Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT Specification Cylinders (RRR), 31551-31562 [2012-12832]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
hazardous agricultural work practices
and conditions.
C. Conclusion
In summary, the FLSA grants the
Secretary of Labor exclusive authority to
determine that a proposed rule should
be withdrawn provided she publishes
reasons for her decision not to
promulgate the rule. This Notice
explains the Secretary’s reasons for
pursuing a non-regulatory approach to
addressing the safety and health of
children employed in agriculture rather
than amending the existing child labor
rules. The FLSA affords the Secretary
broad authority to set and order her
rulemaking priorities. The Secretary
properly exercised her discretion by
determining not to proceed with the
child labor rulemaking, particularly in
light of the many comments informing
the Secretary about the effect of the rule.
For the reasons stated herein, the
proposed rule is withdrawn.
Nancy J. Leppink,
Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour
Division.
[FR Doc. 2012–12954 Filed 5–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 178, and
180
[Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0140 (HM–234)]
RIN 2137–AE80
Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous
Amendments Pertaining to DOT
Specification Cylinders (RRR)
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
The Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is considering amendments to
the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) to revise certain requirements
applicable to the manufacture, use, and
requalification of DOT specification
cylinders. PHMSA is taking this action
in response to petitions for rulemaking
submitted by the regulated community
and a review of the regulations
applicable to compressed gas cylinders.
PHMSA is not proposing specific
amendments to the HMR; rather, we are
seeking comment on the issues
discussed in the ANPRM. While this
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
ANPRM focuses on specific petitions for
rulemaking and special permits, we will
accept comments on the HMR
applicable to compressed gas cylinders.
These comments will be combined with
a retrospective review of existing
requirements aimed to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal existing
rules that are outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
DATES: Comments must be received by
August 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2011–0140 (HM–234) by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System;
US Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.
• Hand Delivery: To the Docket
Management System; Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this ANPRM at the
beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change
to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS), including any personal
information.
Docket: For access to the dockets to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477) or you may visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Leary or Robert Benedict,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31551
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, at
(202) 366–8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Summary Review of Amendments
Considered
IV. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
ANPRM
B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
C. Executive Order 13132
D. Executive Order 13175
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Environmental Assessment
J. Privacy Act
K. International Trade Analysis
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA is considering amendments
that would revise and clarify the HMR
(49 CFR parts 171–180) applicable to
cylinder manufacture, maintenance, and
use. This action responds to ten
petitions for rulemaking submitted by
the regulated community and seeks
comment on incorporating the
provisions of three special permits.
These amendments would update and
expand the use of currently authorized
industry consensus standards, revise the
construction, marking and testing
requirements of DOT–4 series cylinders,
clarify the filling requirements for
cylinders, discuss the handling of
cylinders used in fire suppression
systems, and revise the requalification
and condemnation requirements for
cylinders. PHMSA will review
comments on the amendments
described in this ANPRM for their
potential economic and safety
implications and will use these
comments to craft more specific
proposals in any potential future
rulemaking. PHMSA requests that
commenters note the applicable petition
when submitting comments.
II. Background
PHMSA requests public comment on
various petitions for rulemaking
submitted in accordance with § 106.95
and DOT special permits PHMSA has
issued applicable to the manufacture,
use, and requalification of cylinders.
PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to
obtain the views of those who are likely
to be affected by the changes discussed,
including those who are likely to benefit
from and those who are potentially
subject to additional regulation if
PHMSA were to adopt the petitions.
This ANPRM is intended to provide the
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
31552
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
greatest opportunity for public
participation in the development of
regulatory amendments, and promote
greater exchange of information and
perspectives among the various
stakeholders. This additional step will
lead to more focused and welldeveloped proposals that reflect the
views of all regulated entities.
Access to Compressed Gas
Association publications discussed in
this ANPRM are available for public
review at: www.cganet.com. Access to
the petitions and background
documents referenced in this ANPRM
can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
PHMSA–2011–0140 (HM–234) or at
DOT’s Docket Operations Office (see
ADDRESSES).
III. Summary Review of Amendments
Considered
A. Petitions for Rulemaking
Federal hazardous material
transportation law (Federal hazmat law),
49 U.S.C. 5101–5127, authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to regulate
the manufacture and continuing
qualification of packagings used to
transport hazardous materials in
commerce, or packagings certified under
Federal hazmat law for the
transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce. The HMR contain
requirements for the manufacture, use,
and requalification of cylinders subject
to Federal hazmat law, including
defining materials and methods of
construction, the frequency and manner
of inspection and testing, standards for
cylinder rejection and condemnation,
cylinder marking and recordkeeping,
authorizations for packaging hazardous
materials in cylinders, filling, loading,
unloading, and carriage in
transportation.
In accordance with 49 CFR 106.95, a
person may petition PHMSA to add,
amend or delete a regulation by filing a
petition for rulemaking with all the
information required in § 106.100. In
this ANPRM, PHMSA seeks comment
on ten petitions for rulemaking
submitted by the compressed gas
industry, including cylinder
manufacturers, cylinder requalifiers,
hazardous materials trainers, shippers,
and carriers of compressed gases. These
petitions are included in the docket for
this proceeding. The following table
provides a brief summary of the
petitions addressed in this ANPRM and
affected sections:
Petition
Party submitting petition
Summary
P–1499 ...
The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) ................
P–1501 ...
The Compressed Gas Association ...........................
P–1515 ...
Certified Training Co. (CTC) .....................................
P–1521 ...
The Compressed Gas Association ...........................
P–1540 ...
The Compressed Gas Association ...........................
P–1546 ...
GSI Training Services, Inc ........................................
P–1560 ...
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc ..............................
P–1563 ...
