# Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-23712 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** November 25, 2020 - **Citation:** 85 FR 75680 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179, and 180 [Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0120 (HM-219C)] RIN 2137-AF33 Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations in response to 24 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community between February 2015 and March 2018. This final rule updates, clarifies, or provides relief from various regulatory requirements without adversely affecting safety. PHMSA also, as of the effective date of this final rule, withdraws its September 28, 2017 enforcement discretion regarding the phase-out of mobile refrigeration systems. DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective December 28, 2020. Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 28, 2020. Delayed compliance date: Except as provided by the compliance timelines set forth in this final rule in connection with petitions for rulemaking P-1646, P-1691 and P-1692, compliance with the amendments adopted in this final rule is required beginning November 26, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews at (202) 366-8553 in the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abbreviations and Terms AAR Association of American Railroads ACC American Chemistry Council ADR European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road AESC Association of Energy Service Companies AFSL American Fireworks Standards Laboratory APA American Pyrotechnics Association ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME BPVC ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATCCRP Advanced Tank Car Collaborative Research Program CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations Chemours The Chemours Company CI The Chlorine Institute CGA Compressed Gas Association COSTHA Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles CPC Casualty Prevention Circular CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission DGAC Dangerous Goods Advisory Council DOT Department of Transportation EC European Community EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union GIS Gentry Investigative Service GTTC Global Transport Tank Consultants HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations HMT Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IBC Intermediate Bulk Container ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO Technical Instructions ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods IIAR International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration IMDG Code International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code IME Institute of Makers of Explosives IVODGA International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association JPG Jet Perforating Gun MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure MTC UN Manual of Tests and Criteria NBIC National Board Inspection Code NFA National Fireworks Association NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PIH Poison-by-Inhalation Hazard PRD Pressure Relief Device PSI Pounds per Square Inch PSIG Pounds per Square Inch Gauge RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI Request for Information RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RID European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail RIPA Reusable Industrial Packaging Association RSI Railway Supply Institute SBA Small Business Administration SFX Stage FX TC Transport Canada TCC AAR Tank Car Committee TFI The Fertilizer Institute TDG Transport of Dangerous Goods TPED Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive UN United Nations UN Model Regulations United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations Unified Agenda Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions Table of Contents I. Background II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR part 51 III. NPRM: Publication and Public Comments; Executive Order 13924 IV. Discussion of Amendments and Applicable Comments V. Section-by-Section Review VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13771 D. Executive Order 13132 E. Executive Order 13175 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act J. Environmental Assessment K. Privacy Act L. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis M. Executive Order 13211 N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act List of Subjects I. Background The Administrative Procedure Act 1 requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and PHMSA implementing regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 5.13(c) and 106.95, respectively, allow persons to ask PHMSA to add, revise, or delete a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking containing adequate support for the requested action. 1 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq. This final rule revises the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR 2 ) in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by shippers, carriers, manufacturers, and industry representatives. These revisions update, clarify, or provide relief from various regulatory requirements without adversely affecting safety. PHMSA discusses the petitions and revisions in detail in Section IV (Discussion of Amendments and Applicable Comments) of the preamble to this final rule. In this final rule, PHMSA is: 2 49 CFR parts 171-180. • Revising § 173.31 to prohibit the use of tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel in the transportation of poison-by-inhalation hazard (PIH) materials by rail after December 31, 2020. • Harmonizing availability of limited quantity shipping exceptions for more than 100 entries for corrosive materials in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT, § 172.101). • Revising § 172.302(b)(2) to allow a minimum height of 12 mm (0.47 inches) for a proper shipping name marked on a portable tank with a capacity of less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). • Revising § 173.28(c)(1)(i) to allow for regulatory flexibility for cleaning metal drums for reuse and clarifying the existing cleaning standard. • Revising § 173.5b to allow for the continued use of portable and mobile refrigerator systems placed into service prior to 1991 that are rated to a minimum service pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psig). • Incorporating by reference updated editions of multiple Compressed Gas Association (CGA) publications into § 171.7. • Removing the reference to special provision 103 in § 172.101 from Column (7) for four HMT entries. • Removing the words “manufactured before September 1, 1995” from § 180.417(a)(3) to allow for an alternative report for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995. • Revising the basis weight tolerance provided in § 178.521 from ±5 percent to ±10 percent from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report for paper shipping sacks. • Revising § 173.308(d)(3) to harmonize with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code by removing the requirement for a closed transport container to have the warning mark “WARNING—MAY CONTAIN EXPLOSIVE MIXTURES WITH AIR—KEEP IGNITION SOURCES AWAY WHEN OPENING” when transporting lighters. • Revising §§ 173.244(a)(2) and 173.314(c) to make the “interim” rail tank car specifications the “final” specifications for the transportation of PIH materials. • Revising § 173.31 to prohibit the use of certain rail tank cars for the transportation of PIH materials after December 31, 2027. • Allowing all waste materials to be managed in accordance with the lab pack exception and associated paragraphs in § 173.12 irrespective of whether they meet the definition of a hazardous waste per Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 3 3 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. • Incorporating by reference the 2017 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Sections II (Parts A and B), V, VIII (Division 1), and IX into § 171.7. • Revising §§ 171.23, 173.302, and 173.304 to permit the import of filled pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles for intermediate storage, transport to point of use, discharge, and export as well as the import of certain pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles for filling, intermediate storage, and export. • Revising § 172.101(c) to clarify that the word “stabilized” must be included as part of the proper shipping name when stabilization is required for transportation. • Revising § 171.7(r) to update the address of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and to incorporate by reference the Association of Energy Service Companies (AESC)/IME Jet Perforating Gun (JPG) Standard, also known as the “Guide to Obtaining DOT Approval of Jet Perforating Guns using AESC/IME Perforating Gun Specifications,” Ver. 02, dated September 1, 2017. • Incorporating by reference the January 1, 2018, edition of the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) Standard 87-1 A, B, C, “Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties, and Theatrical Pyrotechnics,” replacing the December 1, 2001 edition into § 171.7. PHMSA discusses the petitions and revisions in detail in Section IV (Discussion of Amendments and Applicable Comments) of the preamble to this final rule. PHMSA also, as of the effective date of this final rule, withdraws its September 28, 2017, enforcement discretion regarding the phase-out of mobile refrigeration systems. II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR part 51 The European Union (EU) standards, the APA standards, and the AESC/IME standards are free and accessible to the public on the internet, with access provided through the parent organization websites. The CGA and ASME references are available for interested parties to purchase in either print or electronic editions through the parent organization websites. The specific standards are discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section review (see § 171.7). III. NPRM: Publication and Public Comments: Executive Order 13924 On August 14, 2019, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled, “Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions to Reduce Regulatory Burdens” 4 under Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0120 (HM-219C). The NPRM proposed revisions to the HMR in response to 24 petitions for rulemaking submitted to PHMSA by various stakeholders. PHMSA discusses these petitions and revisions in detail in Section IV (Discussion of Amendments and Applicable Comments) of the preamble to this final rule. 4 84 FR 41556 (Aug. 14, 2019). The comment period for the NPRM closed on October 15, 2019. PHMSA received a total of 49 sets of comments from 48 separate entities, 6 of which had submitted petitions that were the basis for HMR amendments proposed in the NPRM. There were no late-filed comments. An alphabetical list of the persons, companies, and associations that submitted comments to the HM-219C NPRM may be found in the below table: Commenter name Docket No. American Fireworks Standards Laboratory (AFSL) PHMSA-2017-0120-0050. American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Chlorine Institute (CI), and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) PHMSA-2017-0120-0034. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0045. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0053. Association of American Railroads (AAR) PHMSA-2017-0120-0028. Anthony Munoz PHMSA-2017-0120-0016. Charles Wald PHMSA-2017-0120-0014. Chemours Company (Chemours) PHMSA-2017-0120-0055. Compressed Gas Association (CGA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0008. Council on the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0018. Crazy Debbie's Fireworks, LLC PHMSA-2017-0120-0049. Daniel Butt PHMSA-2017-0120-0039. David Carlson PHMSA-2017-0120-0012. Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) PHMSA-2017-0120-0042. Dow Chemical Company PHMSA-2017-0120-0037. Fireworks by Grucci, Inc. PHMSA-2017-0120-0040. Fireworks Over America PHMSA-2017-0120-0027. Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. PHMSA-2017-0120-0026. Garrett's Fireworks PHMSA-2017-0120-0031. Gentry Investigative Service, LLC (GIS) PHMSA-2017-0120-0010. Global Transport Tank Consultants (GTTC) PHMSA-2017-0120-0007. ICON Pyrotechnics International PHMSA-2017-0120-0035. Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) PHMSA-2017-0120-0011. International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0017. Inter-Oriental Fireworks (HK) LTD PHMSA-2017-0120-0051. Jake's Fireworks PHMSA-2017-0120-0036. Huang Johnson PHMSA-2017-0120-0020. Matson PHMSA-2017-0120-0013. Matthew Jones PHMSA-2017-0120-0054. National Fireworks Association (NFA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0047. NextFX PHMSA-2017-0120-0023. NJP Engineering LLC PHMSA-2017-0120-0009. Owen Compliance Services PHMSA-2017-0120-0015. Precocious Pyrotechnics PHMSA-2017-0120-0046. Pyrotechnics Guild International, Inc. PHMSA-2017-0120-0038. Pyrotechnics Guild International, Inc. PHMSA-2017-0120-0041. Rebecca Thomas PHMSA-2017-0120-0033. ResPyro—Kent Orwoll/VP Manufacturing PHMSA-2017-0120-0025. ResPyro—Steve Comen/CEO PHMSA-2017-0120-0021. Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA) PHMSA-2017-0120-0052. Santore and Sons PHMSA-2017-0120-0032. Stage FX (SFX)/Lyle Salmi PHMSA-2017-0120-0024. StageFX/Dennis Slicer PHMSA-2017-0120-0029. Ultratec Special Effects—John Thomas PHMSA-2017-0120-0044. Ultratec Special Effects—Otis Hart PHMSA-2017-0120-0048. Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC PHMSA-2017-0120-0006. Western Enterprises Inc. PHMSA-2017-0120-0019. Winco Fireworks International PHMSA-2017-0120-0043. Yienger Fireworks PHMSA-2017-0120-0030. The comments submitted to this docket may be accessed via the docket file numbers listed in the above table, as well as at http://www.regulations.gov. PHMSA developed this final rule in consideration of the comments received to the public docket. Following the closing of the comment period, Executive Order (E.O.) 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” 5 directed Federal agencies to respond to the economic harm caused by the novel coronavirus by reviewing their regulations and rescinding or modifying those regulations to reduce regulatory burdens and thereby promote economic growth. E.O. 13924 at § 4. PHMSA understands the cost savings expected from this final rule to be consistent with E.O. 13924's mandate. 