{"operation":"document","citation":"84 FR 41556","title":"Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2019-08-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"This rulemaking responds to numerous petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community that request PHMSA address a variety of provisions, including but not limited to those addressing packaging, hazardous communication, and incorporation by reference documents. PHMSA proposes amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations to update, clarify, improve the safety of, or provide relief from various regulatory requirements. The proposed amendments include adopting a phase-out schedule for certain railroad tank cars used to transport materials poisonous by inhalation, allowing the continued use of certain portable and mobile refrigerator systems commonly used in the produce industry, incorporating an industry standard that can help to enhance the production of oil and gas wells, and incorporating an updated consensus standard which applies to the existing market for fireworks; as well as additional proposed amendments derived from PHMSA's petition for rulemaking process.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2019-16675.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2019-16675.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2019-16675","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-16675/hazardous-materials-adoption-of-miscellaneous-petitions-to-reduce-regulatory-burdens","body":"Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019) [Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 41556-41594] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2019-16675] [[Page 41555]] Vol. 84 Wednesday, No. 157 August 14, 2019 Part V Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, et al. Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions To Reduce Regulatory Burdens; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2019 / Proposed Rules [[Page 41556]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This rulemaking responds to numerous petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community that request PHMSA address a variety of provisions, including but not limited to those addressing packaging, hazardous communication, and incorporation by reference documents. PHMSA proposes amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations to update, clarify, improve the safety of, or provide relief from various regulatory requirements. The proposed amendments include adopting a phase-out schedule for certain railroad tank cars used to transport materials poisonous by inhalation, allowing the continued use of certain portable and mobile refrigerator systems commonly used in the produce industry, incorporating an industry standard that can help to enhance the production of oil and gas wells, and incorporating an updated consensus standard which applies to the existing market for fireworks; as well as additional proposed amendments derived from PHMSA's petition for rulemaking process. DATES: Comments must be submitted by October 15, 2019. To the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments as a final rule is developed. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by identification of the docket number (PHMSA-2017-0120 (HM-219C)) by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-202-493-2251. Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), including any personal information. Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents (including the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA)) or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Candace Casey at (202) 366-8553 at the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, 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 APA American Pyrotechnics Association ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME BPVC ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ATCCRP Advanced Tank Car Collaborative Research Program CPC Casualty Prevention Circular CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CGA Compressed Gas Association COSTHA Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles DGTA Dangerous Goods Trainers Association DOT Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations HMT Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IBC Intermediate Bulk Container IBR Incorporation by Reference 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 JPG Jet Perforating Gun MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure MTC Manual of Tests and Criteria NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PIH Poison Inhalation Hazard PRD Pressure Relief Device PRIA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis PSI Pounds per Square Inch PSIG Pounds per Square Inch Gauge RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RID European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail RIPA Reusable Industrial Packaging Association RSI Railway Supply Institute TDG Transport of Dangerous Goods TPED Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive TTMA Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association UN Model Regulations United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations Unified Agenda Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions UNSCOE TDG United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Table of Contents I. Background II. Review of Proposed Amendments III. Section-by-Section IV. 