{"operation":"document","citation":"88 FR 13624","title":"Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and Updating Regulatory Requirements","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2023-03-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"PHMSA proposes amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to update, clarify, improve the safety of, or streamline various regulatory requirements. Specifically, this rulemaking responds to 18 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community between May 2018 and October 2020 that requests PHMSA address a variety of provisions, including but not limited to those addressing packaging, hazard communication, and the incorporation by reference of certain documents. These proposed revisions maintain or enhance the existing high level of safety under the HMR while providing clarity and appropriate regulatory flexibility in the transport of hazardous materials.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2023-03366.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2023-03366.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2023-03366","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/03/2023-03366/hazardous-materials-adoption-of-miscellaneous-petitions-and-updating-regulatory-requirements","body":"Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023) [Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 13624-13654] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2023-03366] [[Page 13623]] Vol. 88 Friday, No. 42 March 3, 2023 Part III Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, et al. Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and Updating Regulatory Requirements; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules [[Page 13624]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 178, and 180 [Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0102 (HM-219D)] RIN 2137-AF49 Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and Updating Regulatory Requirements AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to update, clarify, improve the safety of, or streamline various regulatory requirements. Specifically, this rulemaking responds to 18 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the regulated community between May 2018 and October 2020 that requests PHMSA address a variety of provisions, including but not limited to those addressing packaging, hazard communication, and the incorporation by reference of certain documents. These proposed revisions maintain or enhance the existing high level of safety under the HMR while providing clarity and appropriate regulatory flexibility in the transport of hazardous materials. DATES: Comments must be submitted by May 2, 2023. PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the extent possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by identification of the docket number (PHMSA-2020-0102 [HM-219D]) by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-202-493-2251. Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), including any personal information. Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents, including the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES). Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN'' for ``proprietary information.'' Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven Andrews, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews, 202-366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51 III. Review of Petitions and Issues IV. Section-by-Section Review V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act H. Environmental Assessment I. Environmental Justice J. Privacy Act K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis L. Executive Order 13211 M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background The Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule (See 5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA regulations specify that persons petitioning PHMSA to add, revise, or remove a regulation in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180) must file a petition for rulemaking containing adequate support for the requested action. (See 49 CFR 106.100) PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR in response to petitions for rulemaking submitted by shippers, carriers, manufacturers, and industry representatives, and welcomes petitions from any interested stakeholder or member of the public with suggested changes to improve the HMR. PHMSA expects that the proposed revisions would maintain the high safety standard currently achieved under the HMR while providing clarity and appropriate regulatory flexibility in the transport of hazardous materials. PHMSA also notes that--insofar as adoption of the petitions as proposed could reduce delays and interruptions of hazardous materials shipments during transportation--the proposed amendments may also lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and safety risks to minority, low-income, underserved, and other disadvantaged populations and communities in the vicinity of interim storage sites and transportation arteries and hubs. A detailed discussion of the petitions and proposals can be found in Section III of this NPRM. PHMSA proposes to: Allow for appropriate flexibility of packaging options in the transportation of compressed natural gas in