[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 4, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23656-23660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10091]
[[Page 23656]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 106, 107, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0032 (HM-265B)]
RIN 2137-AF74
Hazardous Materials: Mandatory Regulatory Reviews To Unleash
American Energy and Improve Government Efficiency
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend
any requirements in the Hazardous Materials Rulemaking Procedures and
Program Procedures, or the Hazardous Materials Regulations to eliminate
undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic
energy resources and to improve government efficiency.
DATES: Comments on this ANPRM must be received by August 4, 2025.
However, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the extent
practicable, consistent with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
106.70.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
using any of the following ways:
1. E-Gov Web: https://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
2. Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
3. Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
4. Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0032 (HM-
265B) at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by
mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA
received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.
Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov.
Privacy Act Statement: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT
solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at www.dot.gov/privacy.
Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments
submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private; you treat such information as private; and your comment is
relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 CFR 105.30, you
may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to the information you
give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of
the original document submission containing CBI as ``Confidential;''
(2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the
original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Yul B. Baker Jr., Standards and Rulemaking Division,
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-8553. Hard copies may
be sent to 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review
the documents in person at the street address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yul B. Baker Jr., Standards and
Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-
8553, PHMSA, East Building, PHH10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend
any requirements in the Rulemaking Procedures (49 CFR part 106), the
Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (49 CFR part 107), or the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180)--as
well as any letters of interpretation, guidance documents, or other
material implementing those regulations--to eliminate undue burdens on
the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources
and to improve government efficiency. As part of this effort, PHMSA is
seeking stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to identify widely
used hazardous material special permits with established safety records
for conversion into deregulatory provisions with broader applicability.
PHMSA is also seeking stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to
introduce efficiencies to its petitions process. Finally, PHMSA also
solicits stakeholder feedback on whether to amend the HMR to require
PHMSA to conduct periodic, mandatory regulatory reviews.
II. Background
PHMSA's HMR play an essential role in the energy supply chain by
ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable transportation of energy
products to millions of Americans. Annually, more than 3.3 billion tons
of hazardous materials are shipped by rail, vessel, highway, and air
that include a wide range of energy commodities such as more than 88
million barrels of crude oil, three million shipments of radioactive
materials (including nuclear fuel and waste products), more than 230
million barrels of ethanol shipped by rail as well as other
biofuels.\1\ The HMR also govern transportation of critical minerals,
explosives used in energy production activity, chemicals used in
refinery processes, waste products from
[[Page 23657]]
energy exploration and production activity and other materials integral
to the identification, development, extraction, and use of domestic
energy resources. Ensuring compliance with the HMR is the
responsibility of a wide range of entities, from online internet
retailers to railroads, commercial trucking companies, and large oil
and gas companies. The HMR impose incident reporting obligations (part
171, subpart B) and the Hazardous Materials Program Procedures impose a
registration and fee requirement (part 107, subpart G) on offerors and
carriers of hazardous materials. Each of the entities subject to the
HMR must invest scarce resources in satisfying some combination of
PHMSA registration, reporting, qualification, packaging, labeling,
documentation, testing, security, and emergency response planning
requirements. The costs of those investments are often passed along
from suppliers of refined and unrefined energy products to other
entities in the energy supply chain, to the industrial manufacturing
and commercial goods sectors, and, ultimately, to the American
consumer. PHMSA must ensure that the burdens imposed by the HMR on
stakeholders are necessary to serve the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., U.S. Departments of Transportation and Commerce,
2017 Economic Census: Transportation, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/econ/ec17tcf-us.pdf; U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum &
Other Liquids, available at https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php#movements; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Transportation of Radioactive Material, available at www.epa.gov/radtown/transportation-radioactive-material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conducting periodic, retrospective reviews of the HMR is one way to
achieve that objective. Presidents of both political parties dating to
the 1970s have called on Federal agencies by Executive order (E.O.) to
conduct broad reviews of existing regulations,\2\ and scholars and
other experts in administrative law have long touted the benefits of
adhering to such a process.\3\ The Department of Transportation (DOT)
requires review of regulations on a 10-year review cycle, as specified
by 11(d) of DOT Order 2011.6B, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.'' \4\ DOT has previously issued plans and regulations
requiring retrospective review \5\ and solicited stakeholder input to
inform those reviews on multiple occasions and is currently taking
recommendations on the DOT-wide opportunities for modification or
repeal of regulations to reduce undue compliance burdens.\6\ Congress
requires periodic regulatory reviews on a limited scale; section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires PHMSA
and other agencies to conduct post-issuance review of agency rules that
impose a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities'' such as small business and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See E.O. 12044, ``Improving Government Regulation,'' 43 FR
12661 (Mar. 24, 1978); E.O. 12291, ``Federal Regulation,'' 46 FR
13193 (Feb. 19, 1981); E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993); E.O. 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
\3\ See, e.g., Lori S. Bennear and Jonathan B. Wiener,
``Periodic Review of Agency Regulation'' (June 7, 2021) (report to
the Admin. Conf. of the United States).
