[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