cylinders. Streamline the approval application process for the repair of specific DOT specification cylinders. Provide greater clarity on the filling requirements for certain cylinders used to transport hydrogen and hydrogen mixtures. Facilitate international commerce and streamline packaging and hazard communication requirements by harmonizing the HMR with international regulations to allow the shipment of de minimis amounts of poisonous materials. Provide greater clarity by requiring a specific marking on cylinders to indicate compliance with certain HMR provisions. Streamline hazard communication requirements by allowing appropriate [[Page 13625]] marking exceptions under certain conditions for the transportation of lithium button cell batteries installed in equipment. Provide greater flexibility and accuracy in hazard communication by allowing additional descriptions for certain gas mixtures. Increase the safe transportation of explosives by updating certain Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) documents currently incorporated by reference. Modify the definition of ``liquid'' to include the test for determining fluidity (penetrometer test) prescribed in the agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR). Incorporate by reference a Compressed Gas Association (CGA) publication C-20-2014, ``Requalification Standard for Metallic, DOT and TC 3-series Gas Cylinders and Tubes Using Ultrasonic Examination,'' Second Edition, which will eliminate the need for some existing DOT special permits and allow alternative methods for the requalification of cylinders. This revision would eliminate the need for special permit applications and renewals.\\1\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ PHMSA notes that it has received a petition to incorporate by reference the 2021 version of this publication https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2022-0030/document . PHMSA is currently conducting a technical review and cost evaluation of this publication. PHMSA welcomes comments, data, and information on whether it should consider incorporating the 2021 version into any final rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Incorporate by reference the updated Appendix A of CGA publication C-7-2020, ``Guide to Classification and Labeling of Compressed Gases,'' Eleventh Edition. Incorporate by reference the CGA publication C-27-2019, ``Standard Procedure to Derate the Service Pressure of DOT 3-Series Seamless Steel Tubes, First Edition.'' Incorporate by reference the CGA publication CGA C-29- 2019, ``Standard for Design Requirements for Tube Trailers and Tube Modules, First Edition.'' Incorporate by reference the CGA publication CGA V-9-2019, ``Compressed Gas Association Standard for Compressed Gas Cylinder Valves, Eighth Edition.'' II. Incorporation by Reference Discussion Under 1 CFR part 51 According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A- 119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,'' Government agencies must use voluntary consensus standards wherever practical in the development of regulations. PHMSA currently incorporates by reference into the HMR all or the relevant parts of several standards and specifications developed and published by standard development organizations (SDO). In general, SDOs update and revise their published standards every two to five years to reflect modern technology and best technical practices. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA; Pub. L. 104- 113) directs Federal agencies to use standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies in lieu of government-written standards unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards bodies develop, establish, or coordinate technical standards using agreed-upon procedures. OMB issued Circular A-119 to implement section 12(d) of the NTTAA relative to the utilization of consensus technical standards by Federal agencies. This circular provides guidance for agencies participating in voluntary consensus standards bodies and describes procedures for satisfying the reporting requirements in the NTTAA. Consistent with the requirements of the NTTAA and its statutory authorities, PHMSA is responsible for determining which currently referenced standards should be updated, revised, or removed, and which standards should be added to the HMR. Revisions to materials incorporated by reference in the HMR are handled via the rulemaking process, which allows the public and regulated entities to provide input. During the rulemaking process, PHMSA must also obtain approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate by reference any new materials. Regulations of the Office of the Federal Register require that agencies detail in the preamble of an NPRM the ways the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, or how the agency worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties. (See 1 CFR 51.5.) IME standards are free and accessible to the public on the internet, with access provided through the IME website at https://www.ime.org/products/category/safety_library_publications_slps . The CGA references are available for interested parties to purchase in either print or electronic editions through the CGA organization website at https://portal.cganet.com/Publication/index.aspx . The UN manual of test and criteria is available at