\4\ DOT Order 2100.6B, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings'' (Mar. 10, 2025), available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/Rulemaking%20Order%202100.6B%20Signed%203.10.2025.pdf.
\5\ DOT-Office of the Secretary, ``Plan for Implementation of
Executive Order 13563'' (Aug. 2, 2011); DOT-Office of the Secretary,
``Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,''
84 FR 71714 (Dec. 27, 2019), previously codified in 49 CFR part 5,
repealed by DOT-Office of the Secretary, ``Administrative
Rulemaking, Guidance and Enforcement Procedures,'' 86 FR 17292
(April 2, 2021).
\6\ DOT--Office of the Secretary, ``Notification of Regulatory
Review,'' 82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017); DOT-Office of the Secretary,
``Ensuring Lawful Regulation: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' 90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025). Congress has also
passed legislation providing for periodic regulatory reviews on a
limited scale; for example, section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires post-issuance review
of agency rules imposing a significant impact on a ``substantial
number of small entities'' such as small business and local
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While PHMSA has conducted retrospective regulatory reviews in the
past,\7\ PHMSA expects there remain requirements in the HMR that
produce regulatory burdens larger than the benefits they provide. The
HMR contain numerous requirements that have been in effect for decades
without undergoing a comprehensive cost-benefit review.\8\ Neither the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Public Law 93-633, codified at
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., nor the HMR have ever contained an explicit
cost-benefit requirement; rather, any cost-benefit analyses performed
have been pursuant to discretionary Federal policy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., DOT, ``Plan for Implementation of E.O. 13564:
Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules'' (Aug. 2011).
\8\ Some requirements of the HMR can be traced to regulations
governing transportation of explosives, inflammable liquids,
inflammable compressed gasses and poisonous gasses adopted by the
Interstate Commerce Commission in implementing the Transportation of
Explosives Act of 1908, Public Law 60-174.
\9\ See supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA has received stakeholder comments questioning the rigor of
cost-benefit analyses supporting proposed amendments to its HMR.\10\
Congress has also on at least one occasion raised concerns about the
sufficiency of cost-benefit analysis that supported a PHMSA regulation,
going so far as to enact legislation requiring the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate an economic analysis conducted
by PHMSA.\11\ Though the costs of many--and perhaps most--of the
provisions of the HMR are justified by their benefits, conducting
periodic and comprehensive retrospective regulatory review ensures that
any compliance burdens remain justified in light of the evolution of
technology, operational practices, and PHMSA's regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Attny General of Louisiana et al., Doc. No.
PHMSA-2021-0058-7063, ``Comments on Docket No. PHMSA-2021-0058
(HMS264A)--Hazardous Materials: Suspension of HMR Amendments
Authorizing Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail,'' at 6-
8 (Feb. 28, 2022).