3M Inc .......................................................................
P–1572 ...
Barlen and Associates, Inc .......................................
P–1580 ...
HMT Associates Inc ..................................................
Requests PHMSA incorporate by reference CGA C–6 Standards for Visual
Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders 2007, 10th edition, in place
of the 7th edition (§§ 173.3, 173.198, 180.205, 180.209, 180.211, 180.411,
and 180.519).
Requests modifications to the manufacturing and testing specifications for series 4 cylinders in §§ 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and 178.68.
Proposes numerous revisions to the requirements for the requalification of
DOT specification cylinders in §§ 180.203–180.215.
Proposes to revise § 172.400a to allow the use of the labels described in
CGA C–7–2004 Appendix A on cylinders that are overpacked.
Proposes to require manufacturers to mark newly-constructed DOT 4B, DOT
4BA, DOT 4BW and DOT 4E specification cylinders with the mass weight
(MW) or tare weight (TW), and water capacity (WC) (§ 178.35).
Requests a revision to the HMR to allow cylinders used in fixed fire suppression systems to utilize the exceptions in § 173.309(a) for fire extinguishers.
Requests increased maximum permitted filling densities for specification cylinders containing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (§ 173.304a).
Proposes to allow materials packaged in accordance with § 173.301(a)(9) to
be marked with the OVERPACK marking.
Requests clarification of the requirements for the filling density a for liquefied
compressed gases contained in multiple element gas containers (MEGCs)
and manifolded cylinders (§§ 173.301(g) and 173.312).
Proposes to resolve a discrepancy between the HMR and CGA S–1.1 regarding the pressure relief device tolerances for DOT 39 cylinders transported
by aircraft (§§ 173.301(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2)).
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
P–1499
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 directs
agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of government-unique
standards except where inconsistent
with law or otherwise impractical.
Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 775
(codified in 15 U.S.C.); 15 U.S.C. 272.
The HMR incorporate a variety of
standards by reference in § 171.7,
including numerous standards relevant
to cylinder construction, maintenance,
a Filling density means ‘‘the percent ratio of the
weight of gas in a packaging to the weight of water
that the container will hold at 16 °C (60 °F). (1 lb
of water = 27.737 in3 at 60 °F.).’’ 49 CFR 173.304a,
Note 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
and use. With regard to the visual
inspection of steel cylinders, PHMSA
incorporates by reference the 7th edition
of the Compressed Gas Association’s
(CGA) publication C–6 Standards for
Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed
Gas Cylinders 1993. This CGA
publication serves as a guide to cylinder
requalifiers and users for establishing
cylinder inspection procedures and
standards. Inspection procedures
include preparation of cylinders for
inspection, exterior inspection, interior
inspection if required, nature and extent
of damage to be looked for, and tests
that indicate the conditions of the
cylinder. The 7th edition of this
standard is currently referenced in
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§§ 173.3, 173.198, 180.205, 180.209,
180.211, 180.411, and 180.519.
The CGA represents all facets of the
compressed gas industry, including
manufacturers, distributors, suppliers,
and transporters of gases, cryogenic
liquids, and related products. The CGA
submitted petition P–1499 requesting
that PHMSA replace the currentlyincorporated 7th edition of publication
C–6 Standards for Visual Inspection of
Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders with
the revised 10th edition and update the
appropriate references throughout the
HMR. The 10th edition provides
enhanced guidance for cylinder
requalifiers including guidance on the
inspection of multiple-element gas
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
containers (MEGCs), requirements for
thread inspection for cylinders used in
corrosive gas service and clarifies
maximum allowable depths and
measuring techniques for various types
of corrosion. PHMSA identified
approximately 5,000 companies that
would be subject to this standard. The
majority of these companies are
classified as small businesses using SBA
size standards (<500 employees). This
revision would impose a one-time cost
of between $78 and $142 per document
depending on the document format
(electronic or hard copy) and if the
purchaser is a member of the CGA.
This publication is available to view
on the CGA Web site at:
www.cganet.com. PHMSA requests
comments from affected entities,
particularly small entities, on the
impacts, both positive and negative, that
would result from incorporation of this
revised standard. PHMSA is interested
in technical differences between the 7th
and 10th editions of CGA publication C–
6 Standards for Visual Inspection of
Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders
including, but not limited to, the
specific revisions that increase safety
and cost implications associated with
the adoption of the new standard.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
P–1501
The authorized materials,
manufacturing methods and testing
requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW,
and 4E cylinders (DOT–4 series
cylinders) are specified in §§ 178.50,
178.51, 178.61, and 178.68. Specifically,
these sections describe material types
permitted to be used in construction,
size specifications, cylinder wall
thickness and required tests.
The CGA submitted petition P–1501
requesting that PHMSA revise the
manufacturing requirements for DOT
4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders.
According to the petition, the current
DOT–4 series welded cylinder
manufacturing requirements are unclear
in some respects and result in
interpretation by the manufacturers and
enforcement personnel. A summary of
the changes proposed by P–1501 are
outlined below:
• Revise §§ 178.50(b), 178.51(b),
178.61(b), and 178.68(b) to ensure
material compositions and the heat
treatment are within the specified
tolerances and of uniform quality as
follows:
Æ Require a record of intentionallyadded alloying elements, and
Æ Require materials manufactured
outside of the United States to have a
ladle analysis confirmed by a check
analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
31553
• Revise the pressure tests in
§§ 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and
178.68(h) to permit use of the
volumetric expansion test, a hydrostatic
proof pressure test or a pneumatic proof
pressure test.
• Revise the physical and flattening
tests b and retest criteria in §§ 178.50,
178.51, 178.61, and 178.68 for
consistency. These revisions would
clarify the location on the cylinder from
which the test specimens are removed.