5 85 FR 31353 (May 22, 2020). IV. Discussion of Amendments and Applicable Comments Based on an assessment of the 24 petitions and the comments received, PHMSA is amending the HMR as detailed in this section. 1. Phase-Out of Non-Normalized Tank Cars Used To Transport PIH Materials In its petition (P-1646), the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requests that PHMSA consider an amendment to § 173.31 to codify a prohibition on the use of rail tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel for transportation of PIH materials. 6 In P-1646, AAR claims that the continued use of pressurized tank cars constructed from non-normalized steel for rail transportation of PIH materials poses an unnecessary risk to the public because at lower temperatures non-normalized steel is susceptible to brittle fractures, which are far more likely to result in a catastrophic failure and instantaneous release of a tank car's entire contents than ductile fractures. AAR notes that while a slow release of contents generally has time to dissipate in the atmosphere, an instantaneous release from a catastrophic failure creates a concentrated toxic cloud with potential catastrophic consequences for the nearby population. 6 PHMSA notes that petition P-1646 (codifying an industry phase-out of legacy tank cars with non-normalized steel for PIH service by December 31, 2020) is related to two other AAR petitions addressed in this final rule: P-1691 (re-designating the “interim” HM-246 standard for PIH tank cars as a “permanent” standard), and P-1692 (codifying an industry phase-out of legacy tank cars not built to the HM-246 standard for PIH service by December 31, 2027). See Sections IV.13 (Finalization of the HM-246 Tank Car Standard) and IV.14 (Phase-out of Non-HM-246 Compliant Rail Tank Cars). PHMSA agrees with AAR's safety rationale for its recommendation of a regulatory prohibition on the use of rail tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel for transportation of PIH materials. Further, PHMSA expects that a regulatory phase-out of these rail tank cars would reinforce the voluntary phase-out of legacy PIH tank cars pursuant to current industry efforts. In 2008, PHMSA considered mandating a 5-year phase-out of non-normalized steel tank cars in PIH service. 7 However, in 2009, based in part on statements from owners that they were voluntarily phasing out such tank cars, PHMSA declined to require the phase-out but did require that owners prioritize replacement of the non-normalized steel tank cars from their PIH fleets. 8 Those voluntary efforts have been memorialized in interchange rules issued by AAR requiring compliance with design standards or operating conditions as a condition of shipping hazardous materials by rail. On April 7, 2017, AAR adopted an interchange rule in Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC)-1325 9 that implemented a phase-out of these non-normalized (legacy) steel tank cars in PIH service by July 1, 2019. On July 27, 2018, AAR revised CPC-1325 and re-issued it as CPC-1336, but retained the phase-out deadline for the non-normalized steel tank cars, 10 effective July 1, 2019. Because AAR has already adopted a phase-out schedule, there are no additional costs associated with PHMSA implementing a December 31, 2020, date as a regulatory deadline. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 7 See 73 FR 17817 (April 1, 2008). 8 74 FR 1770 (Jan. 13, 2009). 9 CPCs are documents issued by AAR to its members outlining requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by rail. 10 A piece of rail equipment, such as a tank car, that does not meet AAR interchange standards is effectively prohibited from movement on the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican freight rail system. The AAR Tank Car Committee (TCC) initially developed a phase-out schedule for non-normalized tank cars in 2008 under AAR CPC-1187, which prohibited the use of non-normalized tank cars after December 31, 2018. Prior to adoption of the final AAR interchange phase-out requirements in CPC-1325, AAR TCC solicited comments to amend CPC-1187 via CPC-1324. PHMSA received comments from AAR, the Chemours Company (Chemours), and a joint comment from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Chlorine Institute (CI), and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) in support of the proposal to amend the HMR to include a regulatory phase-out of the use of pressurized tank cars constructed from non-normalized steel for rail transportation of PIH materials. These associations represent major stakeholders impacted by this change, including the shippers who own or lease the tank cars, and may bear the cost of implementing any phase-out, and the railroads who must transport the freight under their obligations as common carriers. PHMSA's actions to align the HMR with industry's voluntary phase-out the use of non-normalized (legacy) steel tank cars in PIH service in this final rule provide both shippers and carriers with regulatory certainty on the transportation of PIH materials by rail. This regulatory certainty makes transportation cost known to industry and, more importantly, locks-in within the HMR safety benefits from the transportation of PIH materials by rail achieved by industry's voluntary efforts to phasing-out the use of tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 173.31 to provide for a regulatory phase-out non-normalized steel rail tank cars for the transportation of PIH materials by December 31, 2020. 2. Limited Quantity Shipments of Hydrogen Peroxide In its petition (P-1658), Steris requests that PHMSA revise Column (8A) of the HMT to make available the limited quantity packaging exceptions at § 173.152 for “UN2014, Hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution.” Steris notes that the United Nations (UN) Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations (Model Regulations) authorize shipment of limited quantities of UN2014 (Hydrogen peroxide). Steris contends that this amendment would provide economic and logistical consistency in global transportation and facilitate commerce for domestic companies without adversely impacting safety. PHMSA received no comments on this proposed revision in the NPRM. The HMR at subpart D of part 173 provides, among other provisions, exceptions for some classes of hazardous materials when shipped under certain limited quantity thresholds. However, while other international standards and regulations, such as the UN Model Regulations, provide for the transport of UN2014 in limited quantities (up to 60 percent concentration), UN2014 is not authorized a limited quantity exception within the HMR as currently written. PHMSA has considered the operational experience in international transportation of UN2014 pursuant to the UN Model Regulations as well as in the domestic transport of materials of the same hazard class in limited quantities as allowed by current HMR exceptions and concluded that a limited quantity exception should be extended to UN2014 as well. PHMSA is unaware of any characteristics of UN2014 (Hydrogen peroxide) making it uniquely unsuitable for limited quantity shipment when other hazardous materials assigned the same hazard class can be shipped in limited quantities. Consequently, PHMSA expects that expanding the applicability of the limited quantity exception to this material will not adversely affect safety—particularly as other HMR requirements would still apply to assure safe shipment of limited quantities of UN2014 (Hydrogen peroxide). PHMSA expects cost savings to be achieved from this amendment to the HMR, as extension of the limited quantity exceptions to apply to another material will reduce regulatory burdens on regulated entities. However, since limited quantity shipments within the United States have not been authorized for UN2014 (Hydrogen peroxide) previously, there is inadequate domestic data available to quantify the specific cost savings that would result from this change. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising Column (8A) of the HMT for “UN2014, Hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution” to allow limited quantity packaging for this material by referencing the exception in § 173.152. 3. Markings on Portable Tanks In his petition (P-1666), William J. Briner requests that PHMSA revise § 172.302(b)(2) of the HMR consistent with section 5.3.2.0.2 of the IMDG Code to allow a minimum height of 12 mm (0.47 inches) for proper shipping name markings on portable tanks with a capacity of less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). The petitioner contends that the revision would provide regulatory flexibility for the size of markings on portable tanks without adversely impacting safety. PHMSA received no comments on this proposed revision in the NPRM. As currently codified in the HMR, § 172.302(b)(2) requires markings on portable tanks with capacity less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons) to have a width of at least 4.0 mm (0.16 inch) and a height of at least 25 mm (1 inch). Through its technical review of this petition, PHMSA determined that harmonizing the height of this marking with that in the IMDG Code (12 mm) would not cause a reduction in hazard communication and, therefore, would not have a negative effect on safety. PHMSA expects that harmonizing this requirement with international standards would provide cost savings and efficiencies in transportation; however, PHMSA is unable to quantify these potential cost savings as there is no cost data on the savings gained from using smaller markings and the number of stakeholders affected. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 172.302(b)(2) to allow a minimum height of 12 mm (0.47 inches) for proper shipping name markings on portable tanks with a capacity of less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). 4. Reconditioning of Metal Drums In its petition (P-1670), the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA) requests that PHMSA revise § 173.28(c)(1)(i) to require that labels be substantially removed, rather than completely removed, during the reconditioning of metal drums. RIPA states that a strict reading of the current HMR requirement asks for an impossible standard, as the full removal of coatings and labels (including their adhesive residues) is practically impossible. RIPA justifies this request by noting that current cleaning and surface preparation processes have been utilized for decades and, from its standpoint, have never been considered a safety issue. In the NPRM, PHMSA responded to P-1670 by proposing to allow tightly adhering paint, mill scale, and rust to remain on no more than 10 percent of the surface area of a drum being reconditioned. While supportive of revising this section, RIPA notes in its comments to the NPRM that the proposed revision fails to achieve PHMSA's goal of allowing some coating residue to remain on steel drums provided safety is not compromised. RIPA contends it is technically impossible to meet a requirement that entails the removal of 90 percent of “tightly adhering paint . . .” from the entire surface area of every steel drum and contends that the limit of 10 percent surface area for exterior coatings is arbitrary and will be difficult to enforce. Lastly, RIPA notes that mill scale does not appear on metal used to manufacture or recondition steel drums and should be removed from the proposed revisions to § 173.28(c)(1)(i). Therefore, in its comments to the NPRM, RIPA suggests that § 173.28(c)(1)(i) be revised to read, “Cleaning to base material of construction, with all former contents, internal and external corrosion removed, and any external coatings and labels sufficiently removed to expose any metal deterioration which adversely affects transportation safety.” RIPA contends this will establish a workable safety standard based upon adequate removal of surface coating materials to expose evidence of metal deterioration. PHMSA received no other comments on this proposed change to the HMR. After further consideration, PHMSA agrees that identifying a specific numeric threshold for sufficient removal of coatings and labels to expose deterioration is impracticable and expects that the language RIPA suggests in its comments to the NPRM will appropriately address the issue by ensuring external coatings and labels are sufficiently removed to expose metal deterioration that could adversely impact transportation safety. Furthermore, PHMSA expects cost savings to be achieved through this amendment, as it provides for a partial relaxation of the requirements in the HMR; however, PHMSA is unable to quantify these potential cost savings because it does not have data on the cost differences between “removed” and “substantially removed” or the number of persons affected. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 173.28(c)(1)(i) to read, “Cleaning to base material of construction, with all former contents, internal and external corrosion removed, and any external coatings and labels sufficiently removed to expose any metal deterioration that adversely affects transportation safety.” 