube trailers or modules 
manufactured in accordance with CGA C-29 are less likely to have 
separation of tubes from the trailer or bundle, resulting in the 
unintentional release of hazardous materials, when subjected to 
multidirectional forces that can occur in highway collisions, including 
rollover accidents. PHMSA expects that this proposal will increase 
safety for the transportation of hazardous materials in tube trailers 
because it may reduce the incidence of releases of hazardous materials 
due to failure of tube mountings. Therefore, PHMSA does expect this 
proposal may have minimal positive environmental impacts. PHMSA does 
not expect this revision to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
    17. P-1748--PHMSA proposes to incorporate by reference CGA V-9 
(2019), ``Compressed Gas Association Standard for Compressed Gas 
Cylinder Valves, Eighth Edition.'' As discussed in Sections III and IV 
of this proposed rule, this proposal updates a previously approved 
version of CGA V-9 and provides necessary technical updates and 
regulatory flexibility. PHMSA expects that this proposal will provide 
regulatory flexibility to the regulated community without a reduction 
in safety. PHMSA does not expect this proposal to have any 
environmental impacts. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect this revision 
to result in any increase to GHG emissions.
4. Agencies Consulted
    PHMSA has coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency in the development of this proposed rule. PHMSA solicits and 
will consider comments by members of the public, state and local 
governments, tribal communities, industry, and any other interested 
stakeholders regarding the NPRM's potential impacts on the human 
environment.
5. Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact
    PHMSA expects the adoption of the ``Proposed Action Alternative'' 
will maintain the HMR's current high level

[[Page 13647]]

of safety for shipments of hazardous materials transported by highway, 
rail, aircraft, and vessel, and as such finds the HMR amendments in the 
NPRM would have no significant impact on the human environment. PHMSA 
expects that the ``Proposed Action Alternative'' will avoid any adverse 
safety, environmental justice, and GHG emissions impacts of the ``No 
Action Alternative.'' Furthermore, based on PHMSA's analysis of these 
provisions described above, PHMSA finds that codification and 
implementation of this rule would not result in a significant impact to 
the human environment.
    PHMSA welcomes any views, data, or information related to 
environmental impacts that may result from NPRM's proposed 
requirements, the No Action Alternative, and other viable alternatives 
and their environmental impacts.

I. Environmental Justice

    DOT Order 5610.2C (``Department of Transportation Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'') and Executive Orders 12898 (``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations''),\42\ 13985 (``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government''),\43\ 13990 
(``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science 
to Tackle the Climate Crisis''),\44\ and 14008 (``Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad'') \45\ require DOT agencies to achieve 
environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and 
economic effects of their programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations, low-income populations, and other underserved and 
disadvantaged communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
    \43\ 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021).
    \44\ 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021).
    \45\ 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA has evaluated this proposed rule under the above Executive 
orders and DOT Order 5610.2C. PHMSA does not expect the proposed rule, 
if finalized, to cause disproportionately high and adverse human health 
and environmental effects on minority, low-income, underserved, and 
other disadvantaged populations and communities. The rulemaking is 
facially neutral and national in scope; it is neither directed toward a 
particular population, region, or community, nor is it expected to 
adversely impact any particular population, region, or community. And 
because PHMSA expects the rulemaking would not adversely affect the 
safe transportation of hazardous materials generally, PHMSA does not 
expect the proposed revisions would entail disproportionately high 
adverse risks for minority populations, low-income populations, or 
other underserved and other disadvantaged communities.
    PHMSA submits that the proposed rulemaking could, in fact, reduce 
risks to minority populations, low-income populations, or other 
underserved and other disadvantaged communities. Because the proposed 
HMR amendments could avoid the release of hazardous materials and 
reduce the frequency of delays and returned/resubmitted shipments of 
hazardous materials resulting from conflict between the current HMR and 
updated international standards, the proposed rule could reduce risks 
to populations and communities--including any minority, low-income, 
underserved and other disadvantaged populations and communities--in the 
vicinity of interim storage sites and transportation arteries and hubs. 
Additionally, as explained in the above discussion of NEPA, PHMSA 
expects that its proposed HMR amendments will yield minimal GHG 
emissions reductions, thereby reducing the risks posed by anthropogenic 
climate change to minority, low-income, underserved, and other 
disadvantaged populations and communities.
    PHMSA solicits comment from minority, low-income, underserved, and 
other disadvantaged populations and communities on potential impacts of 
the proposed rulemaking.

J. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform any amendments to the HMR considered in this 
rulemaking. 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). For 
information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please see 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation,'' 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. (See 77 FR 
26413 (May 4, 2012)) 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. This proposed rule does not negatively impact 
international trade.

L. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') [66 FR 
28355; May 22, 2001] requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 
of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 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, advanced notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), 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 
(OIRA) as a significant energy action.
    This rulemaking has not been designated as a significant regulatory 
action and has not been designated by OIRA as a significant energy 
action. In addition, PHMSA does not anticipate that this rulemaking 
would result in a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, PHMSA has not prepared an 
energy impact statement. PHMSA welcomes any data or information related 
to energy impacts that may result from this NPRM, as well as possible 
alternatives and their energy impacts. Please describe the impacts and 
the basis for the comment.

M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards in their regulatory activities

[[Page 13648]]

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 
standards bodies. Consistent with the goals of the NTTAA, PHMSA has 
adopted a significant number of voluntary consensus standards, which 
are listed in 49 CFR 171.7.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 107

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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, Incorporation 
by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

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

49 CFR Part 178

    Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, 
Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 180

    Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle 
safety, Packaging and containers, Railroad safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
chapter I as follows:

PART 107--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101-410 Section 
4; Pub. L. 104-121 Sections 212-213; Pub. L. 104-134 Section 31001; 
Pub. L. 114-74 Section 701 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 49 CFR 1.81 and 
1.97; 33 U.S.C. 1321.

0
2. In Sec.  107.117, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  107.117  Emergency processing.

    (a) An application is granted emergency processing if the Associate 
Administrator, on the basis of the application and any inquiry 
undertaken, finds that:
    (1) Emergency processing is necessary to prevent significant injury 
to persons or property (other than the hazardous material to be 
transported) that could not be prevented if the application were 
processed on a routine basis;
    (2) Emergency processing is necessary for immediate national 
security purposes;
    (3) Emergency processing is necessary to prevent significant 
economic loss that could not be prevented if the application were 
processed on a routine basis; or
    (4) Emergency processing is necessary in support of an essential 
governmental (domestic or foreign) function that could not be satisfied 
if the application were processed on a routine basis.
* * * * *

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

0
3. 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; Pub. L. 104-134, section 31001; Pub. L. 114-74 section 701 (28 
U.S.C. 2461 note); 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.

0
4. In Sec.  171.7:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (n) and (r)(1) and (2);
0
b. In paragraph (dd)(4), remove the text ``Sec.  171.23'' and add, in 
its place, the text ``Sec. Sec.  171.8; 171.23''; and
0
c. Add paragraph (dd)(5).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  171.7  Reference material.