• Revise §§ 178.50(n), 178.51(n), and
178.61(o) to permit marking on the
footring for cylinders with water
capacities up to thirty pounds, rather
than twenty-five pounds.
• Add requirements for the location
of markings on DOT 4E cylinders in
§ 178.68.
The CGA states in its petition that the
proposed changes do not present a
significant economic impact to any
single manufacturer or user, but will
also enhance regulatory clarity, promote
consistent manufacturing practices, and
create greater uniformity between the
specifications for DOT–4 series
cylinders and the requirements for
welded cylinders found in International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
standard 4706–1, Gas cylindersRefillable welded steel cylinders—Part
1: Test pressure 60 bar and below that
are referenced in the United Nations
Model Regulations.
PHMSA identified six U.S. based
manufacturers of these cylinders.
PHMSA requests comments on the
economic and safety implications of all
the proposed changes in P–1501.
PHMSA seeks comment on the potential
burden (time and/or cost) for
compliance with the information
collection activities associated with the
requirement to keep a record of
intentionally-added alloying elements
and to perform a ladle analysis
confirmed by a check analysis for
materials manufactured outside of the
United States. In addition to the cost of
keeping the records, PHMSA seeks
comment on the cost to implement and
conduct the ladle and check analyses,
pressure test, and physical/flattening
test.
PHMSA seeks comment on CGA’s
proposed changes to pressure tests in
§§ 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and
178.68(h). Specifically, we seek
comment on safety precautions that
should be taken to protect personnel
when a pneumatic pressure test is
authorized c and any additional
considerations associated with revised
testing requirements. PHMSA seeks
information on whether the expansion
of foot ring marking permissions will
tangibly reduce costs.
b The physical and flattening tests are destructive
tests conducted on samples of welded cylinders.
The samples are subjected to loading until they fail.
The failed pieces are then compared to known
certain pass/fail criteria to determine the quality of
the weld or tube.
c Pneumatic pressure tests present a greater
hazard than hydraulic pressure tests. In the event
of test failure, a container filled with a gas will
release a greater amount of stored energy.
Additional precautions must be taken to ensure the
safety of the test operator.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
P–1515
The requirements for the
requalification of DOT specification
cylinders found in Part 180 Subpart C
outline the specific procedures for the
requalification and maintenance of
cylinders. These requirements include
definitions for terms used in the
subpart, references to CGA publications
for the visual inspection of cylinders,
specific requirements for hydrostatically
testing cylinders including methods to
ensure the accuracy of test equipment.
PHMSA received petition P–1515
from Certified Training Company (CTC)
proposing numerous revisions to the
requirements for the requalification of
DOT specification cylinders found in
Part 180 Subpart C. The petitioner states
that the requalification requirements in
the HMR create confusion for
requalifiers and enforcement officials.
PHMSA requests comments on the need
to revise these requirements and two
possible methods of resolving the
confusion with regard to the
requalification requirements for
specification cylinders. The first, as
suggested by CTC in P–1515, would
modify the specific HMR provisions in
§ 180.203 through § 180.215 for
requalification of cylinders. The second
would incorporate by reference CGA C–
1 Methods for Pressure Testing
Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition
(2009) into § 180.205. CGA C–1 Methods
for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas
Cylinders, 10th edition (2009) contains
most of the provisions and additions
specified in P–1515 including revisions
to definitions in § 180.203, appropriate
procedures for conducting the hydraulic
pressure tests, and marking and record
keeping requirements.
CTC, in P–1515, requests that PHMSA
revise the HMR as follows:
• Add the following terms and
definitions to § 180.203:
Æ ‘‘Accuracy’’ means the
conformance of a particular reading to a
known standard. Accuracy is expressed
as the percentage of error of a reading
from a true value.
Æ ‘‘Accuracy grade’’ means the
inherent quality of the device. It
expresses the maximum error allowed
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
31554
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
for the device at any reading. Accuracy
grade is expressed as a percentage of the
full scale of the device.
Æ ‘‘Actual test pressure’’ means the
pressure applied to a cylinder during
requalification.
Æ ‘‘Calibrated cylinder’’ means a
cylinder that has certified calibration
points of pressure with corresponding
expansion values. It is a secondary,
derived standard used for the
verification and demonstration of test
system accuracy and integrity.
Æ ‘‘Master gauge’’ means a pressure
indicating device that is used as a
calibration standard, and has an
inherent accuracy grade equal to or
better than the requirement for the
pressure indicating device in the test
apparatus.
Æ ‘‘Over-pressurized’’ means a
condition in which the internal pressure
applied to a cylinder has reached or
exceeded the yield point of the cylinder.
Æ ‘‘Percent permanent expansion’’
means the ratio of permanent expansion
to total expansion, expressed as a
percentage. The calculation for percent
permanent expansion is permanent
expansion divided by total expansion
times 100.
Æ ‘‘Reference gauge’’ means the
pressure indicating device that is used
in the daily verification of a proof test
system, and has an inherent accuracy
equal to or better than the requirement
for the device to be checked.
Æ ‘‘Service pressure’’ means the rated
service pressure marked on the cylinder.
The petitioner added this definition to
differentiate the marked service
pressure from the actual full pressure.
• Modify the definitions for the
following terms used in § 180.203:
Æ ‘‘Commercially free of corroding
components’’ to also specify a moisture
content less than 55 ppm.
Æ ‘‘Defect’’ to mean an imperfection
requiring a cylinder to be rejected.
Æ ‘‘Test pressure’’ to state the
minimum prescribed test pressure. This
revision was suggested to differentiate
test pressure from actual test pressure.