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. Regulatory 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 requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule (See 5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA's rulemaking procedure regulations (See [[Page 41557]] 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 106.95) allows persons to ask PHMSA to add, revise, or delete a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking containing adequate support for the requested action. In this NPRM, PHMSA (also ``we'' or ``us'') proposes to amend the HMR in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by shippers, carriers, manufacturers, and industry representatives. These proposed revisions are intended to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining, or enhancing, the existing level of safety. We discuss the petitions and proposals in detail in Section II of this NPRM. In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to: Prohibit after December 31, 2020, the use of rail tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel used for transportation of poison-by-inhalation (PIH) materials. Harmonize the limited quantity exceptions for more than 100 entries for corrosive materials in the HMT. Revise Sec. 173.302(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). Revise Sec. 173.28(c)(1)(i) to add the words ``substantially removed'' in the context of cleaning metal drums for reuse and clarifying the requisite cleaning standard. Revise Sec. 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). Incorporate by reference updated versions of multiple CGA publications. Remove the reference to Special Provision 103 in Sec. 172.101 from Column (7) for four HMT entries to allow them to be shipped as safety devices. Revise the HMT entry for ``UN0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic'' to allow the shipper to use the exceptions provided in Sec. 173.166(d). Remove the words ``manufactured before September 1, 1995'' from Sec. 180.417(a)(3) to allow for an alternative report for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1985. Revise the basis weight tolerance provided in Sec. 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. Revise Sec. 173.308(d)(3) to harmonize with the 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. Make the ``interim'' rail tank car specifications the ``final'' specifications for the transportation of PIH materials. Prohibit after December 31, 2027, the use of certain rail tank cars for the transportation of PIH materials. Allow for all waste materials to be managed in accordance with the lab pack exception and associated paragraphs in Sec. 173.12 irrespective of whether they meet the definition of a hazardous waste per the EPA or the RCRA. Incorporate by reference the 2017 version of the ASME BPVC Sections II (Parts A and B, C and D), VIII (Division 1), and IX into the HMR. Revise Sec. Sec. 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 filling, intermediate storage, and export. Revise the language in Sec. 173.166 to clarify the term ``recycle'' by adding the word ``metal'' in front of ``recycling.'' Correct Sec. 171.7(r) to include the address of the IME and to incorporate the IME/Association of Energy Service Companies (AESC) 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 as material incorporated by reference. Update to the January 1, 2018 version of the APA Standard 87-1, ``Standard for Construction and Approval for Transportation of Fireworks, Novelties, and Theatrical Pyrotechnics'', which is currently incorporated by reference in Sec. 171.7(f) of the HMR. II. Review of Proposed Amendments 1. Phase-Out of Non-Normalized Tank Cars Used To Transport PIH Materials In its petition (P-1646), AAR requested that PHMSA consider an amendment to prohibit the use of rail tank cars with shells or heads constructed of non-normalized steel for transportation of PIH materials. In its petition, AAR states that the use of pressurized tank cars constructed from non-normalized steel for rail transportation of PIH materials poses an unnecessary risk to the public. AAR adds that non-normalized steel is susceptible to brittle fractures at lower temperatures, and brittle fractures are far more likely to result in a catastrophic failure and instantaneous release of a car's entire contents than ductile fractures. While a slow release of contents generally has time to dissipate in the atmosphere, AAR notes that an instantaneous release creates a concentrated toxic cloud with potential catastrophic consequences for the nearby population. AAR has required that tank cars built since 1989 and used in PIH service must be constructed of normalized steel. PHMSA believes the phase-out of these legacy rail tank cars would have a positive impact on safety due to their replacement with more robust tanks cars used for the transportation of PIH materials. On April 7, 2017, AAR adopted CPC-1325, which 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 kept the July 1, 2019 phase-out deadline for the non- normalized steel tank cars. CPC-1336 is incorporated into the AAR members' railroad interchange rules that railroads require compliance with as a condition of shipping hazardous materials by rail. PHMSA proposes to respond to P-1646 by codifying a phase-out of these non- normalized steel tank cars in the HMR that would take effect as of December 31, 2020. PHMSA proposes this date as a general approximation of when this rulemaking is expected to be finalized. However, the AAR phase-out is expected to go into effect regardless of whether PHMSA adopts July 1, 2019, December 31, 2020, or another date into regulation. As a result, there is no cost associated with PHMSA aligning this date as a regulatory deadline. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit in phasing-out these non- normalized rail tank cars used for the transportation of PIH materials. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. 173.31 to 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 requested a revision to the HMT for limited quantities of hydrogen peroxide. Specifically, this petition requests that PHMSA harmonize Column (8A) packaging exceptions for limited quantities of ``UN2014, Hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution,'' with the UN Model Regulations. Currently, the HMT does not allow the limited quantity exception for UN2014, while [[Page 41558]] various other international standards and regulations such as the UN Model Regulations provide for transport of UN2014 in limited quantities, up to 60 percent concentration. Steris argues that harmonizing with the UN Model Regulations would provide economic and logistics consistency in global transport of this material in limited quantities and would facilitate commerce for domestic companies. The shipment of limited quantities of materials similar to those proposed in this petition is already permitted under the HMR. Therefore, PHMSA believes that expanding the exceptions to these additional materials would not cause a reduction in safety. In addition, because these are exceptions to the HMR, PHMSA would expect cost savings to be achieved if the proposal is finalized. However, due to a lack of national data on these types of shipments, PHMSA was unable to quantify the specific cost savings that would result from this change. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit in proposing this revision to the HMT. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Column (8A) of the HMT for ``UN2014, Hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution'' to allow limited quantities packaging exceptions for this material by referencing Sec. 173.152 for exceptions for Division 5.1 oxidizers. 3. Markings on Portable Tanks In his petition (P-1666), William J. Briner suggested that the HMR be revised, consistent with Sec. 172.302(b)(2) and 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 3,000 L (792.52 gallons). The revision would also eliminate confusion about the size of markings on portable tanks, as there is no requirement that they be marked with the proper shipping name under the HMR when they are placarded. A technical review of this petition found that harmonizing the size of this marking with the IMDG Code would not have a negative effect on safety. While this proposal would allow for smaller markings on portable tanks with a capacity of less than 3,000 L (792.52 gallons), PHMSA is unable to quantify these cost savings as it does not have cost data on the savings gained from using smaller markings and to how many stakeholders they might apply. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit in proposing this revision. However, PHMSA believes the size limit of the container should be consistent with the 3,785 L (1,000 gallon) limit currently in this section. In this NPRM, PHSMA is proposing to revise Sec. 172.302(b)(2) to allow that proper shipping name markings on portable tanks with a capacity of less than 3,785 L (1,000 gallons) to be a minimum of 12 mm (0.47 inches). 4. Reconditioning of Metal Drums In its petition (P-1670), RIPA requested a revision to Sec. 173.28(c)(1)(i) to require that labels be substantially removed, rather than simply removed. RIPA believes that a strict reading of the current regulation 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 generally accepted for the last 60 years and have never been considered a safety issue. A technical review of the petition found there is no evidence that allowing for minimal amounts of residual glue to remain on a drum after cleaning would have any effect on safety. However, PHMSA asserts that there must be a standard to which the drums are cleaned for the coatings and labels to be considered substantially removed. While this proposal is a relaxation of the requirements in the HMR, PHMSA is unable to quantify these cost savings because it does not have data on the cost differences between ``removed'' and ``substantially removed,'' or to how many firms they might apply. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found that there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is also proposing to revise Sec. 173.28(c)(1)(i) to allow tightly adhering paint, mill scale, and rust to remain on no more than 10 percent of each unit's surface area. 5. Limited Quantity Harmonization In its petition (P-1676), URS Corporation requests revisions to Column (8A) of the HMT to allow for the shipment of several hazardous materials to be shipped as limited quantities. Specifically, this petition requests that PHMSA harmonize Column (8A) of the HMT for limited quantities for 45 proper shipping names. Currently, the HMT does not allow the limited quantity exception for the materials listed by the petitioner. URS Corporation indicates that if the limited quantity exception is not added to the HMT as proposed, then there would continue to be confusion about hazardous materials shipments imported into the United States that are prepared as limited quantity shipments under international regulations. A technical review of the petition identified a total of 114 entries in HMT that are not in alignment with the UN Model Regulations, including all of those listed in the petition. The review found that 64 of the 114 entries diverge from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods (ICAO Technical Instructions). The ICAO Technical Instructions permit all 64 entries to be shipped as a limited quantity. The shipment of limited quantities of similar materials is already permitted under the HMR, and expanding the exceptions to these additional materials would not cause a reduction in safety. Because these are exceptions to the HMR, PHMSA would expect cost savings to be achieved if the proposal is finalized. However, due to a lack of national data on these types of shipments, PHMSA was unable to quantify the specific cost savings that would result from this change. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Column (8A) (exceptions) of the HMT consistent with the UN Model Regulations for 114 identified entries. 6. Mobile Refrigeration Units In its petition (P-1677), the IIAR requests that PHMSA consider changes to Sec. 173.5b for portable and mobile refrigerator systems commonly used in the produce industry. Specifically, this petition proposes to allow the continued use of mobile refrigeration units placed into service prior to 1991 that meet the 250 pounds per square inch (psig) service pressure specification. PHMSA also issued an enforcement discretion memo on September 28, 2017 allowing the continued use of mobile refrigeration units that are tested to a service pressure of 250 psig. A technical review of this petition found there should be no reduction in safety by allowing the continued use of mobile refrigeration units that are tested to a service pressure of 250 psig. PHMSA believes allowing the continued use of these mobile refrigeration units would allow the agricultural industry to accrue substantial cost savings. In the [[Page 41559]] PRIA, PHMSA estimates there would be approximately $1,000,000 in annualized costs savings to the agricultural industry resulting from the continued use of mobile refrigeration units currently in service. A more detailed accounting of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit to allowing the continued use of these mobile refrigeration units, under certain conditions. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. 173.5b to allow the continued used of certain portable and mobile refrigerator systems that meet the 250 psig service pressure specification by removing the prohibition of use of refrigeration systems placed into service before June 1, 1991, specified in paragraph (b)(6). 7. Incorporation by Reference of CGA Standards Certain CGA standards are incorporated by reference in Sec. 171.7 of the HMR. Multiple petitions to update CGA standards were submitted to PHMSA for review. These petitions include: Petition (P-1679)--CGA proposed that PHMSA IBR CGA C-6.3, ``Standard for Visual Inspection of Low Pressure Aluminum Alloy Cylinders, 2013, Third Edition'' \\1\\ into Sec. 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the First Edition of this standard published in 1991. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ 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 proposed that PHMSA IBR CGA S-7, ``Method for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders, 2013, Fifth Edition'' into Sec. 171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the 2005 Fourth Edition of this standard. Petitions (P-1684) and (P-1693)--In two separate petitions, Worthington Cylinders and CGA requested that Sec. 171.7 be updated to include the most recent version of the CGA C-11, ``Practices for Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders at Time of Manufacture, 2013, Fifth Edition'' and that references to the outdated Third Edition of this standard published in 2001 be removed. These petitions also request modifications to Sec. 178.35(b) and (c) to refer to CGA C-11. In petition (P-1694)--CGA proposes that PHMSA IBR C-6.1- 2013, ``Standards for Visual Inspection of High Pressure Aluminum Compressed Gas Cylinders'' into Sec. 171.7 of the HMR. This sixth edition of CGA C-6.1-2013 would update and replace current references to the 2002 Fourth Edition. A technical review of these petitions found that the IBR of revised standards would not result in a reduction in safety and would likely enhance safety. It is important for the HMR to reflect the most recent version of these cylinder IBR documents to ensure the safe transportation of compressed gases. There were no quantifiable cost savings identified with these IBR documents. These IBR revisions are primarily technical in nature and do not have a material effect on the cost of business. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit in proposing updates to these IBRs in Sec. 171.7 of the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to IBR the updated CGA publications in Sec. 171.7 of the HMR. 8. Special Provision for Explosives In its petition (P-1681), the IME proposed that PHMSA remove Special Provision (SP) 103 from Sec. 172.102, as well as remove references to SP 103 from Column (7) of the HMT for the following entries: ``UN 0361, Detonator assemblies, non-electric, for blasting''; ``UN 0365, Detonators for ammunition''; ``UN 0255, Detonators, electric, for blasting''; and ``UN 0267, Detonators, non-electric, for blasting.'' IME requests this change to harmonize the HMR with the UN Model Regulations, which has no provision capping the net explosive mass that may be involved in a limited propagation of detonators within a package classed as Division 1.4B at 25 grams as described in SP 103. Detonators must only pass the tests prescribed by the UN MTC to be transported (in this case pass the UN Test Series 6 requirements). The manual 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. Only those detonators that successfully pass tests prescribed for Division 1.4B may be classed in this hazardous materials category. The changes IME requests would align the HMR with the UN Model Regulations. A technical review of this petition found that the removal of this special provision is necessary to harmonize with the international regulations and would have no effect on safety. Since these special provisions are no longer in wide use, PHMSA does not believe there would be any quantifiable cost savings. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit in removing this special provision from the four entries in the HMT. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to remove the references to SP 103 for these four entries in Column (7) of the HMT. Also, because SP 103 is only assigned to these four entries, PHMSA is proposing to delete SP 103 from Sec. 172.102. 9. EX Numbers and Safety Devices In its petition (P-1683), the Ford Motor Company requested a change to the HMT to remove the word ``None'' and replace with ``166'' in Column (8A) for the proper shipping name ``UN 0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic.'' This is a reference to authorized packaging for safety devices found in Sec. 173.166. Ford Motor Company believes this omission prevents the shipper of these devices from applying the requirement to include the EX number on the shipping document as found in Sec. 173.166(c), and does not allow the shipper to use the exceptions provided in Sec. 173.166(d). Ford believes the omission is a typo in the HMT and should be corrected. PHMSA's technical review of this petition determined, consistent with the Ford Motor Company petition, that the exclusion of ``166'' in Column 8A of HMT for ``UN 0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic'' was an oversight from a previous rulemaking. There is no reason from a safety perspective why ``UN 0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic'' would not be eligible for shipment as a safety device in accordance with Sec. 173.166. Insufficient data on the number of shipments effected limits PHMSA's ability to quantify potential cost savings. In addition, it is perhaps likely that industry is already taking advantage of the exceptions in paragraph (d)(1) whenever the situation allows, and existing requirements in Sec. 172.320(b) already require the EX number. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMT. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to remove the word ``None'' from Column (8A) for the proper shipping name ``UN 0503, Safety Devices, pyrotechnic'' in the HMT and replace it with ``166'' to authorize use of packaging requirements for safety devices. 10. Alternative Reports for Cargo Tanks In its petition (P-1685), Polar Service Systems proposes revising the HMR to allow an alternative report for cargo tanks to replace a missing certificate of compliance for cargo tanks manufactured before September 1, 1995. [[Page 41560]] The petition recommends accomplishing this by removing the words ``manufactured before September 1, 1995'' from Sec. 180.417(a)(3). The petitioner indicates that there is currently no provision to allow the use of alternative reports when a certificate of compliance is unavailable for cargo tanks manufactured after September 1, 1995. Some cargo tank manufacturers have gone out of business in the past 20 years, making it impossible for a tank owner to obtain a missing certificate of compliance from the manufacturer. PHMSA's technical review of the petition found there are existing problems with maintaining the required documentation of Cargo Tanks and Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles (CTMVs) when manufacturers are no longer in business. This is true irrespective of the date to which alternative documentation is allowed in Sec. 180.417. PHMSA does not believe there would be an effect on safety because the same testing and recordkeeping requirements would apply to manufacturers that could take advantage of this proposed revision. Alternatively, in the absence of this proposed change, packages with useful life remaining could be forced out of service. This petition is not expected to result in any material cost to industry. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA believes there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise the language in Sec. 180.417(a)(3) to allow for alternative reports when a manufacturer's certificate is not available regardless of date of manufacture. 11. Weight Tolerances for Paper Shipping Sacks In its petition (P-1688), the Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association proposes that PHMSA revise the basis weight tolerances for liners and mediums used in the manufacture of multiwall shipping sacks. Specifically, this petition requests that PHMSA revise the basis weight tolerance provided in Sec. 178.521 from 5 percent to 10 percent from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report. The petitioner notes that multiwall sacks are manufactured on the same or technically equivalent machines that manufacture the liners for fiberboard boxes. PHMSA revised the basis weight tolerances from 5 percent to 10 percent for fiberboard boxes in the HM-219A final rule, published on November 7, 2018 [83 FR 55792]. PHMSA's technical review of this petition found that the paper used to manufacture paper bags is made on the same machines or similar machines as that 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 does not affect performance, it is expected that paper bags will behave similarly. PHMSA estimates the total potential annualized cost savings to the industry of $20,000 to $200,000. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. 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 proposes that PHMSA amend Sec. 