https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/manual/Rev7/Manual_Rev7_E.pdf and The European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) can be found at https://unece.org/about-adr . The specific standards are discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section review. The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this document and have already been approved for the locations in which they appear: ASTM D 4359, CGA TB-25, ISO 6406:2005(E), and ISO 16148:2016(E). No changes are proposed. III. Review of Petitions and Issues A. Transportation of Compressed Natural Gas/Methane in UN Pressure Receptacles In its petition (P-1714),\\2\\ CGA requests that PHMSA consider an amendment to 49 CFR 173.302b to implement packaging restrictions for the transportation of compressed natural gas (CNG) and methane in United Nations (UN) seamless steel pressure receptacles with a tensile strength greater than 950 MPa. For the purposes of the HMR, ``UN1971, Methane, compressed'' is compressed natural gas that is at least 98 percent methane and free of corroding components. CGA expresses concern regarding the growth in transport of CNG and methane in these packagings and wants to ensure the safety of the receptacles in this service. CGA provides historical context of PHMSA's predecessor agency imposing similar packaging restrictions for CNG transported in certain DOT specification cylinders (see 49 CFR 173.302a(a)(4)). These restrictions were intended to limit the effect of impurities in the CNG, such as hydrogen sulfide, on the structural integrity of the steel used in the manufacture of the cylinders. CGA cites several studies on the corrosive effects of natural gas contaminants on a cylinder and notes that the contaminants are usually noncorrosive in the absence of liquid water. Finally, CGA highlights an October 27, 1977, incident in which two people were killed, four people were injured, and a compressor station was damaged when a DOT specification 3T seamless steel cylinder ruptured while being filled with natural gas contaminated with hydrogen sulfide and water. CGA's specific concern is in regard to UN seamless steel pressure receptacles with [[Page 13626]] ultimate tensile strengths greater than 950 MPa being used for the storage and transportation of CNG because higher strength UN seamless steel pressure receptacles are susceptible to embrittlement from CNG contaminants and embrittlement makes the receptacles more susceptible to fracture. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\2\\ P-1714--CGA (PHMSA-2018-0054), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0054 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, use of UN pressure receptacles for CNG and methane in transportation is subject to the general requirements for shipment of compressed gases in 49 CFR 173.301, additional general requirements of UN pressure receptacles in 49 CFR 173.301b, and the filling requirements of cylinders with non-liquefied (permanent) gases in 49 CFR 173.302. However, under current regulations there are no additional requirements specific to the use of UN pressure receptacles in CNG or methane service. CGA requests that 49 CFR 173.302b be revised to include conditions for the transportation of CNG and methane in UN stainless steel pressure receptacles. The CGA petition states that natural gas/methane can be safely transported in UN/International Organization for Standardization (ISO) steel pressure receptacles under the following conditions: (1) the product is non-liquefied gas; (2) the UN seamless steel pressure receptacle has a maximum tensile strength not greater than 950 MPa (137,750 psig) and bears an ``H'' mark indicating that the cylinder is manufactured from a specific type of steel that is intended to prevent hydrogen embrittlement; (3) there is a drain tube for each UN tube; and (4) the moisture content and concentration of the corroding components in the product conforms to the requirements in 49 CFR 173.301b(a)(2). Specifically, the requirements in 49 CFR 173.301b(a)(2) state that gases or gas mixtures must be compatible with the UN pressure receptacle and valve materials as prescribed for metallic materials in ISO 11114-1:2012(E). In addition, CGA requests new text that clarifies the requirements for transporting methane gas with a purity of at least 98 percent within a UN seamless steel pressure receptacle. PHMSA's previously considered this issue under petition P-1661 \\3\\ submitted by CGA on July 15, 2015. That petition was denied due to its conflict with the requirements in 49 CFR 173.302a(a)(4) for DOT specification 3AAX and 3T cylinders when used in methane service. Currently, Sec. 173.302a(a)(4) only allows methane that is non- liquefied, has a minimum purity of 98 percent, and is commercially free from corroding components to be filled in specification (3AX, 3AAX, and 3T) cylinders. PHMSA agreed that DOT specification 3T cylinders with a tensile strength in the range of 135-155 kilopounds per square inch (ksi) [931-1,069 megapascals per square inch (MPa)] and steel embrittlement can become a safety issue. However, DOT specification 3AX and 3AAX cylinders typically have strength below 135 ksi (931 MPa), and steel embrittlement is usually not a safety concern. In its denial letter, PHMSA encouraged CGA to consider a revised petition and limit cylinders to steel strengths below 950MPa for UN/International Standards Organization (ISO) cylinders made in accordance with ISO 9899-1 and IS011120 standards. This is because had PHMSA proposed P- 1661, it would have caused conflicting requirements for methane shipments in specification (3AAX, 3T, etc.) cylinders versus shipments in UN/ISO steel cylinders (ISO 9809-1 and ISO 11120 standards). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\3\\ P-1661--CGA (PHMSA-2015-0169), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2015-0169 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to PHMSA's denial of P-1661, CGA submitted a new petition (P-1714) that addresses PHMSA's concerns by not including DOT 3T specification cylinders where steel embrittlement poses an unreasonable risk. As a result of PHMSA's technical review of CGA petition (P-1714), and because it requested regulatory amendments for shipment of methane (including CNG with a methane content of 98 percent or greater) only in UN cylinders, PHMSA determined that the proposals in P-1714 would be limited to pressure receptacles where steel embrittlement is not a safety issue. Additionally, PHMSA notes this revision will align HMR references to UN cylinders with equivalent DOT specification cylinders. PHMSA further agrees that CNG, other than methane, can cause steel embrittlement in seamless steel pressure receptacles with tensile strengths greater than 950 MPa. Therefore, PHMSA believes the changes outlined in the CGA petition P-1714 will improve the safe transportation of CNG. PHMSA conducted an economic review of this petition and expects these proposed amendments would not result in any material changes in costs or operations for market participants because they are accepted industry practices and address an important safety concern. To the degree that market participants are currently transporting low-purity methane in high-tensile strength receptacles, affected participants would be required to use substitute packaging. Similarly, the proposed change may provide safety benefits to the extent there is any noncompliance with the practice presented by CGA. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis can be found in the PRIA posted in the docket to this rulemaking. DOT seeks comment on the number of shipments that may currently be made where substitute packaging would be required under the proposal. Therefore, PHMSA has determined that there is merit in the CGA petition to amend the requirements for transporting CNG with methane in certain UN seamless stainless steel cylinders. Amending these requirements will enhance safety by authorizing CNG of less than 98 percent methane only in pressure receptacles where steel embrittlement is unlikely to occur. PHMSA proposes to add Sec. 173.302b(f) to specify these requirements for transporting CNG in UN specification pressure receptacles. B. Threading and Repair of Seamless DOT 3-Series Specification Cylinders and Seamless UN Pressure Receptacles In its petition (P-1716),\\4\\ FIBA Technologies, Inc. (FIBA) requests PHMSA consider a revision to the requirements for repairing seamless DOT 3-series specification cylinders and seamless UN pressure receptacles manufactured without external threads, and also to authorize the performance of this work without requiring prior approval from PHMSA. Specifically, this petition requests that PHMSA authorize machining new threads on a previously manufactured seamless cylinder or seamless UN pressure receptacle without requiring an approval. Further, FIBA requests that PHMSA expand the population of UN pressure receptacles eligible for repair work. Regarding external threads, in accordance with the current Sec. 180.212(b)(2), repair work not requiring prior approval is limited to the ``rethreading'' of DOT specification 3AX, 3AAX, or 3T cylinders or a UN pressure receptacle mounted in multiple-element gas containers (MEGC).\\5\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\4\\ P-1716--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0074), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0074 . \\5\\ A multiple-element gas container is an assembly of UN cylinders, tubes, or bundles of cylinders interconnected by a manifold and assembled within a framework. The term includes all service equipment and structural equipment necessary for the transport of gases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIBA notes there are older DOT specification 3AAX cylinders that were not equipped with external neck threads at the time of manufacture. These cylinders were manufactured in the 1960s and were mounted onto a semi-trailer by inserting the tube neck into a [[Page 13627]] flange on the semi-trailer bulkhead and then secured in place using set screws. FIBA argues that these methods have been mostly abandoned in favor of a threaded tube neck because a threaded flange and anti- rotation pins provide a more secure connection. Moreover, risk will be reduced by a threaded neck surface and flange connection, rather than a neck with no threads and pins, because the threaded neck and flange more securely mount the cylinders and tubes within the MEGC or motor vehicle (tube trailer or frame). Pins do greater damage to the tube than a threaded neck and flange because of the penetration depth required to achieve a secure connection. Section 180.212(b)(2) already allows the repair