• Modify the requirements in
§ 180.205(f) (visual inspection) to permit
the shot blasting d of cylinders to
remove surface corrosion, but prohibit
grinding, sanding or any other method
that may reduce cylinder wall thickness
unless conducted by an authorized
facility in accordance with § 180.212.
• Modify the requirements in
§ 180.205(g) (pressure test) to:
Æ Clarify the pressure test procedure
by:
d Shot blasting aluminum cylinders may result in
adverse effect on the cylinder’s sidewall properties
(e.g. aging and heat treatment).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
D Adding a requirement to isolate the
cylinder undergoing the hydrostatic test
from other sources of pressure that may
influence the test results.
D Separate requirements in
§ 180.205(g)(2) for pressure indicating
devices (i.e. gauges) from expansion
indicating devices (i.e. burettes, digital
systems) and require periodic
verification of these devices to confirm
their accuracy.
Æ Require a calibrated cylinder’s
markings to be checked and confirmed
every five years.
Æ Permit up to three repeat tests in
the event of equipment malfunction and
add a requirement to perform a system
check at 90% of test pressure before
repeating the pressure test.
Æ Add a provision that would permit
a cylinder that was over-pressurized
(filled to a pressure greater than 10% of
the test pressure) to continue in
compressed gas service provided the
cylinder’s permanent expansion does
not exceed 1⁄2 of the normally-allowed
limit.
Æ Permit cylinders that fail
requalification to undergo repair and
then attempt requalification a second
time.
• Combine the condemnation
requirements for DOT (found in
§ 180.205(i)) and UN cylinders (found in
the applicable ISO Standard) under one
uniform standard.
• Modify the requirements in
§ 180.209(b) (DOT 3A or 3AA cylinders)
to revise the eligibility criteria for the
use of the five-pointed star under
§ 180.209(b), which permits DOT 3A
and DOT 3AA cylinders to be
requalified every ten years instead of
every five years. The current eligibility
criteria for the use of the five-pointed
star include that, (1) The cylinder was
manufactured after December 31, 1945;
(2) The cylinder is used exclusively for
air; argon; cyclopropane; ethylene;
helium; hydrogen; krypton; neon;
nitrogen; nitrous oxide; oxygen; sulfur
hexafluoride; xenon; chlorinated
hydrocarbons, fluorinated
hydrocarbons, liquefied hydrocarbons,
and mixtures thereof that are
commercially free from corroding
components; permitted mixtures of
these gases; and permitted mixtures of
these gases with up to 30 percent by
volume of carbon dioxide, provided the
gas has a dew point at or below minus
(52 °F) at 1 atmosphere; (3) Before each
refill, the cylinder is removed from any
cluster, bank, group, rack or vehicle and
passes the hammer test specified in
CGA Publication C–6; (4) The cylinder
is dried immediately after hydrostatic
testing to remove all traces of water; and
(5) Each cylinder is stamped with a five-
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pointed star at least one-fourth of an
inch high immediately following the
test date. The petitioner’s revisions to
the eligibility criteria for the use of the
five-pointed star include:
Æ Remove the restriction that
cylinders must be made after December
31, 1945 in order to be requalified every
ten years;
Æ Remove the hammer test, as some
question the utility of such a test;
Æ Add a requirement that the cylinder
must have not more than 5% permanent
expansion;
Æ Add a requirement that cylinders
must not exceed the elastic expansion
rejection limit (REE); and
Æ Add self-contained breathing
apparatus to the list of prohibited uses,
as underwater breathing is already
prohibited.
• Require requalification markings to
begin immediately to the right of the
manufacturer’s markings and
subsequent markings to proceed in
columns downward to the bottom of the
shoulder area. Additional markings
would proceed in a similar column
format.
• Allow domestic requalifiers to
stamp cylinders that do not conform to
a DOT specification, special permit or
authorized UN standard (i.e. foreign
cylinders) with a requalifier
identification number (RIN).
• Specify in § 180.209(e) e that
cylinders used to transport reclaimed
refrigerant gases must be requalified
every five years using the volumetric
expansion method.
• Modify § 180.212 to permit grinding
of DOT 3-series cylinders, provided the
remaining wall thickness is measured
by ultrasonic examination.
PHMSA is also considering
incorporating into the HMR by
reference, CGA C–1 Methods for
Pressure Testing Compressed Gas
Cylinders, 10th edition (2009), and
referring to this standard in the cylinder
requalification requirements specified
in § 180.209. This publication provides
extensive detail and instruction
necessary to properly conduct the
hydrostatic tests required by the HMR.f
e This paragraph permits an increase in the
interval between retest for cylinders used
exclusively for certain non-corrosive gases and gas
mixtures that are commercially free from corroding
components. Many of these are refrigerant gases.
Refrigerant gases recovered from machines and
processes may contain water or other contaminants
that could corrode the cylinder and compromise its
integrity.
f On April 12, 2007 PHMSA published a NPRM
under docket number PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–
218E; 72 FR 18446) entitled ‘‘Cargo Tank Motor
Vehicle and Cylinder Issues; Petitions for
Rulemakings.’’ As part of this rulemaking PHMSA
proposed the incorporation of the 2004 edition of
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
PHMSA requests comment from the
regulated community whether the
requirements for the requalification of
DOT specification cylinders found in
Part 180 Subpart C need revision and if
so, what specific provisions need
further clarity.
PHMSA identified 980 entities that
conduct hydrostatic retesting.