\11\ See, e.g., Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of
2015, Public Law 114-94 at sec. 7311, codified at 49 U.S.C. 20168
(directing GAO to conduct an independent evaluation of PHMSA's
research and analysis on the costs, benefits, and effects of
electrically controlled pneumatic brake systems required by PHMSA,
``Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational
Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains,'' 80 FR 26644 (May 8,
2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like his predecessors, President Trump has issued a series of E.O.s
directing PHMSA and other Federal agencies to take a hard look at their
existing regulations, particularly with respect to those that impose
burdens on the energy sector.\12\ E.O. 14154, ``Unleashing American
Energy,'' mandates in section 3 that ``the heads of all agencies shall
review all existing regulations . . . to identify those agency actions
that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use
of domestic energy resources . . . .'' In addition, E.O. 14241,
``Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry,'' states in
section 2 that ``[i]t is a national priority to support the domestic
coal industry by removing Federal regulatory barriers that undermine
coal production . . .'' and mandates in section 6 that ``. . . the
Secretary of Transportation . . . shall identify any guidance,
regulations, programs, and policies within their respective executive
department or agency that seek to transition the Nation away from coal
production and electricity generation.'' Similarly, section 1 of E.O.
14156, ``Declaring a National Energy Emergency,'' promotes the
integrity and expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure to ensure a
``reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our
Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense
industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military
preparedness.'' Lastly, E.O.
[[Page 23658]]
14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' acknowledges at
section 1 the cumulative burden placed on ``[U.S.] economic growth and
ability to build and innovate, and hampers [U.S.] global
competitiveness'' and therefore calls on agencies to identify
opportunities to alleviate unnecessary regulatory compliance burdens
imposed on industry and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); E.O. 14152, ``Unleashing
American Energy,'' 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14156,
``Declaring a National Energy Emergency,'' 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 29,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To serve the public interest and satisfy the requirements in
President Trump's recent directives, PHMSA is seeking feedback from
stakeholders on several key points:
1. Identification of specific regulatory provisions within the HMR,
as listed in section III below. This includes any implementing guidance
or interpretations of those regulations that may impose an undue burden
on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources.
Additionally, stakeholders should consider examples of government
inefficiency, where compliance requirements impose significant burdens
relative to minimal safety benefits or hinder technological
innovations.
2. The nature and magnitude of these burdens, including the
specific categories and number of regulated entities affected, as well
as the compliance costs and implementation challenges experienced by
those entities.
3. Suggestions for potential amendments (including any rescissions)
to those regulatory provisions.
4. An assessment of the incremental compliance costs and benefits
(including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety
harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments.
5. The safety consequences of any proposed amendments.
PHMSA may also consider adopting a procedural requirement mandating
periodic regulatory reviews (e.g., on a 5- or 3-year cycle) of the
provisions in the HMR. PHMSA may hold a public meeting soon to
supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this
ANPRM.
Concerning incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is
seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both a one-time
implementation and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or
methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including
data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain
the support for any estimates it can provide that accompany a proposed
rule. Other commenters may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the
data. Please also identify the baseline (e.g., a particular edition of
a consensus industry standard; widespread voluntary practice; or
documentation of sample surveys and other data or information) from
which those incremental costs and benefits arise. When estimates are
approximate or uncertain, consider using a range or specifying the
distribution in other ways.
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic
letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and
evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the
extent practicable.
III. Topics Under Consideration
A. Procedural Regulations and Actions
1. Should PHMSA consider incorporating within its HMR an explicit
requirement to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews at specified
intervals to identify undue burdens and improve government efficiency?
Please identify any specific regulatory language would be appropriate
for that purpose. What interval would be appropriate? How should PHMSA
provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement in those reviews?
2. Are there existing special permits (issued or requested) or
petitions for rulemaking that PHMSA should consider prioritizing to
reduce regulatory burdens and improve government efficiency?