* * * * *
    (n) Compressed Gas Association (CGA), 8484 Westpark Drive, Suite 
220, McLean, VA 22102; telephone 703-788-2700, www.cganet.com.
    (1) CGA C-1--2016, Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas 
Cylinders, Eleventh edition, copyright 2016; into Sec. Sec.  178.36; 
178.37; 178.38; 178.39; 178.42; 178.44; 178.45; 178.46; 178.47; 178.50; 
178.51; 178.53; 178.55; 178.56; 178.57; 178.58; 178.59; 178.60; 178.61; 
178.65; 178.68; 180.205; 180.209.
    (2) CGA C-3--2005 (Reaffirmed 2011), Standards for Welding on Thin-
Walled Steel Cylinders, Seventh edition, copyright 2005; into 
Sec. Sec.  178.47; 178.50; 178.51; 178.53; 178.55; 178.56; 178.57; 
178.58; 178.59; 178.60; 178.61; 178.65; 178.68; 180.211.
    (3) CGA C-5, Cylinder Service Life--Seamless Steel High Pressure 
Cylinders, 1991 (Reaffirmed 1995); into Sec.  173.302a.
    (4) CGA C-6--2013, Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel 
Compressed Gas Cylinders, Eleventh edition, copyright 2013; into 
Sec. Sec.  172.102; 173.3; 173.198; 180.205; 180.209; 180.211; 180.411; 
180.519.
    (5) CGA C-6.1--2013, Standards for Visual Inspection of High 
Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders, Sixth edition, copyright 
2013 (corrected 4/14/2015); into Sec. Sec.  180.205; 180.209.
    (6) CGA C-6.2, Guidelines for Visual Inspection and Requalification 
of Fiber Reinforced High Pressure Cylinders, Third edition, 1996; into 
Sec.  180.205.
    (7) CGA C-6.3--2013, Standard for Visual Inspection of Low Pressure 
Aluminum Alloy Compressed Gas Cylinders, Third edition, copyright 2013; 
into Sec. Sec.  180.205; 180.209.
    (8) CGA C-7 (2020), Guide to Classification and Labeling of 
Compressed Gases; Eleventh Edition; into Sec.  172.400a.
    (9) CGA C-8, Standard for Requalification of DOT-3HT Cylinder 
Design, 1985; into Sec. Sec.  180.205; 180.209.
    (10) CGA C-11--2013, Practices for Inspection of Compressed Gas 
Cylinders at Time of Manufacture, Fifth edition, copyright 2013; into 
Sec.  178.35.
    (11) CGA C-12, Qualification Procedure for Acetylene Cylinder 
Design, 1994; into Sec. Sec.  173.301; 173.303; 178.59; 178.60.
    (12) CGA C-13, Guidelines for Periodic Visual Inspection and 
Requalification of Acetylene Cylinders, Fourth edition, 2000; into 
Sec. Sec.  173.303; 180.205; 180.209.
    (13) CGA C-14--2005 (Reaffirmed 2010), Procedures for Fire Testing 
of DOT Cylinder Pressure Relief Device Systems, Fourth edition, 
copyright 2005; into Sec. Sec.  173.301; 173.323.
    (14) CGA C-20 (2014), Requalification Standard for Metallic, DOT 
and TC 3-series Gas Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic Examination 
(Second Edition); into Sec.  180.205.
    (15) CGA C-23 (2018), Standard for Inspection of DOT/TC 3 Series 
and ISO 11120, Tube Neck Mounting Surfaces (Second Edition); into 
Sec. Sec.  180.205; 180.207.
    (16) CGA C-27 (2019), Standard Procedure to Derate the Service 
Pressure of DOT Series Seamless Steel Tubes (First Edition); into Sec.  
180.212.
    (17) CGA C-29 (2019), Standard for Design Requirements for Tube 
Trailers and Tube Modules (First Edition); into Sec.  173.301.
    (18) CGA G-1.6--2011, Standard for Mobile Acetylene Trailer 
Systems,

[[Page 13649]]

Seventh edition, copyright 2011; into Sec.  173.301.
    (19) CGA G-2.2, Guideline Method for Determining Minimum of 0.2% 
Water in Anhydrous Ammonia, Second edition, 1985 (Reaffirmed 1997); 
into Sec.  173.315.
    (20) CGA G-4.1, Cleaning Equipment for Oxygen Service, 1985; into 
Sec.  178.338-15.
    (21) CGA P-20, Standard for the Classification of Toxic Gas 
Mixtures, Third edition, 2003; into Sec.  173.115.
    (22) CGA S-1.1--2011, Pressure Relief Device Standards--Part 1--
Cylinders for Compressed Gases; Fourteenth edition, copyright 2011; 
into Sec. Sec.  173.301; 173.304a; 178.75.
    (23) CGA S-1.2, Safety Relief Device Standards Part 2--Cargo and 
Portable Tanks for Compressed Gases, 1980; into Sec. Sec.  173.315; 
173.318; 178.276; 178.277.
    (24) CGA S-7--2013, Standard for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices 
for Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders, Fifth edition, copyright 
2013; into Sec.  173.301.
    (25) CGA Technical Bulletin TB-2, Guidelines for Inspection and 
Repair of MC-330 and MC-331 Cargo Tanks, 1980; into Sec. Sec.  180.407; 
180.413.
    (26) CGA Technical Bulletin TB-25 (CGA TB-25), Design 
Considerations for Tube Trailers, 2008 Edition; into Sec.  173.301.
    (27) CGA V-9 (2019), Compressed Gas Association Standard for 
Compressed Cylinder Valves, Eighth Edition; into Sec.  173.301.
* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (1) IME Standard 22, IME Safety Library Publication No. 22, 
Recommendations for the Safe Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle 
with Certain Other Explosive Materials, June 2019; into Sec. Sec.  
173.63; 177.835.
    (2) IME Standard 23, 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, March 2021, into Sec. Sec.  
172.102; 173.66; 173.251; 177.835.
* * * * *
    (dd) * * *
    (5) Recommendations on Test Series 8: Applicability of Test Series 
8(d), June 2019; into Sec.  172.102.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  171.8, revise the definition of ``Liquid'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  171.8  Definitions and abbreviations.