Incorporation of CGA C–1 would
impose a one-time cost of between $102
and $186 per document depending on
the document format (electronic or hard
copy) and if the purchaser is a member
of the CGA. PHMSA requests data on
the impact of incorporating CGA C–1
Methods for Pressure Testing
Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition
(2009), the various changes proposed by
CTC, and the relative benefits and
drawbacks of the two options as a
means of clarifying and enhancing the
current requirements for requalification
of DOT specification cylinders. With
regard to CTC’s petition, PHMSA
requests information about the safety
implications, benefits, and costs of each
bulleted item listed. We are particularly
interested in comments regarding the
safety implications of the various
practices to remove surface corrosion
from cylinders and whether PHMSA
should regulate such practices. PHMSA
is also interested in comments regarding
the safety implications of requiring DOT
cylinders used to transport reclaimed
refrigerant gases to be requalified every
five years and modifying the conditions
for use of the five-pointed star. Beyond
the purchase costs of CGA C–1 Methods
for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas
Cylinders, 10th edition (2009), PHMSA
is interested in data on the impacts that
would be encountered with
incorporating CGA C–1 by reference.
This publication is available to view on
the CGA Web site at: www.cganet.com.
PHMSA requests comments on how
these changes would potentially impact
small entities. Finally, PHMSA seeks
information on potential benefits of
certain aspects of P–1515 including
what benefits, if any, would be realized
from permitting second requalification
after failure, changing the five-year and
ten-year requalification requirements,
CGA publication C–1 Methods for Hydrostatic
Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders, 8th edition
(2004) in response to a petition from CGA (P–1485).
In HM–218E, the 2004 edition of CGA C–1 was not
adopted based partially on comments raised by CTC
that cited concerns about the accuracy of certain
provisions in the 8th edition of CGA C–1, including
test equipment accuracy, calibrated cylinder design
requirements, and certain omissions. On July 17,
2009, CGA published the revised CGA Pamphlet C–
1, Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas
Cylinders, 10th edition. The 10th edition of CGA C–
1 addresses the issues raised by CTC in the HM–
218E NPRM.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
permitting the continued use of overpressurized cylinders and allowing
foreign cylinders to be stamped with a
RIN.
P–1521
For many years the HMR have
permitted the use of a neckring marking,
under certain conditions, in accordance
with the CGA publication C–7, Guide to
Preparation of Precautionary Labeling
and Marking of Compressed Gas
Containers, Appendix A, 8th Edition
(2004) under § 172.400a. This neckring
marking identifies the contents of a
cylinder by displaying the proper
shipping name, the UN identification
number and the hazard class/division
diamond within a single marking.
Section 172.400a permits the use of this
marking in lieu of the 100 mm x 100
mm square-on-point labels on a Dewar
flask meeting the requirements in
§ 173.320 and cylinders containing
Division 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 materials that
are not overpacked. This requirement is
intended to provide flexibility in hazard
communication for cylinders, especially
small cylinders.
The CGA petitioned PHMSA (P–1521)
to modify the provision in
§ 172.400a(a)(1)(i) to remove the
limitation that would only allow the use
of the neckring markings if the cylinders
are not overpacked. The petition would
still require the overpack to display the
100 mm x 100 mm square-on-point
labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part
172, Subpart E.
The marking prescribed in Appendix
A to CGA publication C–7, Guide to
Preparation of Precautionary Labeling
and Marking of Compressed Gas
Containers, Appendix A, 8th Edition
(2004) provides useful information in a
clear and consistent manner and its
widespread use on cylinders for many
years has enhanced its recognition.
CGA’s proposed change would provide
greater flexibility for shipments of
overpacked cylinders while ensuring
adequate hazard communication. If
cylinders are contained in an overpack,
the overpack must display the
appropriate markings and labels.
According to figures obtained from
the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately
86 entities are engaged in Industrial Gas
Manufacturing of which 74 are classed
as small entities (<500 employees).
Other potentially impacted entities
include medical equipment wholesalers,
service establishment equipment and
supplies merchant wholesalers and
other miscellaneous durable goods
merchant wholesalers. While firms in
these industries total over 20,000,
PHMSA expects that only a tiny fraction
of these firms would be affected by
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31555
CGA’s proposed change. PHMSA seeks
comment on the potential implications
of this change. Specifically, PHMSA
seeks comment as to whether this
change is necessary and what, if any,
safety and economic impacts would
result. PHMSA seeks data concerning
how many shipments the proposal
would impact. Finally, PHMSA seeks
information on how the increased
flexibility of marking would
economically affect shippers.
P–1540
As specified in § 178.35(f), the HMR
require DOT specification cylinders to
be permanently marked with specific
information including the DOT
specification, the service pressure, a
serial number, an inspector’s mark, and
the date manufacturing tests were
completed. These marks provide vital
information to fillers and uniquely
identify the cylinder.
Liquefied gases are normally filled by
weight. The tare weight and water
capacity must be known by the filler to
properly fill a cylinder by weight.
However, the HMR do not require tare
weight, mass weight, or water capacity
markings on DOT specification
cylinders. This information is essential
for cylinders filled by weight, as
cylinders overfilled with a liquefied gas
can become liquid full as the ambient
temperature increases. If temperatures
continue to rise, pressure in the
overfilled cylinder will rise
disproportionately, potentially leading
to leakage or a violent rupture of the
cylinder after only a small rise in
temperature.
To address this, the CGA submitted a
petition (P–1540) requesting that
PHMSA require tare weight or mass
weight, and water capacity to be marked
on newly constructed DOT 4B, 4BA,
4BW, and 4E specification cylinders.
The petition also requests that PHMSA
provide guidance on the accuracy of
these markings and define the party
responsible for applying the markings.
In its petition, CGA notes that PHMSA
incorporates by reference, the National
Fire Protection Association’s 58Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA–
58), which requires cylinders used for
liquefied petroleum gases to be marked
with the tare weight and water capacity.