of damaged threads, which can be so worn as to be the same as a tube manufactured with no outer diameter neck threads. FIBA argues that there is no difference between threads no longer capable of joining the tube neck to the flange and a tube neck having no threads from the start. The same threading process will be performed on the tube with worn threads as the tube with no threads. Additionally, the same CGA C-23 evaluation process used to determine suitability of the tube neck for rethreading will be used to confirm the suitability of the neck for threading. Based on a technical review of this petition, PHMSA expects that authorizing the threading of DOT 3AX, 3AAX manufactured without external threads, or 3T specification cylinders or UN pressure receptacles would enhance safety by authorizing a more secure method of connecting MEGC pressure receptacles. PHMSA concludes this is an improvement over the previous method of using setscrews to secure the tubes, a process that results in indentations being carved into the tube necks as the tube jostles during transport. Moreover, DOT did not originally authorize the threading of previously manufactured cylinders due to a lack of standardized safe threading practices at the time PHMSA adopted provisions for these cylinders. Lastly, PHMSA determined that the machining of neck threads or rethreading of seamless UN pressure receptacles should be authorized regardless of whether the receptacle is mounted in a MEGC. As such, standardization in the area of cylinder connections is vital to reducing damage to the cylinder necks and thus to reducing hazardous materials releases. In summary, the technical review of this petition expects the proposed revision would improve safety by ensuring a more secure connection to the motor vehicle. This proposed revision is not expected to impose any costs to industry. Further, it is expected that the proposed changes would provide appropriate regulatory flexibility and potential cost-savings (i.e., avoided costs associated with an unnecessary approval application process or use of an outdated securement method) without any impact on safety. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise Sec. 180.212(b)(2) to allow the machining of external threads on all seamless DOT specification 3AX, 3AAX, or 3T cylinder or a seamless UN pressure receptacle originally manufactured without external threads. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing to authorize the machining of neck threads or rethreading of UN pressure receptacles regardless of whether the receptacle is mounted in a MEGC. C. Clarification of the Requirements for Certain Non-Liquefied Compressed Gases In its petition (P-1717),\\6\\ FIBA requests that PHMSA consider an amendment to 49 CFR 173.302a(c) of the HMR for the special filling limits for DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders containing Division. 2.1 (flammable) gases. Final rule HM-233F \\7\\ adopted Department of Transportation Special Permit (DOT-SP) 6530 \\8\\ into the HMR. This revision authorized the transportation in commerce of hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen in certain cylinders filled to 10 percent in excess of their marked service pressure. As part of the HM-233F final rule, PHMSA adopted safety control measures in paragraph (c)(3) of 49 CFR 173.302a instead of paragraph (c). In its petition, FIBA requests that PHMSA amend 49 CFR 173.302a(c)(3) to clarify that the requirements in 49 CFR 173.302a(c)(3)(i)-173.302a(c)(3)(ii) are independent provisions. FIBA asserts this proposed revision will accurately reflect the technical conditions associated with the design and manufactured properties of DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\6\\ P-1717--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0075), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0075 . \\7\\ 81 FR 3635 (Jan. 21, 2016). \\8\\ DOT SP-6530, https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/approvals-and-permits/hazmat/file-serve/offer/SP6530.pdf/2018019065/SP6530 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIBA also submitted petition (P-1725) \\9\\ requesting further amendments to Sec. 173.302a(c), concurrent with those requested in P- 1717. Specifically, FIBA requests that the plus sign (+) be added following the test date marking on a DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinder filled with hydrogen or mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen to signify that the cylinder may be filled to 10 percent in excess of its marked service pressure. Furthermore, the petition requests that cylinders qualifying for the special filling limit in Sec. 173.302a(c) also be equipped with a pressure relief device (PRD) in accordance with CGA S-1.1 (2011), rather than the requirements in Sec. 173.302a(c)(4), which could potentially conflict with each other. CGA S-1.1 prescribes standards for selecting the correct PRD to meet the requirements of Sec. 173.301(f) for more than 150 gases. It also provides guidance on when a PRD can be optionally omitted and when its use is prohibited, as well as direction on PRD manufacturing, testing, operational parameters, and maintenance. At the time FIBA submitted P-1725, CGA S-1.1 (2011) had not been incorporated by reference into the HMR. Since then, the HM-234 final rule \\10\\ was published, which