* * * * *
    Liquid means a material, other than an elevated temperature 
material, with a melting point or initial melting point of 20 [deg]C 
(68 [deg]F) or lower at a standard pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia). A 
viscous material for which a specific melting point cannot be 
determined must be subjected to the procedures specified in ASTM D 4359 
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7) or to the test for determining fluidity 
(penetrometer test) prescribed in section 2.3.4. of Annex A of the 
Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by 
Road (ADR) (IBR, see Sec.  171.7).
* * * * *

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

0
6. 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
7. In Sec.  172.101, the Hazardous Materials Table is amended by 
revising the entries under ``[REVISE]'' to read as follows:


Sec.  172.101  Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.

* * * * *

[[Page 13650]]



                                                                                                Sec.   172.101--Hazardous Materials Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            (8)                                        (9)                             (10)
                    Hazardous                                                                                       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    materials        Hazard                                                             Special                  Packaging (Sec.   173.***)              Quantity limitations (see Sec.           Vessel stowage
   Symbols      descriptions and    class or     Identification          PG          Label codes       provisions   ---------------------------------------------------     Sec.   173.27 and 175.75)    -------------------------------
                 proper shipping    division          Nos.                                               (Sec.                                                         ----------------------------------
                      names                                                                             172.102)        Exceptions        Non-bulk           Bulk          Passenger      Cargo aircraft     Location          Other
                                                                                                                                                                         aircraft/rail         only
(1)            (2)...............         (3)  (4)                (5)............  (6)............  (7)............  (8A)...........  (8B)...........  (8C)...........  (9A)...........  (9B)...........  (10A).........  (10B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               [REVISE]
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
               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                                                                     TP48.
                suspension or
                Ammonium nitrate
                gel, intermediate
                for blasting
                explosives.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
               Explosive,                1.5D  UN0332             ...............  1.5D...........  105, 106, 148,   None...........  62.............  None...........  Forbidden......  Forbidden......  03............  25, 19E
                blasting, type E                                                                     TP48.
                or Agent
                blasting, Type E.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
G............  Oxidizing liquid,          5.1  UN3139             I..............  5.1............  62, 127, A2....  None...........  201............  243............  Forbidden......  2.5 L..........  D.............  56, 58, 138
                n.o.s.
                                                                  II.............  5.1............  62, 127, 148,    152............  202............  242............  1 L............  5 L............  B.............  56, 58, 138
                                                                                                     A2, IB2, TP48.
                                                                  III............  5.1............  62, 127, 148,    152............  203............  241............  2.5 L..........  30 L...........  B.............  56, 58, 138
                                                                                                     A2, IB2.
 
                                                                                                              * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13651]]

* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  172.102:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(1), revise special provision 148; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(8)(ii), add special provision TP48 in numerical 
order.
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  172.102  Special provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    148 For domestic transportation, this entry directs to Sec.  173.66 
of this subchapter 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). Note: ``UN3375, Ammonium nitrate emulsion'' 
and ``UN0332, Explosive, blasting, type E or Agent blasting, Type E'' 
are subject to the United Nations (UN) Test Series 8(d) (IBR, see Sec.  
171.7 of this subchapter), otherwise known as the Vented Pipe Test 
(VPT).
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    TP48 The use of IM 101 and 102 portable tanks when transported in 
accordance with IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this 
subchapter).
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec.  172.514, revise paragraph (c)(4) to reads as follows:


Sec.  172.514  Bulk packagings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) For an intermediate bulk container (IBC) labeled in accordance 
with subpart E of this part, the IBC may display the proper shipping 
name and UN identification number markings in accordance with Sec.  
172.301(a)(1) in place of the UN number on an orange panel, placard, or 
white square-on-point configuration as prescribed in Sec.  172.336(d). 
Additionally, IBCs containing a combustible liquid may be placarded 
with a combustible placard that meets the label specifications for size 
in Sec.  172.407(c). However, a transport vehicle containing IBCs with 
a reduced-size combustible placard is still required to conform to the 
placarding requirements in this subpart, including the size 
requirements in Sec.  172.519(c); and
* * * * *

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

0
10. 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
11. In Sec.  173.4b, revise the introductory text to paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  173.4b  De minimis exceptions.