However, as stated in the petition,
NFPA–58 gives no guidance as to the
accuracy of these markings or who is
required to provide the marking. The
petitioner states that this lack of
guidance can lead to overfilling
cylinders that can potentially create
unsafe conditions.
The CGA petition states that accurate
marking of cylinder tare weight, mass
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
31556
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
weight, and water capacity at the time
of manufacture is necessary for safe
filling and transportation of these
cylinders. While DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW,
and 4E cylinders are often used to
transport liquefied compressed gas, we
note that these are not the only cylinder
types used to transport compressed gas.
In response to the petition, PHMSA is
considering modifying § 178.35 to
require all DOT specification cylinders
suitable for the transport of liquefied
gases, to be marked with the cylinder’s
tare weight and water capacity. This
proposal would further align the
marking requirements for DOT
specification cylinders with the marking
requirements for UN ISO Cylinders in
§ 178.71. However, we stress that while
cylinder markings are important to
ensure the safe filling of liquefied
compressed gas they do not take the
place of adequate personnel training,
procedures to ensure proper filling, and
continued requalification and
maintenance of cylinders in preventing
incidents.
PHMSA understands that many in the
compressed gas industry, especially the
liquefied petroleum gas industry,
already request manufacturers mark
cylinders with this additional
information as an added safety measure.
Based on this assumption, PHMSA
estimates the impact on the compressed
gas industry will be minimal as many in
the industry are already voluntarily
applying these markings. We request
comment on this assertion.
PHMSA identified six U.S. based
manufacturers of the cylinders
identified in the petition. Five of these
companies are classed as small
businesses (<500 employees). PHMSA
requests comments and supporting data
regarding the increased safety benefits
and the economic impact of this
proposal. With regard to the cost
associated with this modification,
PHMSA has the following specific
questions:
• What is the average total cost per
cylinder to complete these markings (i.e.
is an estimated cost of $0.10 per
character for new markings accurate)?
• What is the estimated quantity of
newly manufactured 4B, 4BA, 4BW and
4E cylinders each year? Furthermore,
how many of these cylinders already
display mass weight, tare weight and
water capacity markings in compliance
with the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code
or other codes?
• How many manufacturers of the
above-mentioned cylinders are
considered small businesses by the
Small Business Administration (SBA)?
PHMSA seeks to identify how often
the mass weight, tare weight and water
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
capacity markings are already
permissively applied to cylinders and
the costs associated with applying these
marks. Finally, PHMSA is interested in
identifying any relevant data about
increased safety benefits associated with
the additional markings and alternate
methods/safeguards against overfilling
of cylinders currently being
implemented.
P–1546
The Hazardous Materials Table in
§ 172.101 provides a shipping
description for cylinders used as fire
extinguishers (UN1044, fire
extinguishers, 2.2) and references
§ 173.309 for exceptions and non-bulk
packaging requirements. Fire
extinguishers charged with a limited
quantity of compressed gas are excepted
from labeling and the specification
packaging requirements if the cylinder
is packaged and offered for
transportation in accordance with
§ 173.309(a)(1) through § 173.309(a)(3).
Additionally, fire extinguishers filled in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 173.309 may use non-specification
cylinders (i.e. cylinders not
manufactured to specifications in Part
178). Part 180 also provides special
requirements for cylinders used as fire
extinguishers. Specifically, § 180.209(j)
includes different requalification
intervals for DOT specification
cylinders used as fire extinguishers.
PHMSA has written several letters of
clarification regarding the applicability
of § 173.309 to fire extinguishers.
Notably on March 9, 2005, PHMSA
wrote a letter to Safecraft Safety
Equipment, Ref. No. 04–0202, regarding
non-specification stainless steel
cylinders used as a component in a fire
suppression system for installation in
vehicles. In that letter, PHMSA stated
that the cylinders used in the fire
suppression system appeared to meet
the requirements of § 173.309(a).
PHMSA issued another letter on May
30, 2008 to Buckeye Fire Equipment,
Ref. No. 06–0101 stating that the
company could not use the shipping
name ‘‘Fire extinguishers’’ for their
cylinders that served as a component of
a kitchen fire suppression system and
must use the proper shipping name that
best describes the material contained in
the cylinder since these cylinders were
not equipped to function as fire
extinguishers. This latter clarification
effectively required cylinders that are
part of a fixed fire suppression system
to meet an appropriate DOT
specification.
In response to this letter, GSI Training
Services submitted a petition for
rulemaking (P–1546) requesting PHMSA
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
allow cylinders that form a component
of fire suppression systems to use the
proper shipping name ‘‘Fire
extinguishers’’ when offered for
transportation. This petitioner states
that at least one company manufactured
over 39,000 non-specification cylinders
for use in fire suppression systems
based on the information provided in
the March 9, 2005 letter and that the
May 30, 2008 clarification effectively
placed this company out of compliance.
The petitioner further suggests that
cylinders comprising a component of a
fixed fire suppression system will
provide an equal or greater level of
safety than portable fire extinguishers
since cylinders in fire suppression
systems are typically installed in
buildings where they are protected from
damage and not handled on a regular
basis.
In response to P–1546, PHMSA is
considering modifying § 173.309 to state
that the requirements applicable to fire
extinguishers also apply to cylinders
used as part of a fire suppression
system. The controls outlined in
§ 173.309(a), including limits on the
internal volume, the cylinder contents,
the initial testing and subsequent
retesting requirements, may provide an
acceptable level of safety regardless of
whether the cylinder is equipped for use
as a fire extinguisher or is a component
of a fixed fire suppression system.