3. What regulatory amendments, interpretations, or determinations
(e.g., preemption determinations pursuant to part 107, subpart C), or
revised protocols (e.g., Memoranda of Understanding with other Federal
agencies or States) could eliminate undue burdens or improve government
efficiency by improving or clarifying the scope of PHMSA's regulatory
oversight relative to that of each of other Federal agencies and State
regulatory authorities? Please identify specific amendments or
rescissions meriting consideration.
4. Do PHMSA regulations, implementing guidance, or practices
governing special permits in its Hazardous Materials Program Procedures
(part 107, subpart B) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?
Please identify any specific amendments to regulations, guidance, or
protocols meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and
economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
5. Should PHMSA consider requesting impact data in its Hazardous
Materials Program Procedures (part 107, subpart B) to assist in
quantifying the benefits that might be realized by the issuance of the
permit?
6. Do PHMSA compliance practices concerning the National
Environmental Policy Act place an undue burden on affected
stakeholders? Are there any categorical exclusions PHMSA should adopt
for its regulatory oversight activities? If so, please identify the
activities meriting a categorical exclusion, as well as the technical,
safety, and environmental bases for those additional categorical
exclusions. Are there any categorical exclusions employed by other
Federal agencies that PHMSA should adopt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336c?
7. Are there any interpretations or widely used special permits
with established safety records meriting codification within PHMSA's
HMR because they would facilitate identification, development, and use
of domestic energy resources or would otherwise improve government
efficiency?
8. What number of small businesses, small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq.) and its implementing regulations are subject to
HMR requirements or are bear significant costs associated with HMR
compliance by PHMSA-jurisdictional entities? Please provide information
about the nature and types of activities of such small businesses and
other small entities. Are there any existing HMR requirements that
disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities? Are
there alternative regulatory approaches the agency should consider that
would achieve its regulatory objectives while minimizing any
significant economic impact on small businesses or other small
entities?
B. Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (49 CFR Part 107) and
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171 Through 180)
1. What provisions of the HMR either impose an undue burden on
identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or
are examples of government inefficiency, insofar as they impose
outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or
limit technological innovation? Are there any HMR provisions that are
unnecessary because their safety benefits that are
[[Page 23659]]
adequately addressed by other HMR requirements?
2. Do the terms defined within various provisions (typically at the
beginning of each subpart) of the Hazardous Materials Program
Procedures or the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
(including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting
those recommended amendments.
3. Are there opportunities for efficiency gains in Hazardous
Materials Program Procedures requirements at part 107 governing each of
the designation of approval and certifying agencies (subpart E),
registration of certain manufacturers, assemblers, repairers,
inspectors, testers and design certification engineers for cargo tanks
and cargo tank vehicles (subpart F), and approvals of cylinder
inspection, testing, and qualification entities (subpart I) for
affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
4. What consensus international or industry standards and
recommended practices (or updated editions thereof) merit incorporation
by reference within the HMR because they would eliminate undue burdens
on affected stakeholders? What consensus international or industry
standards and recommended practices currently incorporated by reference
within the HMR merit updating or revision. Please identify the
pertinent standards and recommended practices as well the specific
provisions of the HMR that should reference those standards, as well as
the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories
and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended
amendments.
5. Do HMR reporting and notification requirements (e.g., part 171,
subpart B) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are any of
those reporting requirements inefficient because of their limited
safety value compared to their associated costs? Please identify any
specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the
technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and
number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
6. Do procedures in the HMR at part 171, subpart C, authorizing use
of certain international transportation standards (e.g., the
International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for
the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air or Transport Canada's
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations) impose an undue burden