    (a) When packaged in accordance with this section, the following 
materials do not meet the definition of a hazardous material in Sec.  
171.8 of this subchapter and therefore, are not subject to the 
requirements of this subchapter: Packing Group II and III materials of 
hazard Class 3, Division 4.1, Division 4.2, Division 4.3, Division 5.1, 
Class 8, and Class 9; and materials of hazard Division 6.1 (no 
inhalation hazard).
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec.  173.115, revise the introductory text to paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  173.115  Class 2, Divisions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3--Definitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Liquefied compressed gas. A gas, which when packaged under 
pressure for transportation is partially liquid at temperatures above -
50 [deg]C (-58 [deg]F), is considered to be a liquefied compressed gas. 
Gas mixtures with component(s) that are liquefied gases may be 
described using the hazardous materials description of a compressed gas 
in the 49 CFR 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table when the partial 
pressure(s) of the liquefied gas component(s) in the mixture are 
reduced so that the mixture is entirely in the gas phase at 20[deg]C 
(68[deg]F). A liquefied compressed gas is further categorized as 
follows:
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec.  173.185, revise the introductory text to paragraph (c)(3) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  173.185  Lithium cells and batteries.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Hazard communication. Each package must display the lithium 
battery mark except when a package contains only button cell batteries 
contained in equipment (including circuit boards), or when a 
consignment contains two packages or fewer where each package contains 
not more than four lithium cells or two batteries contained in 
equipment.
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec.  173.251, add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  173.251  Bulk packaging for ammonium nitrate emulsion, 
suspension, or gel.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) This section does not apply to ``UN3375, Ammonium Nitrate 
Emulsion'' when transported in IM 101 or 102 portable tanks in 
accordance with IME Standard 23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this 
subchapter).
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec.  173.301, revise paragraph (i)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  173.301  General requirements for shipment of compressed gases 
and other hazardous materials in cylinders, UN pressure receptacles and 
spherical pressure vessels.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) Seamless DOT specification cylinders longer than 2 m (6.5 ft) 
are authorized for transportation only when horizontally mounted on a 
motor vehicle or in an ISO framework or other framework of equivalent 
structural integrity in accordance with CGA C-29 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 
of this subchapter). Seamless DOT specification cylinders longer than 2 
m (6.5 ft) manufactured prior to May 11, 2009, may continue to use CGA 
TB-25. The pressure relief device must be arranged to discharge 
unobstructed to the open air. In addition, for Division 2.1 (flammable 
gas) material, the pressure relief devices must be arranged to 
discharge upward to prevent any escaping gas from contacting personnel 
or any adjacent cylinders.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec.  173.302a:
0
a. Remove the semicolons at the ends of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and 
add periods in their places;
0
b. Revise paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (c)(5) through (7).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  173.302a  Additional requirements for shipment of non-liquefied 
(permanent) compressed gases in specification cylinders.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) DOT specification 3A and 3AX cylinders are limited to those 
having an intermediate manganese composition.
    (4) Cylinders manufactured with intermediate manganese steel must 
have been normalized, not quenched and tempered. Quench and temper 
treatment of intermediate steel is not authorized.
    (5) Cylinders manufactured with chrome moly steel must have been 
quenched and tempered, not

[[Page 13652]]

normalized. Use of normalized chrome moly steel cylinders is not 
permitted.
    (6) Cylinders must be equipped with pressure relief devices sized 
and selected as to type, location, and quantity, and tested in 
accordance with Sec.  173.301(f).
    (7) A plus sign (+) is added following the test date marking on the 
cylinder.
* * * * *
0
17. In Sec.  173.302b, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  173.302b  Additional requirements for shipment of non-liquefied 
(permanent) compressed gases in UN pressure receptacles.

* * * * *
    (f) Methane, compressed, or natural gas, compressed, UN1971. 
Methane, compressed, or natural gas, compressed is authorized in a UN 
seamless steel pressure receptacle under the following conditions:
    (1) For methane, and for natural gas with a methane content of 98.0 
percent or greater--
    (i) The maximum tensile strength of the UN seamless steel pressure 
receptacle may not exceed 1100 MPa (159,542 psi); and
    (ii) The contents are commercially free of corroding components.
    (2) For natural gas with a methane content of less than 98.0 
percent--
    (i) The maximum tensile strength of the UN seamless steel pressure 
receptacle may not exceed 950 MPa (137,750 psi);
    (ii) Each discharge end of a UN refillable seamless steel tube must 
be equipped with an internal drain tube; and
    (iii) The moisture content and concentration of the corroding 
components must conform to the requirements in Sec.  173.301b(a)(2).
0
18. In Sec.  173.304, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  173.304  Filling of cylinders with liquefied compressed gases.