According to figures obtained from
the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately
568 companies are engaged in heavy
tank manufacturing that would include
pressure vessels for fire suppression
systems. Additionally, equipment
wholesalers and retailers may benefit
from this proposal. PHMSA is
concerned with the specific safety
impacts associated with providing an
exception for the transport of
compressed gases in non-DOT
specification cylinders. In other words,
are the requirements in § 173.309
appropriate for cylinders used in a fixed
extinguishing system? PHMSA is
interested in whether allowing nonspecification cylinders to utilize the fire
extinguisher exception would result in
a cost saving and if so how much?
Finally, PHMSA is interested in other
safety standards that apply to fire
suppression systems and how those
standards would influence transport
safety.
P–1560
Additional requirements for
shipments of liquefied compressed
gases in DOT specification cylinders are
specified in § 173.304a. In
§ 173.304a(a)(2), a table provides the
maximum filling densities and
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
permissible cylinder types for certain
named gases. Currently, § 173.304a(a)(2)
permits a maximum filling density of
68% for carbon dioxide and nitrous
oxide in DOT 3, DOT 3HT2000 and
DOT 39 cylinders as well as DOT 3A,
3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3E, 3T, and 3AL
cylinders with a marked service
pressure of 1800 psi.
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Air
Products) submitted a petition for
rulemaking (P–1560) requesting PHMSA
revise § 173.304a(a)(2) to modify the
maximum permitted filling densities for
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to
include 70.3%, 73.2%, and 74.5% in
DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AX, 3AAX, and 3T
cylinders with marked service pressures
of 2000, 2265, and 2400 psi
respectively. Air Products stated in its
petition that the proposed increase in
the maximum permitted filling densities
would yield various benefits including
increased harmonization of compressed
gas filling requirements with the UN
Model Regulations, benefits to the
carbonated beverage industry, decreased
fuel costs associated with the
transportation and delivery of carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide and reduced
administrative costs through the
elimination of DOT SP–13599.
PHMSA has a high degree of
confidence that the increased filling
densities for these gases will not
adversely impact safety and this action
supports several PHMSA initiatives,
including incorporating special permits
into the HMR. Therefore, we are
considering modifying the entries
currently in the table in § 173.304a(a)(2)
for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide to
include the maximum filling densities
listed in P–1560 and DOT SP–13599.
We note that the current HMR
prescribe only one filling density for
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (68%),
while the UN Model Regulations
prescribe two filling densities (68% and
76%) and incorporating the provisions
of P–1560 would expand the list of
allowable filling densities and
permissible cylinder types beyond what
is currently permitted in the UN Model
Regulations. PHMSA requests
comments on the safety and economic
implications of permitting expanded
maximum filling densities for carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide gases.
PHMSA seeks estimates on the number
of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
cylinders currently in use that would be
affected by this authorization. PHMSA
also requests feedback on how these
proposed changes would positively and
negatively affect both holders of this
special permit and non-holders.
Specifically, PHMSA seeks data on the
costs associated with the process of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
applying for and maintaining DOT SP–
13599 that would be obviated by
incorporating this special permit into
the regulations.
P–1563
In accordance with § 173.301(a)(9),
specification 2P, 2Q, 3E, 3HT, spherical
4BA, 4D, 4DA, 4DS, and 39 cylinders
must be packed in strong non-bulk outer
packagings. This configuration meets
the definition of a combination package
as it is defined in § 171.8 of the HMR.
The HMR require the outside of the
combination packaging to be marked
with an indication that the inner
packagings conform to the prescribed
specifications; however, the inner
packagings do not have to be marked.
Since these are combination packages
and not overpacks, the HMR do not
permit the use of the ‘‘OVERPACK’’
marking to comply with this
requirement. In contrast to a
combination package, each package in
an overpack must bear the appropriate
markings and labels. The overpack must
also display these markings and labels
unless they are visible through the
overpack (§ 173.25(a)(2), (a)(4)). The
absence of the ‘‘OVERPACK’’ marking
on outside packages required by
§ 173.301(a)(9) removes the implication
that each inner packaging (cylinders in
this case) must meet the applicable
marking and labeling requirements of
Part 172.
PHMSA received a petition for
rulemaking (P–1563) from the 3M
Corporation addressing the regulatory
confusion between marking
requirements for overpacks in § 173.25
and outside packages for certain thinwalled cylinders specified in
§ 173.301(a)(9). The petitioner notes that
the differing marking requirements in
§§ 173.25 and 173.301(a)(9) create
confusion and make training difficult.
This petition requests PHMSA modify
the HMR to permit materials packaged
in accordance with § 173.301(a)(9),
except aerosols ‘‘2P’’ and ‘‘2Q,’’ to
display the OVERPACK marking
described in § 173.25, in lieu of the
current requirement for ‘‘an indication
that the inner packaging conforms to
prescribed specifications.’’
The marking ‘‘Inner packages comply
with prescribed specifications’’ for
overpacks in § 173.25 was changed in
2004 to ‘‘OVERPACK’’ in an effort to
better align with global overpack
requirements. The petitioner states that
prior to 2004 both the overpack
requirements in § 173.25 and the
requirement in § 173.301(a)(9) used very
similar language intended to inform
package handlers that although not
visible, the inner packages contained
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31557
specification packagings and these
packagings conform to appropriate DOT
or UN standards.
PHMSA recognizes that different
marking requirements in § 173.301(a)(9)
and § 173.25 may have caused
confusion without enhancing safety.
PHMSA is considering modifying
§ 173.301(a)(9) to specifically require
the use of the ‘‘OVERPACK’’ marking
for the specified cylinders. However,
this change would mean that both the
inner packaging (cylinder) and the
overpack would have to display
hazardous materials markings and labels
in accordance with § 173.25, thereby
creating an additional burden. To avoid
this consequence, PHMSA is
considering revising the exceptions for
labeling in § 172.400a, to specify that
labels are not required on cylinders
packed in accordance with
§ 173.301(a)(9) provided the outer
packaging is labeled as required by the
subchapter. This modification would
eliminate the confusion cited by the
petitioner while excepting the inner
packages from the marking and labeling
requirements.