5. Limited Quantity Harmonization In its petition (P-1676), URS Corporation requests that PHMSA revise Column (8A) of the HMT to extend exceptions allowing for shipment of limited quantities of 45 additional hazardous materials. URS Corporation noted that the absence from the HMR of limited quantity exceptions for those materials is inconsistent with provisions under various international standards authorizing limited quantity shipment of the same materials. URS Corporation contends that this inconsistency between domestic and international standards regarding the limited quantity exception for these 45 proper shipping names causes confusion regarding the pertinent regulatory requirements with importing hazardous materials shipments into the United States that had been prepared as limited quantity shipments under international regulations. As noted in the NPRM, PHMSA conducted a technical review of the petition and identified a total of 114 entries in the HMT—including the 45 listed in URS Corporation's petition—that are not in alignment with the UN Model Regulations permitting limited quantity shipment of hazardous materials. In addition, PHMSA determined that HMR treatment of 64 of those 114 entries also diverged from the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (ICAO Technical Instructions) permitting limited quantity shipment of hazardous materials. Further, in reviewing the HMR, PHMSA determined that these hazardous materials currently without limited quantity exceptions are of the same hazard classes as materials for which the HMR already contains an exception allowing limited quantity shipment. PHMSA expects that expanding the applicability of the limited quantity exception to these additional materials would not adversely affect safety. PHMSA is unaware of any characteristics of the hazardous materials at issue that makes them uniquely unsuitable for limited quantity shipment when the HMR authorizes other hazardous materials assigned the same hazard class to be shipped in limited quantities. Consequently, PHMSA expects that expanding the applicability of the limited quantity exception to other materials that are within the same hazard class will not adversely affect safety—particularly as other HMR requirements would still apply to assure safe shipment of limited quantities of those materials. By way of example, limited quantities of these hazardous materials will still need to display a conspicuous marking indicating they are limited quantity shipments pursuant to § 172.315, and will still need to be packaged in accordance with other requirements in 49 CFR part 173. The operational experience of safe transportation of limited quantities of these materials pursuant to UN Model Regulations provides additional evidence that extension of the HMR's limited quantity exceptions to those materials will not adversely affect safety. Furthermore, PHMSA expects cost savings to be achieved through this amendment, as it provides exceptions to the requirements in the HMR that impose compliance burdens on regulated entities; however, due to a lack of domestic data on these types of shipments, PHMSA is unable to quantify the specific cost savings that would result from this change. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) and International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA) submitted comments to the NPRM in support of this proposed revision, while also noting that PHMSA overlooked one listing in the HMT for harmonization. The commenters explain that the HMT listing for “UN3170, Aluminum smelting by-products or Aluminum remelting by-products” includes a change in Column (8A) from “None” to “151” for Packing Group (PG) II but failed to revise the PG III entry. PHMSA acknowledges that this was an oversight and is revising the language in the HMT to include “UN3170, Aluminum smelting by-products or Aluminum remelting by-products” PG III materials in this final rule. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising Column (8A) (exceptions) of the HMT consistent with the UN Model Regulations to allow an additional 114 hazardous materials entries to be shipped as limited quantities under the HMR. The complete list of hazardous materials affected by this provision is in the amendments to the HMT at the end of this final rule. 6. Mobile Refrigeration Units In its petition (P-1677), the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) requests that PHMSA revise § 173.5b to allow the continued use of mobile refrigeration units (which are commonly used by the U.S. produce industry) that were placed into service prior to 1991, provided they are tested to a service pressure of 250 psig. PHMSA received no comments on this proposed revision in the NPRM. As currently written, § 173.5b(b)(6) of the HMR requires that mobile refrigeration systems placed into service prior to June 1, 1991 be phased-out by October 1, 2017; however, PHMSA issued an enforcement discretion memorandum 11 on September 28, 2017, permitting the continued use of mobile refrigeration units that are tested to a service pressure of 250 psig. In its technical review conducted in connection with the Enforcement Discretion Memorandum, PHMSA determined there is no reduction in safety by authorizing the continued use of mobile refrigeration units that are tested to a service pressure of 250 psig because the purpose of § 173.5b is to eliminate the use of systems with a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 150 psig. PHMSA consequently incorporated that conservatism within the Enforcement Discretion Memorandum in the proposed HMR amendments set forth in the NPRM. The proposed amendment would allow the system to be used if its components are designed for a MAWP of 250 psig regardless of whether it was put into service before June 1, 1991, or if the MAWP is a result of upgrading components. 11 Enforcement Discretion Memorandum for Mobile Refrigeration Units— https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2016-0085-0004. As described in the RIA, although PHMSA describes the nature of cost savings associated with adoption of this petition, PHMSA was unable to estimate the cost savings with sufficient accuracy to quantify them due to data uncertainties. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 173.5b to allow the continued use of certain portable and mobile refrigerator systems that meet the 250 psig service pressure specification by removing the prohibition on use of refrigeration systems placed into service before June 1, 1991. Further, PHMSA, as of the effective date of this final rule, withdraws its September 28, 2017, enforcement discretion regarding the phase-out of mobile refrigeration systems because it will no longer be necessary. 7. Incorporation by Reference of CGA Standards PHMSA received multiple petitions to update CGA standards currently incorporated by reference in § 171.7 of the HMR. These petitions include: • Petition P-1679. CGA requests that PHMSA incorporate by reference CGA C-6.3, “Standard for Visual Inspection of Low Pressure Aluminum Alloy Cylinders, 2013, Third Edition” 12 into § 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the First Edition of this standard published in 1991. This publication is an industry standard governing periodic inspection of aluminum alloy compressed gas cylinders with service pressures of 500 psi (3450 kPa) or less. Notable changes from the previous edition consist of updating HMR citations and changing the characterization of the document from a “guideline” to a “standard.” 12 The previous edition of this document was titled, “Guidelines for Visual Inspection and Requalification of Low Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders, 1991, First Edition.” • Petition P-1680. CGA requests that PHMSA incorporate by reference CGA S-7, “Method for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders, 2013, Fifth Edition” into § 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the Fourth Edition of this standard published in 2005. This industry standard governs methods for selecting pressure relief devices (PRDs) for compressed gas mixtures packaged in cylinders having water capacities of 1000 lb (454 kg) or less. Notable changes from the previous edition of this document includes revising reference temperatures, changing the characterization of this document from a “publication” to a “standard,” and expanding its scope to address PRDs for five additional gases. • Petitions P-1684 and P-1693. In two separate petitions, Worthington Cylinders and CGA request that PHMSA incorporate by reference CGA C-11, “Practices for Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders at Time of Manufacture, 2013, Fifth Edition” into § 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the Third Edition of this standard published in 2001. These petitions also request revisions to § 178.35(b) and (c) to refer to CGA C-11. This updated publication outlines best practices for inspection of cylinders consistent with industry practice and clarifies the parameters of inspector actions when inspecting compressed gas cylinders. • Petition P-1694. CGA requests that PHMSA incorporate by reference CGA C-6.1-2013, “Standards for Visual Inspection of High Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders” into § 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the Fourth Edition of this standard published in 2002. This standard was developed for the visual inspection of aluminum alloy compressed gas cylinders with service pressures of 1800 psi (12410 kPa) or greater. Notable changes from the previous edition of this publication include new guidelines for the use of ultrasonic inspection (UE), and incorporation by reference of another CGA publication (CGA Safety Bulletin 22 Aluminum Cylinders—Guidelines for Heat Exposure) for use with aluminum cylinders. PHMSA evaluated the recommended CGA standards as part of its technical review of these petitions. In each instance, PHMSA compared the two editions—the edition currently incorporated by reference in the HMR and the update edition proposed to be incorporated by the petitioner—for any changes or substantial revisions. PHMSA found only non-substantial revisions during that review and determined that they would not result in a reduction in safety. Moreover, insofar as the revisions in the updated CGA standards reflect lessons learned from operational experience and best practices developed since the earlier standards were placed in effect, incorporation of those updated standards could promote safety. There were no quantifiable cost savings identified, as these revisions to the CGA standards incorporated by reference are primarily technical in nature and are not expected to have a material effect on the cost of business. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. PHMSA received comments from CGA, COSTHA, and Gentry Investigative Service (GIS) in support of this proposal. However, in its comment, GIS notes that there are newer editions of the CGA publications and suggests that these editions should be incorporated as part of this final rule. Although PHMSA acknowledges that newer editions have been recently developed, PHMSA declines to incorporate by reference in this rulemaking newer editions of CGA documents. PHMSA has yet to evaluate those more recent editions, which were not proposed in the HM-219C NPRM. PHMSA, however, encourages industry to petition PHMSA to include any newer edition of incorporated-by-reference publications as desired and supported by technical analysis within those petitions. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is updating CGA standards incorporated by reference in § 171.7 of the HMR as proposed in the NPRM. 8. Special Provision for Explosives In its petition (P-1681), IME requests that PHMSA remove special provision 103 from § 172.102 and from Column (7) of the HMT for the following entries: “UN0361, Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for blasting”; “UN0365, Detonators for ammunition”; “UN0255, Detonators, electric, for blasting”; and “UN0267, Detonators, non-electric, for blasting.” IME explains that this change would harmonize the HMR with the UN Model Regulations, and would enhance continuity when transporting these materials domestically and internationally. PHMSA proposed these changes in the NPRM and PHMSA received comments in support from IME, Owen Compliance Services, and COSTHA. Special provision 103 restricts classification of detonators as Division 1.4B if they are shipped in packages containing more than 25 grams of net explosive mass that could be involved in a limited propagation explosion. However, the UN Model Regulations contain no quantified mass restriction for the same materials: rather, they require only that detonators must pass the tests prescribed by the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria (MTC)—in this case, the UN Test Series 6 requirements—to be classified as Division 1.4B. The UN MTC contains the criteria, test methods, and procedures used for the classification of dangerous goods ( i.e., hazardous materials) per the provisions of UN Model Regulations to ensure an appropriate level of safety, and demonstrate whether exposure of the material to fire or explosion during shipment conditions will result in a mass detonation of the material. Only those detonators that successfully pass tests prescribed for Division 1.4B may be classed in this hazardous materials category. PHMSA agrees that the removal of special provision 103 would harmonize with the international regulations and would have no negative impact on safety. Special provision 103 is outdated, as the HMR has since aligned its classification methodologies with the UN performance-based classification method to improve harmonization with the internationally-accepted system for the classification of explosives. Finally, the operational experience of safe transportation of these materials pursuant to UN Model Regulations provides further evidence that the amendments to the HMR as proposed will not adversely affect safety—particularly as other HMR requirements would still apply to assure safe shipment. However, since special provision 103 is no longer widely used, PHMSA does not expect there would be any quantifiable cost savings. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is removing the references to special provision 103 from four entries in Column (7) (Special provisions) of the HMT, and removing special provision 103 from § 172.102 altogether. 9. Safety Devices In its petition (P-1683), the Ford Motor Company requests that PHMSA remove the word “None” from Column (8A) of the HMT for the proper shipping name “UN0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic” and replace it with “166,” which would allow for the packaging exceptions currently authorized for other safety devices in § 173.166. PHMSA proposed this revision in the HM-219C NPRM. PHMSA separately published a notice of request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register soliciting information and data from stakeholders regarding the classification, testing, and conditions for transportation relevant to the potential classification of safety devices. 13 To ensure a more fulsome safety analysis of the HMR amendments requested in P-1683, PHMSA is not adopting the amendments proposed in the NPRM at this time and may instead consider them in a future rulemaking that could be informed by the information and data received in response to the RFI. 13 85 FR 35368 (June 9, 2020). PHMSA has continued to see advancements in technologies for articles containing hazardous materials; those advancements have been the subject of requests for approvals or special permits for transportation as safety devices (UN0503 and UN3268). As such, PHMSA is, in the RFI, requesting information or data from stakeholders regarding the classification, testing, and conditions for transportation of these devices requesting an approval to be classified as safety devices. 