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 notes that a similar warning is not required by the IMDG Code, meaning that the HMR is not harmonized in this respect. As noted above, this requirement is only in the HMR and is not required in the IMDG Code. PHMSA's technical review of this petition found that harmonizing this section with the IMDG Code would not result in a reduction in safety. PHMSA believes the existing hazard communication requirements (transport documents, container placard, etc.) provide a sufficient level of safety that is consistent with requirements for other Division 2.1 materials. As the petition eliminates a warning marking requirement and provides regulatory clarity through harmonization, we anticipate no associated costs from this proposal. However, PHMSA was unable to quantify any cost savings associated with this petition. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to amend the lighter transportation requirement in Sec. 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, the Chlorine Institute, ACC, the Fertilizer Institute, and RSI request that PHMSA convert certain ``interim'' rail tank car specifications to ``final'' tank car specifications. The subject tank car specifications were issued as part of the January 13, 2009, final rule entitled ``Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials (HM-246),'' (74 FR 1769), which was targeted at improving the safe transportation of PIH materials by rail. The HM-246 final rule contained interim design standards for rail tank cars transporting PIH materials to be used until a permanent standard could be issued by PHMSA. The final rule prescribed enhanced safety measures for PIH materials transported in rail tank cars, primarily stronger tanks with higher tank test pressures, fittings, tank head-puncture resistance protection and, for some commodities, thermal protection. The HM-246 final rule was the result of industry consensus that an updated standard was necessary to improve accident survivability, even as research continued to develop a long-term PIH tank car specification. The ATCCRP \\2\\ suggests the HM-246 interim specification provides a significant level of improvement over the legacy designs and there are few additional economical options to improve standards beyond the interim standard. According to the petitioner, PIH tank cars built in compliance with the HM-246 interim standards have performed well in service. In addition, conclusions from the various ATCCRP projects provide scientific support to make the interim specifications permanent. Conclusions resulting from these safety research efforts, as reported by ATCCRP, include: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\2\\ The ATCCRP coordinates research efforts to enhance the safety and security of rail tank car shipments of toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) materials. It is a joint effort comprised of shippers of tank cars carrying TIH materials (represented by ACC, the Chlorine Institute, and the Fertilizer Institute); 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-content/uploads/2017/11/ATCCRP-Research-Background-2016.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ``interim'' standard designs finalized in 2009 provide significant [[Page 41561]] improvement in accident survivability over the legacy designs, i.e., former 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's technical review of this petition found that the HM-246 compliant rail tank cars have an established safety record with no major incidents attributed to the design of the tank car. The petitioner's requested changes are not expected to result in any material costs to industry, as the costs of this proposed amendment are already accounted for in the analysis of HM-246 final rule, which adopted the interim tank car standard. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the accompanying PRIA. Therefore, PHMSA found there is merit to proposing this revision to the HMR. In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. Sec. 173.314(c) and 173.244(a)(2) of the HMR to make the HM-246 rail tank car specification permanent for the transportation of PIH materials. 14. Phase-Out of Non-HM-246 Compliant Rail Tank Cars 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 implementing design specifications for tank cars used in PIH service. CPC-1187 also included a 10-year phase-out schedule for tank cars that did not meet the CPC-1187 specification. According to the new AAR standard, non-compliant tank cars would not be accepted for interchange after December 31, 2018. On April 1, 2008, PHMSA published an NPRM proposing revisions to the HMR to improve the crashworthiness protection of railroad tank cars designed to transport PIH materials. (73 FR 17817). On January 13, 2009, PHMSA issued a final rule establishing the ``Interim HM-246 Standard.'' (74 FR 1769). The Interim HM-246 Standard effectively adopted AAR's CPC-1187 tank car specification for the transportation of PIH materials until further research could be completed on enhanced tank car specifications. In the NPRM for HM-246, PHMSA considered adopting a phase-out of tank cars that did not meet the proposed standard. However, in the HM- 246 final rule, PHMSA decided not to adopt a phase-out schedule for legacy cars stating, ``[a]lthough we continue to believe that an accelerated phase out of these cars is justified, we recognize 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.'' (74 FR at 1777-1778). After PHMSA published the HM-246 final rule adopting an interim tank car standard, AAR suspended CPC-1187 until a new tank car standard could be finalized and suspended the December 2018 retirement deadline for non-compliant tank cars. As discussed in Section II.13, ``Finalization of the HM-246 Tank Car Standard,'' above, research conducted under the ATCCRP has since demonstrated that the HM-246 interi","truncated":true,"body_characters":133036}