PHMSA requests comments on the
potential consequences of these
changes. Specifically, PHMSA seeks
comment on whether others have
experienced difficulty with the
requirements of § 173.301(a)(9) and thus
see the necessity for such a change.
PHMSA also seeks information on the
safety and economic impacts of this
proposed modification, including the
quantity of shipments per year this
modification would impact.
P–1572
Requirements for shipping MEGCs are
specified in § 173.312. Specifically,
§ 173.312(b) details the filling
requirements for MEGCs and states that
a ‘‘MEGC may not be filled to a pressure
greater than the lowest marked working
pressure of any pressure receptacle [and
a] MEGC may not be filled above its
marked maximum permissible gross
mass.’’ This requirement that each
pressure receptacle contained in the
MEGC may not be filled above the
working pressure of the lowest marked
working pressure of any pressure
receptacle is clear for permanent (nonliquefied compressed) gases which are
generally filled by pressure. However,
§ 173.312(b) does not contain a
corresponding requirement addressing
pressure receptacles containing a
liquefied compressed gas which are
most often filled by weight. This lack of
specificity for MEGCs containing
liquefied compressed gas has led to
some confusion on the proper filling
methods for such MEGCs.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
31558
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Barlen and Associates, Inc. filed a
petition for rulemaking (P–1572)
requesting PHMSA explicitly state in
§ 173.312 that for liquefied compressed
gases in MEGCs, the filling ratio of each
pressure receptacle must not exceed the
values contained in Packing Instruction
P200 of the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods—Model Regulations
(17th ed. 2011), as specified in
§ 173.304b, and liquefied compressed
gases in manifolded DOT cylinders
cannot exceed the filling densities
specified in § 173.304a(a)(2).
PHMSA does not anticipate this
provision will impose any new burden,
as this proposal would only restate an
important safety requirement already
stated in § 173.304a for DOT cylinders
and § 173.304b for UN pressure
receptacles. However, PHMSA
welcomes comments from affected
entities on the safety and economic
impacts of this proposal. PHMSA also
seeks comment on whether others find
the requirements of § 173.312(b)
confusing and thus, see a need for more
specific requirements as proposed in
P–1572.
P–1580
As provided by § 173.301(f), a
cylinder filled with a compressed gas
and offered for transportation ‘‘must be
equipped with one or more [pressure
relief devices (PRDs)] sized and selected
as to type, location and quantity and
tested in accordance with CGA
[publication] S–1.1 [Pressure Relief
Device Standards-Part 1—Cylinders for
Compressed Gases, 12th edition (2005)]
and CGA [publication] S–7 [Method for
Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for
Compressed Gas Mixtures in Cylinders
(2005)].’’ As specified in §§ 172.302(f)(2)
and 172.304(f)(2), the rated burst
pressure of a rupture disc for DOT 3A,
3AA, 3AL, 3E, and 39 cylinders, and UN
pressure receptacles ISO 9809–1, ISO
9809–2, ISO 9809–3, and ISO 7866
cylinders containing oxygen,
compressed; compressed gas, oxidizing,
n.o.s.; or nitrogen trifluoride must be
100% of the cylinder minimum test
pressure with a tolerance of plus zero to
minus 10%.
In response to PHMSA’s NPRM
entitled ‘‘Hazardous Materials;
Miscellaneous Amendments’’ published
in the Federal Register on September
29, 2010 [75 FR 60017] under Docket
No. PHMSA–2009–0151 (HM–218F),
HMT Associates, Inc. submitted a latefiled comment that identified a potential
discrepancy between the HMR and CGA
publication S–1.1 Pressure Relief Device
Standards—Part 1—Cylinders for
Compressed Gases, 12th edition (2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
Specifically, this commenter stated the
HMR have different PRD settings than
CGA S–1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders that
make it virtually impossible to comply
with both the HMR and CGA S–1.1.
Sections 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2)
require the rated burst pressure of a
rupture disc for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3E,
and 39 cylinders to be 100% of the
cylinder minimum test pressure with a
tolerance of plus zero to minus 10%,
whereas 4.2.2 of CGA S–1.1 requires the
rated burst pressure of the rupture disc
on DOT 39 cylinders to be not less than
105% of the cylinder test pressure.
In P–1580, the petitioner proposes
revising §§ 173.302(f)(2) and
173.304(f)(2) to require that the burst
pressure of a rupture disc coincide with
CGA S–1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders offered
for transportation after October 1, 2008,
other DOT specification cylinders with
the first requalification due after
October 1, 2008, and UN pressure
receptacles prior to initial use.
Specifically, as prescribed in 4.2.2 of
CGA S–1.1, the required burst pressure
of the rupture disc ‘‘shall not exceed
80% of the minimum cylinder burst
pressure and shall not be less than
105% of the cylinder test pressure.’’
PHMSA notes that the HMR do not
specify that the rated burst pressure on
a rupture disc must be in accordance
with CGA S–1.1, thus we do not see the
need for the changes proposed in P–
1580. However, PHMSA requests
comments from the compressed gas
industry regarding the potential
discrepancy. We ask if others see this as
a contradiction in the regulations in
need of modification. Furthermore, if a
change is deemed necessary, PHMSA
requests comment concerning the safety
and economic implications of such a
revision.
B. Special Permits
The HMR includes many
performance-oriented regulations,
which provide the regulated community
with flexibility in meeting safety
requirements. Even so, not every
transportation situation can be
anticipated and built into the
regulations. