[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75680-75717]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23712]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 228

November 25, 2020

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 To Reduce
Regulatory Burdens; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 228 / Wednesday, November 25, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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 Sec.  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, Sec.  172.101).
     Revising Sec.  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 Sec.  173.28(c)(1)(i) to allow for regulatory
flexibility for cleaning metal drums for reuse and clarifying the
existing cleaning standard.
     Revising 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).
     Incorporating by reference updated editions of multiple
Compressed Gas Association (CGA) publications into Sec.  171.7.
     Removing the reference to special provision 103 in Sec.
172.101 from Column (7) for four HMT entries.
     Removing 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, 1995.
     Revising 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.
     Revising Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  171.7.
     Revising 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
for filling, intermediate storage, and export.
     Revising Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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  PHMSA-2017-0120-0034.
 (CI), and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI).
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  PHMSA-2017-0120-0018.
 (COSTHA).
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            PHMSA-2017-0120-0017.
 Association (IVODGA).
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
Sec.  173.152.

3. Markings on Portable Tanks

    In his petition (P-1666), William J. Briner requests that PHMSA
revise Sec.  172.302(b)(2) of the HMR consistent with section <IP_ADDRESS>.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, Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  173.28(c)(1)(i). Therefore, in its comments to the
NPRM, RIPA suggests that Sec.  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 Sec.
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
Sec.  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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.
171.7 to replace the outdated reference to the Third Edition of this
standard published in 2001. These petitions also request revisions to
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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 requests 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 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 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, CI, ACC, TFI, and the Railway
Supply Institute (RSI) request that PHMSA revise Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.
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 ([pi]) 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 Sec. Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  173.67 codifying PHMSA's
current practice excepting JPGs conforming to the AESC/IME JPG Standard
from the exhaustive testing generally required pursuant to Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  173.56. IME submits that the HMR amendments identified in
its petition would codify existing PHMSA practices for review of JPG
products under Sec.  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
Sec.  171.7(r), incorporating the updated AESC/IME JPG Standard into a
new Sec.  171.7(r)(3) of the HMR, and adding a new Sec.  173.67
codifying existing practice allowing AESC/IME JPG Standard-compliant
products access to expedited PHMSA review under Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
171.23(a)(3) to refer to 6.2.2. of the ADR instead of 6.2. PHMSA also
removed the word ``import'' from Sec.  171.23(a)(3)(i) and ``export''
from Sec.  171.23(a)(3)(ii).

6. Section 172.101

    The HMT is contained in Sec.  172.101. The HMT lists
alphabetically, by proper shipping name, those materials that have been
designated hazardous materials for 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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  173.65(a)(1), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(iv).

16. Section 173.67

    In this final rule, PHMSA is adding a new Sec.  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 (Sec.
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 Sec.  173.302(a)(1) to
refer to exceptions in Sec.  171.23(a)(3) for the importation of pi-
marked cylinders. PHMSA is also revising Sec.  173.302(a)(2) to make
adsorbed gases eligible for the exceptions provided in Sec.
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 Sec.  173.304(a) to refer to exceptions in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  179.22(e) to provide
for new markings for tank cars manufactured after March 16, 2009, to
meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.
180.209(l)(2) to reference Sec.  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 Sec.  180.213(d)(2) to
reference Sec.  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, Sec. Sec.
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 Sec.  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