10. Alternative Reports for Cargo Tanks In its petition (P-1685), Polar Service Systems requests that PHMSA revise § 180.417(a)(3) to remove the words “manufactured before September 1, 1995,” thereby allowing an alternative report in lieu of obtaining the manufacturers certificate of compliance for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995. The petitioner notes that there is no provision to allow for the use of alternative reports when a certificate of compliance is unavailable for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995, 14 and explains that some cargo tank manufacturers have gone out of business in the past 25 years, making it impossible for a tank owner to obtain a missing certificate of compliance from these manufacturers. Therefore, these alternative reports would replace a missing certificate of compliance for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995. PHMSA received no comments on this proposed revision in the NPRM. 14 See 59 FR 1786 (Jan. 12, 1994). PHMSA's technical review of the petition determined there are challenges in maintaining the required documentation for cargo tanks and cargo tank motor vehicles when cargo tank manufacturers are no longer in business. This is true irrespective of the timeframe set forth in § 180.417. Further, PHMSA does not expect there would be a reduction in safety in allowing alternative reports for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995, because the testing and recordkeeping requirements that PHMSA would demand in those alternative reports provide much of the same information that would be in a manufacturer's certificate. Further, PHMSA's experience administering the alternative reporting requirement under existing HMR provisions demonstrates that extension of this compliance flexibility to additional cargo tanks would not adversely affect safety. Similarly, this amendment is not expected to result in any material cost to industry; rather, cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995, with useful life remaining would not be forced out of service, thereby saving regulated entities the cost of replacement. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising the language in § 180.417(a)(3) to allow for alternative reports when a manufacturer's certificate is not available regardless of the date of manufacture of the cargo tank. 11. Weight Tolerances for Paper Shipping Sacks In its petition (P-1688), the Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association requests that PHMSA amend § 178.521 to revise the basis weight tolerances for liners and mediums used in the manufacture of multi-wall shipping sacks from ±5 percent to ±10 percent from the nominal basis weight reported to PHMSA in the initial design qualification test. The petitioner explains that multi-wall sacks are manufactured on the same or technically equivalent machines that manufacture the liners for fiberboard boxes and further notes that PHMSA revised the basis weight tolerances from ±5 percent to ±10 percent for fiberboard boxes in the HM-219A final rule. 15 15 83 FR 55792 (Nov. 7, 2018). PHMSA notes that the petitioner is correct in that the paper used to manufacture multi-wall shipping sacks is made on the same or similar machines as those used to make fiberboard boxes. Given the technical data presented in the petition, which included linerboard drop and dynamic compression tests, PHMSA concluded that a small reduction (or a nearly infinite increase) in basis weight of the paper used in manufacturing fiberboard boxes would not affect the safety of the packaging, and PHMSA expects that multi-wall shipping sacks—made of similar materials and manufactured on the same or technically equivalent machines—will behave similarly such that there will be no adverse impact to safety. Furthermore, PHMSA estimates the total potential annualized cost savings to the industry of between $20,000 and $200,000. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. PHMSA received one comment from David Carlson in support of this proposal. However, in addition to his support, Mr. Carlson requested that PHMSA extend a similar provision to 11G packagings in this final rule. PHMSA notes that 11G packagings were not discussed in the NPRM, and while there may be merits to this proposed revision, PHMSA has not conducted a technical analysis of that proposal and is not adopting it at this time. PHMSA would like to allow further stakeholder engagement and opportunity to comment on any proposed changes before making this specific determination. The commenter is encouraged to petition PHMSA with supporting data to include 11G packagings in a future rulemaking. Therefore, based on its technical analysis showing no negative impact on safety, PHMSA is amending § 178.521 to revise the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report from ±5 percent to ±10 percent. 12. Markings on Closed Transport Containers In its petition (P-1690), Matson requests that PHMSA amend § 173.308(d)(3) to remove the requirement for a warning to be placed on the access door of a closed transport vehicle or a closed freight container when lighters are transported by vessel. Matson explains that the IMDG Code does not require a similar warning, thereby noting inconsistencies between the HMR and the international requirements that could cause confusion regarding the pertinent requirements governing international shipments. PHMSA received one comment from IVODGA in support of this proposal. The petitioner is correct in that the current HMR requirement is inconsistent with the IMDG Code. The IMDG Code does not require this additional marking and has not experienced an appreciable adverse safety impact. PHMSA is, further, unaware of a compelling safety justification for requiring the marking—particularly as other HMR hazard communication requirements (such as transport documents and container placards) would remain operative even if the amendment is adopted. In addition, the amendment would improve the internal consistency of the HMR, which does not impose the same restriction on other packages containing a Division 2.1 flammable gas as it does packages composed of lighters containing Division 2.1 flammable gasses. Furthermore, while PHMSA was unable to quantify any specific cost savings associated with this amendment, no costs are anticipated. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, based on its technical analysis, PHMSA is amending § 173.308(d)(3) to remove the requirement for vessel transport of a closed transport vehicle or freight container to display the warning mark “WARNING—MAY CONTAIN EXPLOSIVE MIXTURES WITH AIR—KEEP IGNITION SOURCES AWAY WHEN OPENING” on the access door. 13. Finalization of the HM-246 Tank Car Standard In a joint petition (P-1691), AAR, CI, ACC, TFI, and the Railway Supply Institute (RSI) request that PHMSA revise §§ 173.314(c) and 173.244(a)(2) of the HMR to convert “interim” rail tank car specifications to “final” tank car specifications. The interim tank car specifications were issued as part of the HM-246 final rule titled, “Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials” 16 to be used for rail tank cars transporting PIH materials until PHMSA issued a permanent standard. The petitioners note that the PIH tank cars built in compliance with the HM-246 interim specifications have performed well and with no noteworthy safety concerns. 16 74 FR 1769 (Jan. 13, 2009). The HM-246 final rule prescribed enhanced safety measures for PIH materials transported in rail tank cars. These safety measures include stronger tanks made from normalized steel and capable of withstanding higher tank test pressures, fittings, tank head-puncture resistance protection, and thermal protection for some commodities. The HM-246 final rule was the result of industry consensus that an updated regulatory standard was necessary to improve accident survivability, even as research continued to develop a long-term PIH tank car specification. Following publication of the HM-246 final rule and adoption of the interim specifications, the Advanced Tank Car Collaborative Research Program (ATCCRP) 17 suggested the HM-246 interim specifications provide significant safety improvements over legacy designs and noted a scarcity of other feasible options beyond the interim specifications. In addition, conclusions from various ATCCRP projects provide scientific support to make the interim specifications permanent. Conclusions resulting from these safety research efforts, as reported by ATCCRP, include: 17 The ATCCRP coordinates research efforts to enhance the safety and security of rail tank car shipments of toxic-by-inhalation hazard (TIH) materials. It is a joint effort comprised of shippers of tank cars carrying TIH materials (represented by ACC, CI, and TFI); railroads that transport hazardous materials (represented by AAR); and rail tank car builders and lessors (represented by RSI). For more information, see https://tankcarresourcecenter.com/wp-cojntent/uploads/2017/11/ATCCRP-Research-Background-2016.pdf. • The interim specifications provide significant improvement in accident survivability over the legacy designs ( i.e., legacy specifications); and • No design feature or material was identified that would provide a significantly greater level of improvement, or would be a reasonable alternative (from an economic or manufacturability standpoint) that should be required industry-wide. PHMSA received comments to the HM-219C NPRM from AAR, The Dow Chemical Company, Chemours, and a joint comment from ACC, CI, and TFI in support of this proposal. These commenters noted that by re-designating the HM-246 specifications as permanent, PHMSA will provide regulatory certainty to the stakeholder community that an “interim” standard cannot. In its comment, AAR recommended that PHMSA coordinate with Transport Canada (TC) to assign a unique designator when translating the interim tank car specifications into permanent tank car specifications. PHMSA agrees with AAR and collaborated with TC during the final rule drafting stage to assign a unique designator to denote those permanent tank car specifications. This unique identifier will help ensure that tank cars used to transport PIH materials built to the permanent specifications can more easily move between the United States and Canada without encountering delays. PHMSA's technical review of this petition determined that the HM-246 compliant rail tank cars have an established safety record with no major incidents attributed to the tank car design. As explained by ATCCRP and discussed at greater length in Section IV.14. (Phase-out of Non-HM-246 Compliant Rail Tank Cars), the HM-246 interim specifications represent a substantial safety improvement over legacy tank cars in PIH service. This amendment is not expected to result in any new material costs to industry. Any costs associated with phasing out legacy tank cars result from the decision by AAR to utilize interchange agreements to mandate retirement of these cars from PIH service by the date (December 31, 2027) specified in CPC-1336; this final rule would align the HMR with those industry efforts. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is amending §§ 173.314(c) and 173.244(a)(2) of the HMR to make the HM-246 rail tank car specifications permanent for the transportation of PIH materials and is assigning the unique identifier of “DOT-105H600W” for HM-246 tank cars transporting PIH materials by rail. 14. Phase-Out of Non-HM-246 Compliant Rail Tank Cars In its petition (P-1692), AAR requests that PHMSA amend § 173.31 to adopt a 6-year phase-out for PIH rail tank cars that do not meet the interim HM-246 specifications as implemented in the HM-246 final rule published on January 13, 2009. Specifically, AAR argues that collaborative research undertaken by industry and government partners (through ATCCRP) has confirmed that HM-246 specification cars have the highest accident survivability rate over other designs and are the most feasible available technology to transport PIH materials. In 2006, after several major PIH rail tank car accidents, AAR began to release a series of CPCs that mandated the use of a safer design for tank cars that transport PIH materials. On March 31, 2008, AAR published CPC-1187, which implemented design specifications for tank cars used in PIH service and included a 10-year phase-out schedule for tank cars that did not meet the CPC-1187 specifications. According to CPC-1187, non-compliant tank cars would not be accepted for interchange after December 31, 2018. PHMSA published an NPRM 18 proposing revisions to the HMR to improve the crashworthiness protection of rail tank cars designed to transport PIH materials on April 1, 2008 and later issued a final rule establishing the interim HM-246 specifications in January 13, 2009. The interim HM-246 specifications effectively adopted AAR's CPC-1187 tank car specifications for the transportation of PIH materials until further research could be completed on enhanced tank car specifications. 18 73 FR 17817 (Apr. 1, 2008). In the HM-246 NPRM, PHMSA considered adopting a phase-out of tank cars that did not meet the proposed interim specifications. However, PHMSA did not codify a phase-out timeline in the final rule, stating “[a]lthough PHMSA continues to expect that an accelerated phase-out of these cars is justified, PHMSA recognizes the voluntary efforts already underway by many fleet owners to phase out these cars, in many cases on schedules more aggressive than the five-year deadline proposed in the NPRM.” 19 Instead, the HM-246 final rule adopted the interim tank car specifications; subsequently, AAR suspended CPC-1187 until new tank car specifications could be finalized and suspended the December 2018 retirement deadline for non-compliant tank cars. 19 74 FR at 1777-78. As discussed in the previous sub-section (“Finalization of the HM-246 Tank Car Standard”), research conducted under the ATCCRP has since demonstrated that the HM-246 interim tank car specifications provide significant improvements in survivability and there is no reason to expect a different design would provide a significantly greater level of improvement. However, despite initial indications in 2009 that voluntary efforts would result in an accelerated phase-out of those tank cars in PIH service that failed to comply with the HM-246 interim specifications, the industry had not adopted a voluntary phase-out schedule as of December 2016 that would eliminate such tank cars from PIH service. On December 16, 2016, AAR submitted its petition (P-1692) requesting that PHMSA adopt a 6-year phase-out for PIH rail tank cars that do not meet the interim specifications as implemented in the HM-246 final rule published on January 13, 2009. AAR argued that collaborative research undertaken by industry and government partners (through ATCCRP) over the last 7 years had confirmed that HM-246 specification cars have the highest accident survivability rate over other designs and are the most feasible technology to transport PIH materials. Before PHMSA completed its review of P-1692, AAR adopted CPC-1325 in April 2017, which implemented a mandatory phase-out by July 1, 2023, of any tank car in PIH service that does not comply with the HM-246 interim specifications. Prior to AAR's adoption of CPC-1325, TFI commented to the P-1692 docket 20 that it opposed implementation of the July 1, 2023, phase-out schedule. TFI contended that DOT has sole authority over hazardous materials packaging and that because AAR's adoption of the phase-out schedule was done without performing an economic analysis, it was impossible to estimate the full extent of its potential costs or benefits. 