incorporated by reference CGA S-1.1 (2011) into the HMR and outlines the PRD requirements for cylinders filled with a gas and offered for transportation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\9\\ P-1725--FIBA (PHMSA-2018-0112), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0112 . \\10\\ 85 FR 85380 (Dec. 28, 2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The plus sign marking (+) is associated with a commonly applied provision in the HMR that authorizes a DOT specification cylinder to be filled to 10 percent in excess of its marked pressure. FIBA states that the plus sign marking (+) is an important means of communicating to cylinder refillers that a cylinder can be filled to 10 percent more than its marked service pressure and, thus, should be added to the special filling requirements in Sec. 173.302a(c). PHMSA conducted a technical review of the proposals in both petitions along with DOT-SP 6530 and the HM-233F final rule. After this review, PHMSA agrees with FIBA that the safety control measures within DOT-SP 6530 were independent provisions. PHMSA intended to adopt those provisions into the HMR as independent provisions and inadvertently adopted two of the safety controls in Sec. Sec. 173.302(c)(3)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs of Sec. 173.302a(c)(3). In addition, PHMSA concurs that the proposed revisions to require the plus [[Page 13628]] sign (+) on DOT specification 3A, 3AX, 3AA, and 3AAX cylinders filled with hydrogen or mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen would improve the safety of filling these cylinders by providing clarity on the conditions for special filling limits and helping prevent the overfilling of unauthorized cylinders. Finally, PHMSA agrees that cylinders in hydrogen service that are filled to 10 percent in excess of its marked pressure should be equipped with a PRD that is selected as to type, location, and quantity, and tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1 in the same manner as is generally required for cylinders filled with a gas in accordance with Sec. 173.301(f) instead of Sec. 173.302a(c)(4). PHMSA determined that CGA S-1.1 provides much greater specificity than Sec. 173.302a(c)(4) about the type of pressure relief device required for a particular gas service. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to remove the PRD requirements of 49 CFR 173.302a(c)(4) and instead require compliance with the PRD requirements of 49 CFR 173.301(f). This latter provision requires that, with certain exceptions, a cylinder filled with a gas and offered for transportation must be equipped with one or more PRDs sized and selected as to type, location, and quantity, and tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1. The proposed amendments associated with P-1717 would provide greater clarity on requirements for cylinder design and manufacture, and would not represent any incremental, quantifiable safety effects because PHMSA already authorizes the transportation in commerce of hydrogen and mixtures of hydrogen with helium, argon, or nitrogen in certain cylinders filled to more than 10 percent of their marked service pressures. These proposed amendments would also not impose any new or incremental cost because they merely reorganize the regulations for clarity. Additionally, while the proposed amendments associated with P-1725 would create a new requirement, PHMSA anticipates the amendment would result in only minimal incremental costs to the industry, and impose only minimal, regulatory burden on small businesses or other entities. The additional request that the cylinders qualified for the special filling limit be equipped with pressure relief devices in accordance with CGA S-1.1 is not expected to add any additional cost on affected industries or entities. Currently, Sec. 173.302a(c)(4) contains the same requirements as CGA S-1.1 and therefore the addition of the CGA S-1.1 requirement will not cause any new additional costs beyond those already accounted for previously. A more detailed discussion of this economic analysis of this proposal can be found in the PRIA posted to the docket for this rulemaking. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to revise Sec. 173.302a(c) to reflect the safety provisions currently in Sec. 173.302a(c)(3)(i) and (ii) are independent material construction requirements under paragraph (c) as new paragraphs (c)(4) and (5). Moreover, PHMSA proposes to add a requirement in Sec. 173.302a(c)(7) to require the plus sign (+) following the test date marking to indicate compliance with paragraph (c) indicating that the cylinder is allowed to be filled to more than 10 percent of its marked service pressure. Lastly, PHMSA proposes to replace the PRD requirements--found in current Sec. 173.302a(c)(4)-- with a new Sec. 173.302a(c)(6). The new provision would require that cylinders must be equipped with PRDs sized and selected as to type, location, and quantity and tested in accordance with CGA S-1.1 (2011) and Sec. 173.301(f). D. De Minimus Quantities of Poisonous Materials In its petition (P-1718),\\11\\ the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA) requests that PHMSA amend Sec. 173.4b to harmonize the de minimis exceptions for Division 6.1, Packing Group (PG) I (no inhalation hazard) materials with international regulations, including