* * * * *
    (d) Refrigerant and dispersant gases. (1) Nontoxic and nonflammable 
refrigerant or dispersant gases must be offered for transportation in 
cylinders prescribed in Sec.  173.304a, or in DOT 2P, 2Q, or 2Q1 
containers (Sec. Sec.  178.33, 178.33a, and 178.33d-2 of this 
subchapter). DOT 2P, 2Q, and 2Q1 containers must be packed in strong 
outer packagings designed to protect valves from damage or accidental 
functioning under conditions incident to transportation. For DOT 2P and 
2Q containers, the pressure inside the containers may not exceed 87 
psia at 21.1 [deg]C (70 [deg]F). For 2Q1 containers, the pressure 
inside the container may not exceed 210 psig at 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F). 
Each completed metal container filled for shipment must be heated until 
its contents reach a minimum temperature of 55 [deg]C (131 [deg]F) 
without evidence of leakage, distortion, or other defect. Each outer 
package must be plainly marked ``INSIDE CONTAINERS COMPLY WITH 
PRESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS''.
    (2) The following hydrofluorocarbons are prohibited from being 
filled or transported in non-refillable cylinders pursuant to the 
phaseout conditions identified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of 
this section:

              Table 1 to Paragraph (d)(2) Introductory Text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chemical name                         Common name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF2CHF2..................................  HFC-134.
CH2FCF3...................................  HFC-134a
CH2FCHF2..................................  HFC-143.
CHF2CH2CF3................................  HFC-245fa
CF3CH2CF2CH3..............................  HFC-365mfc.
CF3CHFCF3.................................  HFC-227ea.
CH2FCF2CF3................................  HFC-236cb.
CHF2CHFCF3................................  HFC-236ea.
CF3CH2CF3.................................  HFC-236fa.
CH2FCF2CHF2...............................  HFC-245ca.
CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3...........................  HFC-43-10mee.
CH2F2.....................................  HFC-32.
CHF2CF3...................................  HFC-125.
CH3CF3....................................  HFC-143a.
CH3F......................................  HFC-41.
CH2FCH2F..................................  HFC-152.
CH3CHF2...................................  HFC-152a.
CHF3......................................  HFC-23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) As of January 1, 2025, no person may:
    (A) Import a non-refillable cylinder filled with a material 
identified in table 1 to paragraph (d)(2) introductory text of this 
section; or
    (B) Fill a non-refillable cylinder with a material identified in 
table 1 to paragraph (d)(2) introductory text of this section.
    (ii) As of January 1, 2027, no person may offer for transportation 
or transport a material identified in table 1 to paragraph (d)(2) 
introductory text of this section in a non-refillable cylinder.
    (iii) A container with two pounds or less of net material listed in 
table 1 to paragraph (d)(2) introductory text of this section that has 
a self-sealing valve that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 82.154(c)(2) 
is not subject to this prohibition.
* * * * *

PART 178--SPECIFICATIONS FOR PACKAGINGS

0
19. The authority citation for part 178 continues to read as follows:

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

0
20. In Sec.  178.503, revise paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  178.503  Marking of packagings.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The last two digits of the year of manufacture. Packagings of 
types 1H and 3H shall also be marked with the month of manufacture in 
any appropriate manner; this may be marked on the packaging in a 
different place from the remainder of the markings. For boxes, the last 
two digits may alternatively be the year of certification;
* * * * *
0
21. In Sec.  178.601:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) through (8) as paragraphs (g)(7) 
through (9);
0
b. Add new paragraph (g)(6); and
0
c. Revise newly-redesignated paragraph (g)(8).
    The addition and revision read follows:


Sec.  178.601  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) Selective testing of combination packagings for small arms 
ammunition. Variation 6. Variations in inner and intermediate 
packagings are permitted in packages for articles containing solid 
hazardous materials without further testing of the package under the 
following conditions:
    (i) The package has been tested containing only the articles to be 
transported without intermediate containment;
    (ii) The outer packaging must have passed the stacking test set 
forth in Sec.  178.606 when empty, i.e., without cushioning or inner or 
intermediate packagings with the test mass of identical packages being 
the mass of the package filled with the articles;
    (iii) Only articles tested without intermediate containment may be 
transported; however, a variety of articles tested in this fashion may 
be assembled in a package with intermediate containment;
    (iv) No articles demonstrate a loss of material in testing; and
    (v) The completed package does not exceed the marked maximum gross 
mass of the package.
* * * * *
    (8) Approval of selective testing. In addition to the provisions of 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section, the Associate 
Administrator may approve the selective testing of packagings that 
differ only in minor respects from a tested type.
* * * * *

[[Page 13653]]

PART 180--CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACKAGINGS

0
22. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
23. In Sec.  180.205:
0
a. Add paragraph (c)(5);
0
b. Remove the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (d)(4);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(5) as paragraph (d)(6) and add new 
paragraph (d)(5);
0
d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (f);
0
e. Redesignate paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (i) through (k) 
and add new paragraph (h); and
0
f. Revise newly-redesignated paragraphs (i)(1) and (j)(2)(i)(C).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  180.205  General requirements for requalification of 
specification cylinders.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Each 3-series specification cylinder that is horizontally 
mounted on a motor vehicle or in a framework and that is: 12 feet or 
longer; has an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches; and 
is supported by the neck mounting surface during transportation in 
commerce must be inspected at the time of requalification in accordance 
with CGA C-23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). If the due 
date of the tube neck mounting surface inspection required by CGA C-23 
does not align with the periodic requalification due date of the 
specification cylinder, an additional two years shall be allowed after 
the 10-year requalification due date to complete the neck inspection. 
After the expiration of the time period, including the two-year grace 
period, specification cylinders subject to the CGA C-23 inspection 
shall not be charged or filled but may be transported for the purposes 
of draining, purging, and performing required inspections.
    (d) * * *
    (5) For a cylinder subject to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, if 
there is visible corrosion around the neck or under the flange/sleeve, 
as outlined in Section 4.2 of CGA C-23, it must be removed and examined 
in accordance with CGA C-23 before being returned to service; or
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Requalified in accordance with this section, regardless of the 
date of the previous requalification. When requalification is performed 
using ultrasonic examination, the cylinder must be visually inspected 
in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section;
* * * * *
    (f) Visual inspection. Except as otherwise provided in this 
subpart, each time a cylinder is pressure tested, it must be given an 
internal and external visual inspection.
    (1) The visual inspection must be performed in accordance with the 
following CGA Pamphlets (all IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter): 
C-6 for steel and nickel cylinders; C-6.1 for seamless aluminum 
cylinders; C-6.2 for fiber reinforced composite special permit 
cylinders; C-6.3 for low pressure aluminum cylinders; C-8 for DOT 3HT 
cylinders; and C-13 for DOT 8 series cylinders.
    (2) If a cylinder or tube is requalified by ultrasonic examination, 
only an external visual inspection is required.
    (3) For each cylinder with a coating or attachments that would 
inhibit inspection of the cylinder, the coating or attachments must be 
removed before performing the visual inspection.
    (4) Each cylinder subject to visual inspection must be approved, 
rejected, or condemned according to the criteria in the applicable CGA 
pamphlet.
    (5) In addition to other requirements prescribed in this paragraph 
(f), each specification cylinder manufactured of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 
and used in self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA), 
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or oxygen service must be 
inspected for sustained load cracking in accordance with appendix C to 
this part at the first scheduled five-year requalification period after 
January 1, 2007, and every five years thereafter.
    (6) Except in association with an authorized repair, removal of 
wall thickness via grinding, sanding, or other means is not permitted. 
Removal of paint or loose material to prepare the cylinder for 
inspection is permitted (i.e., shot blasting).
    (7) Chasing of cylinder threads to clean them is permitted, but 
removal of metal must not occur. Retapping of cylinder threads is not 
permitted, except by the original manufacturer, as provided in Sec.  
180.212.
* * * * *
    (h) Ultrasonic examination (UE). Requalification of cylinders and 
tubes using UE must be performed in accordance with CGA C-20 (IBR, see 
Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(3) and (4) of this 
section, a cylinder that is rejected may not be marked as meeting the 
requirements of this section.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) As an alternative to the stamping or labeling as described in 
this paragraph (j)(2), at the direction of the owner, the requalifier 
may render the cylinder incapable of holding pressure. If a condemned 
cylinder contains hazardous materials, the requalifier must stamp the 
cylinder ``CONDEMNED'' and affix a readily visible label on the 
cylinder stating: ``UN REJECTED, RETURNING TO ORIGIN FOR PROPER 
DISPOSITION.'' The requalifier may only transport the condemned 
cylinder by private motor vehicle carriage to a facility capable of 
safely removing the contents of the cylinder.
* * * * *
0
24. In Sec.  180.207, revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  180.207  Requirements for requalification of UN pressure 
receptacles.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Seamless steel. (i) Each seamless steel UN pressure receptacle, 
including pressure receptacles exceeding 150 L capacity installed in 
multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs) or in other service, must be 
requalified in accordance with ISO 6406:2005(E) (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 
of this subchapter). However, UN cylinders with a tensile strength 
greater than or equal to 950 MPa must be requalified by ultrasonic 
examination in accordance with ISO 6406:2005(E). For seamless steel 
cylinders and tubes, the internal inspection and hydraulic pressure 
test may be replaced by a procedure conforming to ISO 16148:2016(E) 
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).
    (ii) Each seamless steel UN pressure receptacle that is 
horizontally mounted on a motor vehicle or in a framework and that: is 
12 feet or longer; has an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 
inches; and is supported by a neck mounting surface during 
transportation must be inspected at the time of requalification in 
accordance with CGA C-23 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). 
Notwithstanding the periodic inspection, if the seamless steel UN 
pressure receptacle shows visible corrosion, as outlined in Section 4.2 
of CGA C-23, around the neck or under the flange/sleeve, then it must 
be removed and examined in accordance with Section 6 of CGA C-23 prior 
to returning to service.
* * * * *