20 Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0165, available at www.regulations.gov. Similar comments were relayed to PHMSA by a group of shipper associations during a January 13, 2017 meeting. 21 AAR met with PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on August 1, 2017, during which AAR suggested its phase-out schedule did not conflict with DOT regulations and that the phase-out schedule was intended to remove an older, less-safe car design from PIH service. 22 PHMSA later notified AAR on December 7, 2017, that it was accepting P-1692 and would conduct a “safety and policy review that will aid in determining whether the HMR should mandate a phase-out period and, if so, what period would ensure safety and protect the public interest.” 23 21 Attendees included representatives from TFI, ACC, CI, and API. Meeting Notes from the Listening Session for Petitions P-1678 and P-1692, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2016-0165-0007. 22 AAR Presentation on Tank Car Phase Out and TCC Authority from August 1, 2017, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2016-0165-0011. 23 P-1692 Acceptance Letter, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2016-0165-0012. On July 27, 2018, AAR revised CPC-1325 and re-issued it as CPC-1336, extending the phase-out schedule for non-HM-246 compliant tank cars from 6 years (July 1, 2023) to 10 years (December 31, 2027). On August 15, 2018, the railroads (represented by AAR) and a group of leading PIH material shippers (represented by ACC, CI, and TFI) submitted a joint comment to P-1692 proposing a phase-out date of December 31, 2027, for all non-HM-246 specification rail tank cars. The December 31, 2027, phase-out date is in lieu of the 6-year timeline requested in AAR's original petition. The joint commenters met with PHMSA on September 6, 2018, and urged PHMSA to act quickly in completing a rulemaking that would adopt the petition's proposed 10-year phase-out timeline. 24 The joint commenters contend that codifying the phase-out in the HMR would improve safety and increase market certainty. PHMSA in the NPRM proposed revision of the HMR to adopt the joint commenters' December 31, 2027 deadline. PHMSA received no adverse comments in response to that NPRM proposal. PHMSA received comments in support of this proposal from AAR, the Dow Chemical Company, Chemours, and a joint comment by ACC, CI, and TFI. 24 Meeting Summary, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2016-0165-0014. PHMSA expects the phase-out of legacy rail tank cars for PIH service will have a positive impact on safety because they would be replaced with more robust tank cars for use in the transportation of PIH materials and because regulatory certainty could foster market certainty. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed a phase-out deadline of December 31, 2027; however, the phase-out will go into effect under mandatory railroad interchange rules regardless of whether PHMSA adopts this date into regulation. As a result, there is no cost associated with PHMSA promulgating this date as a regulatory deadline for the phase-out. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. As such, PHMSA is codifying the phase-out of all non-HM-246 rail tank cars for use in the transportation of PIH materials. PHMSA's actions in this final rule provide both shippers and carriers with regulatory certainty on the transportation of PIH materials by rail. This regulatory certainty makes transportation cost predictable to industry and—more importantly—locks-in safety benefits associated with industry's movement to phase-out non-HM-246 tank cars in the transportation of PIH materials by rail. Therefore, PHMSA is revising § 173.31 to phase-out all non-HM-246 rail tank cars for the transportation of PIH materials by December 31, 2027, to align with the agreed upon phase-out dates between AAR and leading PIH material shippers. 15. Allow Non-RCRA Waste To Use Lab Pack Exception In its petition (P-1695), Veolia requests that PHMSA amend § 171.8 by adding a definition of “waste material” to allow for all waste material to be managed in accordance with the lab packs exception and associated paragraphs in § 173.12, regardless of whether it meets the definition of a “hazardous waste” in EPA regulations implementing RCRA at 40 CFR 261.3. The “lab pack exception” for waste under § 173.12(b) provides for exceptions from some HMR packaging requirements (such as those pertaining to chemical constituent marking and specification packaging requirements for combination packages) to facilitate transportation for disposal of certain waste materials when shipped in packages satisfying packaging requirements identified in that section. The petitioner notes that PHMSA has stated in a letter of interpretation (16-0099) 25 that this exception only applies to “hazardous wastes” as defined by EPA's regulations implementing RCRA; amendment of the HMR to make the lab pack exception in § 173.12 more broadly available to “waste materials” would provide regulatory relief in the disposal and recovery of hazardous materials. PHMSA received comments from Veolia and COSTHA in support of this proposal. 25 PHMSA Letter of Interpretation, Reference No. 16-0099, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/16-0099. PHMSA's technical review of the petition supports the petitioner's interpretation. Neither the regulatory text nor the preamble of the December 21, 1990 final rule codifying § 173.12(b) indicate the lab pack exception is limited to “hazardous wastes” as that term is defined under the EPA's RCRA regulations. 26 PHMSA expects that making all waste material eligible for the lab pack exception would not lead to a reduction in safety because waste materials present no greater hazard than materials defined as a hazardous waste according to the EPA's RCRA regulations. Further, insofar as the lab pack exception would make it easier for regulated entities without sophisticated compliance programs, or limited storage space, to dispose of waste consistent with the HMR, the final rule could improve safety. In addition, there are no costs expected based on this revision. Extension of the lab pack exception offers additional flexibility for transporting waste materials; it does not increase compliance costs or changes to how waste material is handled. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. 26 See 55 FR 52402, 52423 (Dec. 21, 1990). Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is adding a definition of “waste material” to allow for all waste material to be managed in accordance with the lab packs exception and associated paragraphs in § 173.12. 16. Incorporation of ASME Code Sections II, V, VIII, and IX In its petition (P-1700), Trinity Containers requests that PHMSA incorporate by reference the 2017 edition of the ASME BPVC Sections II (Parts A and B), V, VIII (Division 1), and IX into § 171.7(g)(1) of the HMR. The ASME BPVC is a consensus industry standard for the design and construction of boilers and pressure vessels. Significant revisions to the relevant portions of the ASME BPVC introduced in the 2017 edition include the following: • ASME BPVC Section II, Part A: Incorporation of 25 new American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and 7 new international specifications authorized in connection within ferrous material within ASME-compliant boilers and pressure vessels; • ASME BPVC Section II, Part B: Incorporation of 10 new ASTM specifications authorized for use in connection with non-ferrous material within ASME-compliant boilers and pressure vessels; • ASME BPVC Section V: Incorporation of 19 new ASTM specifications providing for ASME-compliant methodologies in conducting non-destructive examination of boilers and pressure vessels, as well as revisions of existing standards pertaining to acoustic emissions testing and block calibration; • ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 1: Revision of existing specifications for the construction of pressure vessels to expand coverage of openings and quick-action/actuation closures, clarify guidelines on performance of manual and automated ultrasonic testing, and provide new procedural pathways for manufacturers to obtain ASME certifications; and • ASME BPVC Section IX: Revision of existing specifications for welding, brazing and fusing qualifications to expand acceptable testing methods and clarify welder personnel qualification requirements. The petitioner contends that without regulatory amendment, ASME certificate holders would be obliged to comply with obsolete industry standards for manufacturing cargo tanks, non-specification tanks, and implements of husbandry to the ASME BPVC referenced in § 171.7(g)(1). PHMSA received comments on this proposal from Global Transport Tank Consultants (GTTC), GIS, and NJP Engineering. GTTC requests that PHMSA clarify which sections are being updated and whether the updated ASME BPVC Section VIII, Division 1 “Design Margin” would be applicable to any of the cargo tank packaging “designed” to the requirements of ASME BVCP Section VIII, Division 1. In addition, GTTC asks if it was PHMSA's intention to require the repair of ASME “marked” packaging to meet the requirements of the 1992 edition of the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) currently incorporated by reference in to HMR. GTTC and GIS request that PHMSA incorporate the 2019 editions of the ASME BPVC and the NBIC since they are currently available. NJP Engineering supports the HMR amendments proposed in the NPRM but requests correction of an alleged oversight by PHMSA in incorporating the 2015 edition of the ASME BPVC. 27 NJP Engineering notes that the ASME BPVC standard contains a requirement for a 6 percent knuckle radius on torispherical heads that is the subject of exception in three places (see §§ 178.346-1(d)(8), 178.347-1(d)(8), and 178.348(e)(2)(viii)) within the HMR. These HMR exceptions reference standard ASME BPVC standard UG-32(e) and were added to the HMR in response to the incorporation of the previous 1998 edition of the ASME BPVC. However, prior to the incorporation of the 2015 edition, ASME removed paragraph (b) from UG-32, resulting in the re-designation of the former UG-32(e) as UG-32(d). NJP Engineering seeks clarification that it was PHMSA's intention to retain those exceptions and recommends that “UG-32(e)” be replaced with “UG-32(d)” accordingly. 27 See 81 FR 25613 (Apr. 29, 2016). In this final rule, PHMSA is incorporating by reference the 2017 editions of the ASME BPVC Section II, Part A (Ferrous Materials Specifications); Section II, Part B (Nonferrous Material Specifications); Section V (Nondestructive Examination); Section VIII, Division 1 (Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Division); and Section IX (Welding, Brazing, and Fusing Qualifications). PHMSA's technical review of P-1700 determined that the HMR's incorporation by reference of the obsolete 2015 edition of the ASME BPVC could induce confusion among stakeholders about the controlling edition of the ASME BPVC. PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that adopting the updated edition would help ensure that the HMR remains consistent with the best practices used by the industry. The design margin(s) in the HMR for DOT specification cargo tanks remain as currently authorized; 28 this rulemaking does not authorize the “design margin” described in the 2017 edition of the ASME BPVC Sections II (Parts A and B), V, VIII (Division 1), and IX into the HMR for DOT specification cargo tanks, even as it would apply to specification portable tanks. This distinction was clarified in a letter of interpretation (17-0083 29 ) published in response to PHMSA's incorporation by reference of the 2015 edition of the ASME BPVC Section VIII Division. This rulemaking did not consider incorporating the updated NBIC; however, the 2017 edition is under review currently as part of the HM-241 30 rulemaking. The 1992 edition of the NBIC currently incorporated by reference into the HMR will remain in effect for the repair of ASME packagings manufactured in accordance with the HMR. PHMSA will retain the exceptions in §§ 178.346-1(d)(8), 178.347-1(d)(8), and 178.348(e)(2)(viii), and agrees that “UG-32(e)” should be replaced with “UG-32(d)” provisions. PHMSA is making an additional editorial change to the HMR to update the references to UG-32 as recommended by NJP Engineering. PHMSA expects that the cost-savings associated with P-1700 would be modest. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. 28 The ASME design margin does not apply to DOT specification cargo tanks because of the structural integrity sections in part 178, which specify alternative design margins. In contrast, the ASME design margin applies to portable tanks as the HMR contains no exception allowing the use of an alternative design margin. 29 PHMSA Letter of Interpretation Reference No. 17-0083, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/17-0083. 30 See Spring 2020 Unified Agenda at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202004&RIN=2137-AE58. 