the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code). The de minimis exceptions in the HMR provide relief from the general requirements of the HMR for certain hazardous materials shipped in extremely small quantities. The maximum quantity allowed in order to utilize the de minimis exception per inner receptacle is 1 mL for authorized liquids and 1 g for authorized solids. Additionally, the aggregate quantity per package may not exceed 100 mL for liquids and 100 g for solids. The exception also requires cushioning and package testing requirements, along with specific provisions for certain materials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\11\\ P-1718--COSTHA (PHMSA-2018-0077), https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PHMSA-2018-0077 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- International harmonization includes adopting changes in the HMR to improve regulatory consistency with international regulations and standards, such as the IMDG Code, the ICAO TI, and the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods--Model Regulations (UN Model Regulations). Harmonization facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. Safety is enhanced by creating a uniform framework for compliance. As the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce continues to grow, harmonization is increasingly important. Moreover, the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) directs PHMSA to participate in relevant international standard-setting bodies and promotes consistency of the HMR with international transport standards to the extent practicable. The exceptions in the HMR for de minimis quantities were initially adopted in the HM-224D/HM-215J final rule \\12\\ in Sec. 173.4b of the HMR and were intended to align with the provisions for de minimis exceptions found in the ICAO Technical Instructions and IMDG Code. However, HM-224D/HM-215J addressed exceptions for de minimis quantities of only Division 6.1, PG II and PG III hazardous materials. As noted in the PHMSA Letter of Interpretation (LOI) reference number (Ref. No.) 17-0138,\\13\\ PHMSA considered exceptions for de minimis quantities of only Division 6.1, PG II and PG III hazardous materials in response to a petition for rulemaking. PHMSA now proposes harmonizing the de minimis provisions for Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials with the ICAO TI or IMDG Code in this NPRM, in response to COSTHA's petition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\12\\ 74 FR 2200 (Jan. 14, 2009). \\13\\ PHMSA LOI 17-0138, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/17-0138 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The COSTHA petition to harmonize the scope of the applicability of the de minimis exceptions with international standards by including Division 6.1, PG I materials (no inhalation hazard) would except de minimis shipments from the hazardous communication requirements otherwise associated with these shipments. A technical review of this petition found the inclusion of de minimis quantities for Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials into the international regulations can be traced back to working paper ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2009/ 45,\\14\\ which was submitted by the United States. Based [[Page 13629]] on the review of this working paper, PHMSA asserts that Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials should be included as part of the de minimis exception. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\14\\ Working paper ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2009/45, https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2009/ac10c3/ST-SG-AC10-C3-2009-45e.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The primary concern regarding the transportation of a Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) material is leakage from a package and potential human exposure. A leak of such a material poses a risk to human health by poisoning. To counter these concerns, this hazard is mitigated by the conditions for transportation in the de minimis exceptions, namely, imposing limitations on the quantities allowed to 1 mL or 1 g per inner receptacle. In addition, 49 CFR 173.4b requires that inner receptacles have removable closures sealed by wire, tape, or other positive means (see Sec. 173.4b(a)(2)), which limits the possibility for leakage. Furthermore, a Division 6.1 PG I material that does not pose an inhalation hazard equally poses no vaporization risk should the package rupture. Lastly, de minimis packages are required to have cushioning and absorbent material that are not reactive with the hazardous material and can absorb the entirety of the package's contents if the receptacle ruptures. These requirements severely limit the risk of exposure presented by transportation of these materials. While maintaining safety as described in the prior paragraph, the proposed harmonization would not impose any direct costs on industry and could provide cost savings to shippers by providing the option to ship Division 6.1, PG I (no inhalation hazard) materials under the de minimis provisions that provide alternative communication and packaging requirements associated with the preparation of these packages. In total, PHMSA estimates that the proposal would result ","truncated":true,"body_characters":212126}