on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
7. Are there elements of the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) at
part 172 that impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are
there particular materials whose safety risks do not merit inclusion
within the HMT? Are there assignments of requirements (either via
hazard class, packing group, special provisions, packaging or quantity
limitations, or vessel stowage restrictions) which are not commensurate
with the safety risks posed by specific materials? Please identify any
specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the
technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and
number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
8. Do any of the special provisions to the HMT listed at Sec.
172.102 as applied to one or more materials listed in the HMT impose
undue burdens on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
9. Are there any HMR provisions at part 172 pertaining to shipping
paper documentation (subpart C), hazard marking (subpart D), labeling
(subpart E), placarding (subpart F), and emergency response information
(subpart G) that may be revised or modernized to assist stakeholders in
efficiently communicating the hazard of materials transported? Please
identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as
well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the
categories and number of affected entities) supporting those
recommended amendments.
10. Do any of the HMR provisions at part 172, subpart H, pertaining
to training impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please
identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as
well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the
categories and number of affected entities) supporting those
recommended amendments.
11. Do HMR requirements at part 172, subpart I, governing the
safety and security plans impose an undue burden on affected
stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments
meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic
reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities)
supporting those recommended amendments.
12. Would amendment of the various exceptions (e.g., for de minimis
quantities, light bulbs, etc.) set forth in the HMR (e.g., in part 173,
subparts A and D) remove or alleviate undue burdens on affected
stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments
meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic
reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities)
supporting those recommended amendments.
13. Do any of the HMR requirements at part 173, subpart B,
governing preparation of hazardous materials for transportation impose
an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
14. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for
Class 1 explosive materials set forth at part 173, subpart C, and
elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
(including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting
those recommended amendments.
15. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for
Class 7 radioactive materials set forth at part 173, subpart I, and
elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
(including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting
those recommended amendments.
16. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for
hazardous gases set forth at part 173, subpart G, and elsewhere in the
HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify
any specific regulatory
[[Page 23660]]
amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
17. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for
hazardous materials other than Class 1 and 9 materials set forth at
part 173, subparts D through F, and elsewhere in the HMR impose an
undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
18. Do any of the requirements for rail transportation of hazardous
materials set forth at part 174 of the HMR impose an undue burden on
affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
19. Do any of the requirements for aircraft transportation of
hazardous materials set forth at part 175 of the HMR impose an undue
burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
20. Do any of the requirements for vessel transportation of
hazardous materials set forth at part 176 of the HMR impose an undue
burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
21. Do any of the requirements for highway transportation of
hazardous materials set forth at part 177 of the HMR impose an undue
burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
22. Do any of the specifications for hazardous materials packaging
other than rail tank cars set forth at part 178 of the HMR impose an
undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of
affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
23. Do any of the specifications for rail tank cars of hazardous
materials set forth at part 179 of the HMR impose an undue burden on
affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected
entities) supporting those recommended amendments.
24. Specific to transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail
tank car, PHMSA is interested in hearing from stakeholders about the
possibility of any future markets for transportation of LNG by rail
tank car. As such, PHMSA seeks information on the following questions.
First, is there a current or potential future market for special
permits to transport LNG by rail tank car? Second, is there current
market demand to transport other flammable cryogenic materials,
including, but not limited to, ethylene in tank cars built to the DOT-
113C120W9 specifications? Note the DOT-113C120W9 rail tank car is
characterized as having minimum wall thickness of the outer jacket
shell and the outer jacket heads must be no less than \9/16\-inch after
forming, which exceeds the \7/16\-inch outer jacket shell as specified
in 49 CFR 179.400-8(d)(1).
25. Do any of the requirements of the HMR impose an undue burden on
the transportation of any materials such as explosives used in mining,
exploration, or the production of coal, or the transportation of coal
combustion residuals produced from the burning of coal in coal-fired
power plants or otherwise found in supply chains related to coal mining
or coal-related energy generation projects?
26. Do any of the requirements for continuing qualification and
maintenance of hazardous material packaging set forth at part 180 of
the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please
identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as
well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the
categories and number of affected entities) supporting those
recommended amendments.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2025, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-10091 Filed 6-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P