17. Import of Foreign Pi-Marked Cylinders In its petition (P-1701), CGA requests that PHMSA modify §§ 171.23, 173.302, and 173.304 to permit the transportation of filled pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles in compliance with applicable requirements of the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) and EU Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The HMR currently allows pi-marked cylinders (which are filled and shipped within the EU and marked with a pi (π) symbol to denote compliance with the ADR and EU Directive 2010/35/EU) to be imported through use of special permits. The petitioner requests revisions to the HMR authorizing without the need for a special permit, the (1) import, intermediate storage, transport to point of use, discharge, and export, as well as (2) import of empty pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles for filling, intermediate storage, and export. Entegris provided comments to the P-1701 docket 31 and requested additional revisions to §§ 171.23(a) and 173.302(a)(2) to allow shipment of adsorbed gasses within those pi-marked cylinders that were the subject of CGA's petition for rulemaking. The changes to § 171.23(a)(3) requested by Entegris are intended to allow for domestic sourcing as well as the import of empty pi-marked pressure receptacles for filling and export. 31 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2017-0026. PHMSA's technical review did not find evidence to suggest there would be any adverse safety impacts resulting from those HMR amendments. The shipping of pi-marked cylinders within the United States has been allowed for many years through special permits—with at least 3,000 shipments occurring since the special permits were first issued; there is also extensive operational experience in the safe international shipment of pi-marked cylinders. Although there is limited market data on the current export of pi-marked cylinders pursuant to special permit, PHMSA expects that adopting these amendments would not result in a change to the number of pi-marked cylinders that are transported or the risk profile of their transportation. Nonetheless, cost savings are expected to be minimal, resulting primarily from the potential time savings for industry and government due to the elimination of the need for a special permit. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. PHMSA received comments from CGA and Chemours in support of this proposal. COSTHA notes that the 2017 edition of the ADR is being referenced in § 171.7 of the NPRM. COSTHA also notes that as of September 2019, the most current edition of the ADR is the 2019 edition that became effective July 1, 2019. PHMSA will consider updating this reference in a future rulemaking, as it has yet to conduct a technical evaluation of the 2019 edition of the ADR. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying §§ 171.23, 173.302, and 173.304 to permit the import of filled pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles for storage incidental to movement, transport to point of use, discharge, and export. PHMSA is also permitting the transportation of pi-marked foreign pressure receptacles for export, including filling and storage incidental to movement. In addition, PHMSA is revising §§ 171.23(a) and 173.302(a)(2) to ensure that the authorization for pi-marked cylinders is applicable to adsorbed gas packages. Finally, to align with similar ADR provisions and increase shipper and carrier awareness of the requirements for pi-marked cylinders, PHMSA is requiring a notation on the shipping paper following the basic description of the hazardous material to certify compliance with the pi-marked cylinder requirements. PHMSA is updating § 171.7 to include the ADR and EU Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council into the HMR. 18. Placement of the Word “Stabilized” in Shipping Description In its petition (P-1706), Evonik requests that PHMSA revise how the word “stabilized” should appear when providing the shipping name for a hazardous material to maintain consistency with the IMDG Code. The HMR does not allow the word “stabilized” to appear as part of the proper shipping name, whereas the IMDG Code requires it, when stabilization is required prior to transportation. The petitioner claims that this causes needless discrepancies with the IMDG Code in connection with international shipments. PHMSA received comments from the Dow Chemical Company, Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC), and IVODGA supporting this proposal. PHMSA's technical review confirmed inconsistency between the HMR and the IMDG Code and revealed that hazardous materials that have some instability but that are not specifically identified or classified as self-reactive substances or organic peroxides cannot be shipped in compliance with both the IMDG Code and the HMR as currently written. In addition, PHMSA determined that requiring the use of the word “stabilized” when stabilization is required by § 173.21(f) would not result in any reduction in safety, but would instead increase safety by indicating that a material has been stabilized in preparing it for transportation. Although this amendment may incur costs for manufacturers and shippers related to training and compliance, costs are expected to be negligible because affected entities that engage in international commerce are already aware of the requirement under the IMDG Code. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 172.101(c) to clarify that the word “stabilized” must be included as part of the proper shipping name when the HMR requires stabilization before transportation. 19. Incorporation by Reference of an AESC/IME Standard In its petition (P-1710), IME requests that PHMSA update § 171.7(r) to update IME's corporate address and incorporate by reference the AESC/IME JPG Standard, also called the “Guide to Obtaining DOT Approval of Jet Perforating Guns using AESC/IME Perforating Gun Specifications,” Version 02, dated September 1, 2017. IME also proposes that PHMSA include a new § 173.67 codifying PHMSA's current practice excepting JPGs conforming to the AESC/IME JPG Standard from the exhaustive testing generally required pursuant to § 173.56 to receive an EX number authorizing transportation of a new explosive. 32 32 PHMSA's use of the 2008 version of the AESC/IME JPG Standard in its § 173.56 reviews is an informal practice and not a regulatory requirement. See Correspondence from Theodore L. Willke (PHMSA) to Lon Santis (IME) (Nov. 19, 2008), http://www.ocsresponds.com/ref/AESC-IMEPerfGunApproval(2008.11.19).pdf. JPGs use shaped explosive charges to produce a high-pressure jet penetrating the liner or casing of a wellbore to enhance production of oil and gas wells. The petitioners note that the initial version of the AESC/IME JPG Standard has been used by PHMSA since 2008. Entities seeking PHMSA's assignment of an EX number for a JPG product submit applications demonstrating conformity with one of 13 standard design templates within the AESC/IME JPG Standard, thereby avoiding having to submit their product for explosive laboratory testing normally required under § 173.56. IME submits that the HMR amendments identified in its petition would codify existing PHMSA practices for review of JPG products under § 173.56. PHMSA received no adverse comments on the petition or the proposals in the NPRM. PHMSA expects that adoption of the petition as proposed in the NPRM will not have an adverse effect on safety. PHMSA has relied on AESC/IME's JPG Standard to expedite its review of applications since 2008; PHMSA is unaware any significant operational or testing experience indicating that historical practice is unsafe. Further, the most recent version of the AESC/IME JPG Standard is potentially more conservative than the current standard, as it would narrow the universe of JPG product designs (from 13 to 8) eligible for expedited review to only those 1.1D products without a detonator. Furthermore, the economic analysis suggests potential annualized cost savings of approximately $360,000 for manufacturers of JPGs that would avail themselves of the newly-codified regulations incorporating the updated AESC/IME JPG Standard to avoid the need for explosives laboratory testing. Additional cost savings are expected for both manufacturers and PHMSA due to reduced labor requirements for processing applications for EX approvals. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. Therefore, in this final rule, PHMSA is updating IME's address in § 171.7(r), incorporating the updated AESC/IME JPG Standard into a new § 171.7(r)(3) of the HMR, and adding a new § 173.67 codifying existing practice allowing AESC/IME JPG Standard-compliant products access to expedited PHMSA review under § 173.56. 20. Incorporation by Reference of an Updated APA Standard 87-1 In its petition (P-1711), the APA requests that PHMSA incorporate by reference the 2018 edition of APA Standard 87-1, “Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties, and Theatrical Pyrotechnics” 33 to replace the outdated reference to the 2001 edition of this standard, noting advances in product safety and design in the fireworks industry over the last 15 years. Significant changes from the previous edition of APA Standard 87-1 include the following: 33 APA Standard 87-1 is a consensus industry standard in which fireworks classifications are assigned based upon the weight and type of chemical composition for each type of device, including specific permissible and restricted chemicals. • Re-organizing Standard 87-1 into three parts: APA Standard 87-1A (consumer fireworks), APA Standard 87-1B (display fireworks), and APA Standard 87-1C (entertainment and technical industry fireworks, otherwise referred to as articles pyrotechnics). • Updating the product descriptions throughout each of those parts to accommodate new types and configurations popularized since the 2001 edition of APA Standard 87-1. The petitioner contends that because the classification system in the 2001 edition of APA Standard 87-1 does not reflect new product types and configurations ( e.g., combination devices containing multiple tubes, and combinations of effects previously limited to single tubes), those new products are not eligible pursuant to §§ 173.64 and 173.65 for expedited PHMSA review and approval. 34 The petitioner submits that incorporation by reference of the updated version of APA Standard 87-1 would relieve administrative burdens on industry by facilitating expedited PHMSA review and approval of fireworks products and provide regulatory certainty regarding compliance with the HMR. 34 Sections 173.64 and 173.65 permit fireworks manufactured in compliance with APA Standard 87-1 to be classified and approved on an expedited basis, as each application for a new fireworks product would otherwise have to provide product-specific testing required under § 173.56 to obtain an EX number from PHMSA authorizing their transportation. PHMSA received numerous comments to the NPRM regarding this petition, and to address each issue, PHMSA broke them out into the following sub-sections for detailed discussion. General Comments: Support PHMSA received comments in support of this proposal from Charles Ward; Huang Johnson; Western Enterprises Inc.; ResPyro (Steve Comen); StageFX (Lyle Salmi); Galaxy Fireworks, Inc.; ResPyro (Kent Orwoll); NextFX; Fireworks Over America; Dennis Slicer; Santore and Sons; Pyrotechnics Guild International (Paul Smith); Garrett's Fireworks; ICON Pyrotechnics Internationals; American Fireworks Standards Laboratory (AFSL); Inter-Oriental Fireworks LTD; APA; APA Rebuttal to National Fireworks Association (NFA); and Matthew Jones. These commenters generally supported incorporating the updated APA Standard 87-1, noting that it will add numerous new devices, expand the permitted chemical list, and is directed toward hazard classification for transportation. The commenters add that the updated APA Standard 87-1 provides defined criteria that will relieve the burden of submitting new fireworks designs to a third-party test lab for classification and will reduce the regulatory burden on industry, including manufacturers and small business importers, who often have to spend their time helping their foreign manufacturers obtain EX approvals. General Comment: Opposed PHMSA received comments opposing incorporation of APA Standard 87-1A from Yienger Fireworks, NFA, and Crazy Debbie's Fireworks. NFA and Crazy Debbie's Fireworks explain that while many of the proposed revisions to APA Standards 87-1A, B, and C would clarify the requirements applicable to fireworks devices, there are certain revisions in APA Standard 87-1A that will not reduce regulatory burdens and do not relate to improving transportation safety. These commenters further contend that APA Standard 87-1A would conflict with the regulatory regime of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) governing the safety of fireworks from a consumer-use standpoint. Instead, PHMSA's incorporation of APA Standard 87-1 pertains to its distinguishable jurisdictional responsibility over regulation of packaging and transportation of fireworks and other hazardous materials. PHMSA-imposed restrictions on packaging and shipment of hazardous materials for transportation that give rise to incidental effects on the way those materials are marketed to consumers are, therefore, not duplicative or conflicting regulations. In addition, PHMSA notes that the APA 87-1 standards were developed with the resources of the APA, which welcomed broad input and participation from the fireworks industry. APA allowed organizations, including the NFA, to participate in that process as an organization. Comments Regarding Section 2.4: Break/Burst Charge Limits PHMSA received several comments on section 2.4 of APA Standard 87-1A, which outlines the general requirements that must be met for construction and design of consumer firework devices and novelties. Jake's Fireworks, NFA, Crazy Debbie's Fireworks, Ultratec Special Effects and the APA provided comments specifically on the break/burst charge limits outlined in this section of APA Standard 87-1A: • Jake's Fireworks contends that APA Standard 87-1A's limitation on metals in the composition of a break/burst charges was rejected by the CPSC commissioners, alleging that in doing so, the CPSC rejected metal composition as a factor in the safety of break/burst charges. • Ultratec Special Effects states that some of the weight limit increases for devices per tube in APA Standard 87-1A will allow for a break/burst charge of 42.5 grams, which is more than enough to produce a salute device. It also claims that if these devices were subject to UN Series 6 testing, they would likely be classified as 1.3G or 1.1G devices, further adding that reports and airburst reports should always be subject to UN Series 6 testing since these devices are highly energetic and should be scrutinized for proper construction and packing techniques to ensure safe