[[Page 13654]]

0
25. In Sec.  180.209:
0
a. Revise paragraph (d) and the introductory text to paragraph (m); and
0
b. Designate the table immediately following the introductory text to 
paragraph (m) as table 4 to paragraph (m).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  180.209  Requirements for requalification of specification 
cylinders.

* * * * *
    (d) Cylinders 5.44 kg (12 lb) or less with service pressures of 300 
psig or less. A cylinder of 5.44 kg (12 lb) or less water capacity 
authorized for service pressure of 300 psig or less must be given a 
complete external visual inspection at the time periodic 
requalification becomes due. External visual inspection must be in 
accordance with CGA C-6 or C-6.1 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this 
subchapter). The cylinder may be proof pressure tested. The test is 
successful if the cylinder, when examined under test pressure, does not 
display a defect described in Sec.  180.205(j)(1)(ii) or (iii). Upon 
successful completion of the test and inspection, the cylinder must be 
marked in accordance with Sec.  180.213.
* * * * *
    (m) DOT-3AL cylinders manufactured of 6351-T6 aluminum alloy. In 
addition to the periodic requalification and marking described in Sec.  
180.205, each cylinder manufactured of aluminum alloy 6351-T6 used in 
self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA), self-contained 
breathing apparatus (SCBA), or oxygen service must be requalified and 
inspected for sustained load cracking in accordance with the non-
destructive examination method described in the following table. Each 
cylinder with sustained load cracking that has expanded into the neck 
threads must be condemned in accordance with Sec.  180.205(j). This 
paragraph (m) does not apply to cylinders used for carbon dioxide, fire 
extinguisher, or other industrial gas service.
* * * * *
0
26. In Sec.  180.212, add paragraph (a)(4) and revise paragraph (b)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  180.212  Repair of seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders 
and seamless UN pressure receptacles.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Derating service pressure of DOT 3-series seamless steel tubes. 
DOT 3-series seamless steel tubes with an outside diameter greater than 
9\5/8\ in (244.5 mm) may be processed by a repair facility for derating 
the marked service pressure in accordance with CGA C-27 (IBR, see Sec.  
171.7 of this subchapter).
    (b) * * *
    (2) External rethreading of a DOT 3AX, 3AAX, or 3T specification 
cylinder or a UN pressure receptacle, and external threading of a 
seamless DOT 3AX, 3AAX, or 3T specification cylinder or seamless UN 
pressure receptacle originally manufactured without external threads; 
or the internal rethreading of a DOT-3 series cylinder or a seamless UN 
pressure receptacle when performed by a cylinder manufacturer of these 
types of cylinders. The repair work must be performed under the 
supervision of an independent inspection agency. Upon completion of the 
rethreading or post-manufacture threading, the threads must be gauged 
in accordance with Federal Standard H-28 or an equivalent standard 
containing the same specification limits. The rethreaded cylinder or UN 
pressure receptacle must be stamped clearly and legibly with the words 
``RETHREAD'' and a post-manufacture threaded cylinder or UN pressure 
receptacle must be stamped clearly and legibly with the words ``POST-
THREAD'', on the shoulder, top head, or neck. No DOT specification 
cylinder or UN pressure receptacle may be rethreaded more than one time 
without approval of the Associate Administrator.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2023, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97(b).
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-03366 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P