transportation. Ultratec Special Effects adds that many of these devices are currently unregulated due to older issued EX numbers that have vague specifications and no specified part numbers. • NFA asserts that adoption of the language for break/burst charges in APA Standard 87-1A will not reduce regulatory burdens and will create conflict and confusion between agency regulations instead, further claiming that it is unrelated to safe transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. • Crazy Debbie's Fireworks alleges that APA Standards 87-1A and C should have identical break/burst charge limits for the same fireworks. By way of example, Crazy Debbie's Fireworks notes that for the same firework—“UN0336, Fireworks, 1.4G”—each of APA Standard 87-1A and Standard 87-1C impose two different break/burst composition restrictions. Under APA Standard 87-1A, this material is limited to less than 149 microns (100 mesh) metals in the break/burst charges, but APA Standard 87-1C states that aluminum particles greater than 53 microns in diameter must not exceed 10 percent by weight of the break/burst charge. APA Standard 87-1A's restrictions on metal size and chemical composition within break/burst charges for consumer fireworks are not new regulatory requirements; rather, they have been in place since the 2001 edition of APA Standard 87-1 currently incorporated into § 171.7, as metal size and chemical composition directly impact hazard classification. For this reason, PHMSA is not persuaded by the commenters' arguments that APA Standard 87-1A's limitations on break/burst device metal composition are unnecessary; rather, PHMSA understands those metal size limitations to be essential to safe transportation of consumer fireworks whose chemical structure and metal composition makes them inherently more dangerous than fireworks with different constituents. Further, even if the CPSC may not have had reservations about whether an adequate technical basis to conclude that the precise metal composition limits at issue in its rulemaking would ensure consumer product safety, PHMSA is satisfied, based on its experience regulating transportation of hazardous materials (an activity that involves a different risk profile than use of fireworks by individual consumers) that the approach taken in APA Standard 87-1 and 87-1A is appropriate for its transportation regulatory oversight activities. PHMSA notes that none of the commenters on the NPRM provided technical or operational data supporting a contrary conclusion. In addition, Ultratec Special Effects' assertion that APA Standard 87-1A will allow for an increased break/burst charge of 42.5 grams, and therefore allow salute device access to the expedited review processes under §§ 173.64 and 173.65, is incorrect. A device containing a burst charge weight of 42.5 grams would not comply with either the existing APA Standard 87-1 nor the updated APA Standard 87-1A. The only weight increases in the updated APA Standard 87-1A pertain to fountain devices, which do not contain burst/break charges; the break/burst charge weight limit of 15 grams for aerial shells did not change. Devices with break/burst charges exceeding 15 grams would have to be submitted to a DOT-approved test laboratory pursuant to § 173.56, where the device would be subjected to the UN Series 6 testing and subsequently reviewed by PHMSA. Further, although PHMSA acknowledges that the HMR allows the use of the default UN classification testing (including UN Series 6 testing) instead of reliance on compliance with APA Standard 87-1A, PHMSA is not convinced that UN Series 6 testing is necessarily superior to APA Standard 87-1A's approach of limiting the metal particle sizes and chemical composition. Indeed, insofar as both APA Standards (87-1 and 87-1A) as well as the UN Model Regulations classify fireworks with an eye toward limiting the amount of flash powder compositions that can be present in fireworks, they do so by different approaches: APA Standard 87-1 and the updated 87-1A do so by way of adjusting chemical composition and metal particle sizes to control flash powder compositions, while the UN Model Regulations rely on the use of a flash powder test to determine the presence of flash powder compositions. Based on its long experience regulating safe transportation of fireworks, PHMSA is satisfied that both the APA Standard (87 and 87-1A) and UN approaches are appropriate. PHMSA notes that none of the commenters on the NPRM provided technical or operational data supporting a contrary conclusion. PHMSA is aware of the different limits on metal size permitted under APA Standards 87-1A and C for the same UN0336, 1.4G firework. As explained above, PHMSA understands metal size to be an important factor in classifying fireworks to ensure their safe transportation. But metal size is not necessarily the only component that should be considered in the classification of fireworks under the HMR. Indeed, the differences between APA Standards 87-1A and C with respect to the same fireworks reflect the common-sense proposition that other characteristics of fireworks can influence their classification for regulation of their transportation—and that those transportation-relevant characteristics often derive from (or incidentally effect) the end uses of the fireworks. As explained by APA in supplemental comments submitted in response to Crazy Debbie's Fireworks et al., the chemical composition and design of articles pyrotechnics governed by APA Standard 87-1C are much more energetic than the consumer fireworks governed by APA Standard 87-1A—hence, the difference in authorized metal sizes despite the same 1.4G classification. PHMSA understands the different metal size limits for consumer applications (APA Standard 87-1A) and articles pyrotechnics applications (APA Standard 87-1C) to be appropriate. Comments Regarding Reloadable Aerial Shell Kits PHMSA received comments from Jake's Fireworks, NFA, and Crazy Debbie's Fireworks, on sections 2.4 and 3.2.5.1 of APA Standard 87-1A pertaining to reloadable aerial shell kits. These commenters do not view those requirements (for fully assembled tubes, inner packaging and a base) as being related to the risk of harm in the transportation of these products, instead claiming they relate to the kits' packaging and design as it interfaces with the consumer, which they allege is subject to the jurisdiction of the CPSC and distinct from transportation safety regulated by PHMSA. NFA further claims adoption of this portion of the proposed language under section 3.2.5.1 will not reduce regulatory burdens, may create conflict and confusion between CPSC and PHMSA regulations, and eliminate a currently-allowed industry practice prior to an item being offered for retail sale. However, APA submitted supplemental comments noting that NFA, et al. were not criticizing the NPRM so much as existing HMR requirements as elaborated by PHMSA safety guidance 35 on reloadable aerial shell kits. APA further explained that the transportation of completed kits with inner packaging significantly increases safety in the event of an incident occurring during transportation: If a trailer load or shipping container of reloadable shells did not have the separation provided by inner packaging required under APA Standard 87-1A, the product could behave as a 1.3G explosive and pose far more serious transportation risks than a 1.4G incident. 35 https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/energetic-materials-approvals/18296/safetyguidancefortheclassificationofanaerialshellkit.pdf. PHMSA agrees with APA that Standard 87-1A's requirement for reloadable aerial shell kits to contain fully assembled tube and be packaged in an inner packaging with base is not a new regulatory requirement: Those elements are in the 2001 edition of APA Standard 87-1, in addition to the PHMSA guidance identified above. PHMSA further agrees with APA that the requirements for inner packagings and bases for reloadable aerial shell kits in APA Standard 87-1A are important contributors to the safe shipment of aerial shell kits. Indeed, PHMSA's technical review regarding P-1710 included research yielding a preliminary conclusion that reloadable aerial shell kits can be shipped in bulk safely as 1.4G explosives. Comments Regarding Appendices PHMSA received comments from Jake's Fireworks and the NFA on “Appendix VI: General Requirements Pertaining to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.” The commenters note that the requirements in Appendix VI do not relate to matters of transportation safety, but rather concern consumer safety issues which are within the jurisdiction of the CPSC. PHMSA agrees with the commenters that Appendix VI of APA Standard 87-1A is within the jurisdiction of CPSC, and will therefore not incorporate it by reference in this final rule. Nor will PHMSA incorporate by reference any of Appendices II-V of APA Standard 87-1A, Appendices II-IV of APA Standard 87-1B, and Appendices II-IV of APA Standard 87-1C, as PHMSA has not conducted a technical evaluation of those Appendices. Conclusion Regarding Incorporation by Reference of Updated APA Standard Based on PHMSA's technical analysis and the comments received on the NPRM, PHMSA will in this final rule incorporate by reference the updated APA Standards 87-1A, B, and C, with their respective Appendix I Permitted and Restricted Chemicals lists. Other Appendices of APA Standard 87-1A (Appendices II-VI), APA Standard 87-1B (Appendices II-IV), and APA Standard 87-1C (Appendices II-IV) will not be incorporated by reference. PHMSA expects the updated APA Standards 87-1A, B, and C will provide clarity to the fireworks industry, while maintaining the composition restrictions for classification that are needed to ensure the safe transportation of fireworks. Furthermore, PHMSA's decision to incorporate by reference the updated APA Standard 87-1 is based on its review of the requirements for consumer fireworks in APA Standard 87-1A, display fireworks in APA Standard 87-1B, and professional fireworks (classed as articles pyrotechnics) in APA Standard 87-1C. These standards add numerous new devices, expand the permitted chemical list, and are directed toward hazard classification for transportation. PHMSA is also clarifying that in incorporating Appendix I of each of APA Standards 87-1A, B, and C, it will adopt a one-percent manufacturing tolerance for the application of the chemical constituent limits in updated APA Standard 87-1. This would mean that for individual chemical constituents, an increase or decrease of one-percent of that material's share of the composition compared to the limits set forth in the updated APA Standard will be permitted for chemicals (other than red phosphorous and silver fulminate). PHMSA expects its incorporation of the updated APA Standard 87-1 will provide cost savings to the fireworks industry by streamlining the EX approval process for many types of pyrotechnic devices. The EX approval processes within the updated APA Standard 87-1 will relieve the burden of submitting new fireworks designs to a third-party test lab for classification—a compliance cost often borne by distributors and small business importers, who often must contract to assist foreign manufacturing sources in obtaining EX approvals for their manufactured products. In addition, PHMSA expects that the incorporation of the revised APA standards will provide opportunities for the fireworks industry to work with the Department of Defense in developing incendiary type devices for training exercises. PHMSA estimates that adoption of this petition would provide an annualized cost savings of approximately $270,000 to industry through expediting the approval process to reduce explosives lab testing requirements. A more detailed discussion of the economic analysis can be found in the accompanying RIA. V. Section-by-Section Review Below is a section-by-section description of the amendments in this final rule. 1. Appendix A to Part 107, Subpart D Appendix A to Part 107, Subpart D sets forth the guidelines PHMSA uses (as of October 2, 2013) in making initial baseline determinations for civil penalties. In this final rule, PHMSA is updating the references to APA Standard 87-1 to reflect the new edition of this standard. 2. Section 107.402 Section 107.402 outlines how to apply for designation as a certification agency. PHMSA is updating the references to the APA Standard 87-1 to reflect the new edition of this standard in § 107.402(d). 3. 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 final rule, PHMSA is incorporating by reference the following publications by the APA, ASME, CGA, EU, and AESC/IME: • European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, 2017, into § 171.23. The ADR is the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road within the EU. • Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, June 16, 2010, into § 171.23. The aim of Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Transportable Pressure Equipment (2010 TPED) is to promote the free movement of transportable pressure equipment (TPE) within the European Community (EC). It provides for a legal structure whereby TPE can be manufactured and sold and used throughout the EC. • CGA C-6.1, Standards for Visual Inspection of High Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders, 2002, Fourth Edition, into §§ 180.205 and 180.209. This publication has been prepared as a guide for the visual inspection of aluminum compressed gas cylinders with service pressures of 1800 psig or greater. It is general in nature and does not cover all circumstances for each individual cylinder type or lading. • CGA C-6.3, Guidelines for Visual Inspection and Requalification of Low Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders, 2013, Third Edition, into §§ 180.205 and 180.209. This publication has been prepared as a guide for the periodic inspection of aluminum alloy compressed gas cylinders with service pressures of 500 psi or less. This publication is general in nature and will not cover all circumstances for each individual cylinder type or lading. • CGA C-11, Recommended Practices for Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders at Time of Manufacture, 2013, Fifth Edition, into § 178.35. The purpose of this publication is to promote safety by outlining inspection requirements of DOT and UN pressure vessels as interpreted and practiced by manufacturers and inspectors. • CGA S-7, Method for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders, 2013, Fifth Edition, into § 173.301. This method is applicable to the determination of the PRD to use with compressed gas mixtures in cylinders. This method is limited to those compressed gas mixtures with known flammability, toxicity, state, and corrosively. • ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017 (as follows), into §§ 172.102; 173.3; 173.5b; 173.24b; 173.306; 173.315; 173.318; 173.420; 178.255-1; 178.255-2; 178.255-14; 178.255-15; 178.273; 178.274; 178.276; 178.277; 178.320; 178.337-1; 178.337-2; 178.337-3; 178.337-4; 178.337-6; 178.337-16; 178.337-18; 178.338-1; 178.338-2; 178.338-3; 178.338-4; 178.338-5; 178.338-6; 178.338-13; 178.338-16; 178.338-18; 178.338-19; 178.345-1; 178.345-2; 178.345-3; 178.345-4; 178.345-7; 178.345-14; 178.345-15; 178.346-1; 178.347-1; 178.348-1; 179.400-3; and 180.407. The ASME BPVC is a standard that regulates the design and construction of boilers and pressure vessels. The document is written and maintained by volunteers chosen for their technical expertise. • AESC/IME JPG Standard, Guide to Obtaining DOT Approval of Jet Perforating Guns using AESC/IME Perforating Gun Specifications, Ver. 02, dated September 1, 2017, into § 173.67. The AESC/IME JPG Standard was developed by IME, AESC, and PHMSA to provide an efficient and economical mechanism to obtain explosives approvals of JPGs in compliance with the HMR. Applications that are prepared and submitted using the standard are processed by PHMSA with minimal delay and without the need for expensive and time-consuming testing. • APA Standards: 87-1A Standard for the Construction, Classification, Approval and Transportation of Consumer Fireworks, January 1, 2018 edition into §§ 107.402(d), 173.59, 173.64, 173.65, and Appendix A to Part 107, Subpart D (Guidelines for Civil Penalties); 87-1B Standard for the Construction, Classification, Approval, and Transportation of Display Fireworks, January 1, 2018 edition into § 173.64 and Appendix C to Part 107, Subpart D (Guidelines for Civil Penalties); and 87-1C Standard for the Construction, Classification, Approval, and Transportation of Entertainment Industry and Technical (EI&T) Pyrotechnics, January 1, 2018 edition version into § 173.64 and Appendix A to Part 107, Subpart D (Guidelines for Civil Penalties). APA Standard 87-1A, B, and C is a consensus standard in which fireworks classifications are assigned based upon the weight and type of chemical composition contained for each specific type of device, including specific permissible and restricted chemicals. 4. Section 171.8 Section 171.8 defines terms generally used throughout the HMR that have broad or multi-modal applicability. PHMSA is adding a definition for “waste material” to allow wastes that do not meet the EPA/RCRA definition of hazardous waste to be managed in accordance with the lab pack exception and associated paragraphs in § 171.23. 5. Section 171.23 Section 171.23 covers the requirements for specific materials and packagings transported under the ICAO Technical Instructions, IMDG Code, TC Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations, or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations. PHMSA is revising § 171.23(a)(3) to allow for the use of pressure vessels and pressure receptacles that are marked with a pi mark in accordance with the European Directive 2010/35/EU on TPED and that comply with the requirements of Packing Instruction P200, P208 and 6.2 of ADR concerning PRD use, test period, filling ratios, test pressure, maximum working pressure, and material compatibility for the lading contained or gas being filled. This revision allows for import, intermediate storage, transport to point of use, discharge, and export of pi-marked cylinders. Note that since the publication of the NPRM, PHMSA has made minor editorial revisions to this section such as revising § 171.23(a)(3) to refer to 6.2.2. of the ADR instead of 6.2. PHMSA also removed the word “import” from § 171.23(a)(3)(i) and “export” from § 171.23(a)(3)(ii). 6. Section 172.101 The HMT is contained in § 172.101. The HMT lists alphabetically, by proper shipping name, those materials that have been designated hazardous materials for transportation purpose. It provides information used on shipping papers, package marking, and labeling, as well as other pertinent shipping information for hazardous materials. In this final rule, PHMSA is removing references to special provision 103 from Column (7) of the HMT for the following four explosive entries: “UN0361, Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for blasting”; “UN0365, Detonators for ammunition”; “UN0255, Detonators, electric, for blasting”; and “UN0267, Detonators, non-electric, for blasting.” PHMSA is also revising more than 100 entries to harmonize the limited quantity exceptions in Column (8A) with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the UN Model Regulations. 7. 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 particular quantities or forms of hazardous materials. Consistent with the § 172.101 Column (7) revisions to “UN0361, Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for blasting”; “UN0365, Detonators for ammunition”; “UN0255, Detonators, electric, for blasting”; and “UN0267, Detonators, non-electric, for blasting,” PHMSA is removing special provision 103 as it would no longer apply to any HMT entry. 8. Section 172.302 Section 172.302 describes the general marking requirements for bulk packagings. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the minimum size of the marking requirement on certain portable tanks in § 172.302(b)(2). This revision requires a minimum marking of 12 mm (0.47 inch) in height as applicable to portable tanks with capacities less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons). 9. Section 173.5b Section 173.5b authorizes the transportation by highway of residual amounts of Division 2.2 refrigerant gases or anhydrous ammonia contained in non-specification pressure vessels that are components of refrigeration systems. PHMSA is revising paragraph (b) to indefinitely allow the use of refrigeration systems placed into service prior to June 1, 1991 under specified conditions. 10. Section 173.28 Section 173.28 outlines the requirements for the reuse, reconditioning, and re-manufacture of packagings. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying language in § 173.28(c)(1)(i) to clarify requirements for reconditioning metal drums and to allow for the sufficient removal of external coatings to ensure there is no adverse effect on transportation safety. 11. Section 173.31 Section 173.31 outlines the requirements for shipping hazardous materials in tank cars. In this final rule, PHMSA is prohibiting the use of tank cars that were manufactured using non-normalized steel for head or shell construction for the transportation of PIH materials after December 31, 2020. Furthermore, PHMSA is phasing out all non-HM-246 compliant tank cars for the transportation of PIH materials by December 31, 2027. 12. Section 173.56 Section 173.56 outlines the definitions and procedures for the classification and approval of a new explosive. In this final rule, PHMSA is adding a reference to the new § 173.67, which would apply to exceptions for Division 1.1 JPGs. 13. Section 173.59 Section 173.59 outlines the description of terms for explosives. In this final rule, PHMSA is updating a reference to the APA documents in the definition of consumer fireworks. 14. Section 173.64 Section 173.64 outlines the exceptions for Division 1.3 and 1.4 fireworks. In this final rule, PHMSA is updating a reference to the APA documents in § 173.64(a)(1) and (3). 15. Section 173.65 Section 173.65 outlines the exceptions for Division 1.4G consumer fireworks. In this final rule, PHMSA is updating a reference to the APA documents in § 173.65(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(iv). 16. Section 173.67 In this final rule, PHMSA is adding a new § 173.67 to outline exceptions for Division 1.1 JPGs. 17. Section 173.151 Section 173.151 outlines exceptions for Class 4 materials. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the limited quantities provisions in this section to present limited quantities in appropriate SI units in liters in addition to kilograms. 18. Section 173.244 Section 173.244 outlines the requirements for bulk packaging for certain pyrophoric liquids, dangerous when wet (Division 4.3) materials, and poisonous liquids with inhalation hazards (Division 6.1). In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying the list of authorized tank car specifications in the table of PIH materials (§ 173.244(a)(2)) by replacing the delimiter “I” with “W” to reflect the change of the interim tank car standard to a permanent standard. 19. Section 173.302 Section 173.302 outlines the requirements for the filling of cylinders with nonliquefied (permanent) compressed gases or adsorbed gases. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 173.302(a)(1) to refer to exceptions in § 171.23(a)(3) for the importation of pi-marked cylinders. PHMSA is also revising § 173.302(a)(2) to make adsorbed gases eligible for the exceptions provided in § 171.23(a)(3). 20. Section 173.304 Section 173.304 outlines the requirements for the filling of cylinders with liquefied compressed gases. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 173.304(a) to refer to exceptions in § 171.23(a)(3) for the importation of pi-marked cylinders. 21. Section 173.308 Section 173.308 outlines the requirements for the shipment of lighters. In this final rule, PHMSA is deleting § 173.308(d)(3), which requires a closed transport vehicle or closed freight container being transported by vessel to contain the marking, “WARNING—MAY CONTAIN EXPLOSIVE MIXTURES WITH AIR—KEEP IGNITION SOURCES AWAY WHEN OPENING.” 22. Section 173.314 Section 173.314 outlines the requirements for transporting compressed gases in tank cars and multi-unit tank cars. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying the table in § 173.314(c), which lists the authorized tank car specifications for specific compressed gases. The changes replace the last specification delimiter “J” with “H” and “I” with “W” to reflect the change of the interim HM-246 tank car specification standard for PIH materials to a permanent standard. 23. Section 178.35 Section 178.35 prescribes the manufacturing and testing specifications for cylinders used for the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying § 178.35(b) and (c) to clarify inspection requirements as stipulated in CGA C-11. This includes revision to the inspector duties as consistent with CGA C-11. 24. Section 178.521 Section 178.521 prescribes the requirements for paper bags used as non-bulk packagings for hazardous materials. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising § 178.521(b)(4) to allow for a weight tolerance of ±10 percent from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report instead of ±5 percent. 25. Section 179.22 Section 179.22 specifies additional marking requirements for tank cars. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying § 179.22(e) to provide for new markings for tank cars manufactured after March 16, 2009, to meet the requirements of §§ 173.244(a)(2) or (3) or 173.314(c) or (d) to reflect the change of the interim tank car standard to a permanent standard. PHMSA is replacing “I” with “W” for cars manufactured before the effective date of this final rule and specifying that tank cars manufactured after the effective date will be marked with “W” following the test pressure and with a delimiter of “H.” 26. Section 180.209 Section 180.209 specifies requirements for requalification of specification cylinders. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying § 180.209(l)(2) to reference § 171.23(a)(5) in lieu of paragraph (4). 27. Section 180.213 Section 180.213 specifies requirements for requalification markings. In this final rule, PHMSA is modifying § 180.213(d)(2) to reference § 171.23(a)(5) in lieu of paragraph (4). 28. Section 180.417 Section 180.417 prescribes the reporting and record retention requirements pertaining to cargo tanks. Currently, §§ 180.417(a)(3)(i) and (ii) allow the use of alternative reports when a manufacturer's certificate and related papers are not available for DOT specification cargo tanks that were manufactured before September 1, 1995. In this final rule, PHMSA is removing the provision that limits use of alternative reports to those DOT specification cargo tanks “manufactured before September 1, 1995” from § 180.417(a)(3). VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking This rulemaking is published under the authority of Federal hazardous materials transportation law 36 (Federal hazmat law.). Section 5103(b) of the Federal hazmat law 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's authority regarding hazardous materials safety is delegated to PHMSA at 49 CFR 1.97. This rulemaking amends several sections of the HMR in response to petitions for rulemaking received from the regulated community. 36 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” 37 and, therefore, was not formally reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rulemaking is also not considered a significant rulemaking under the DOT regulations governing rulemaking procedures at 49 CFR part 5, subpart B. E.O. 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” Similarly, DOT regulations at § 5.5(f)-(g) require that regulations issued by PHMSA and other DOT Operating Administrations “should be designed to minimize burdens and reduce barriers to market entry whenever possible, consistent with the effective promotion of safety” and should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” 37 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). In addition, E.O. 12866 and DOT implementing regulations at 49 CFR 5.5(i) require PHMSA to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation, which also reinforces requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, in the NPRM, PHMSA sought public comment on its proposed revisions to the HMR, the preliminary cost and cost savings analyses in the Preliminary RIA, as well as any information that could assist in quantifying the benefits of this rulemaking. Those comments are addressed in this final rule, and additional discussion about the economic impacts of the final rule are provided within the RIA posted in the docket. In this final rule, PHMSA is introducing amendments to the HMR responding to 24 petitions that have been submitted by stakeholders. Overall, this rulema [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-23712. Public record. Not legal advice.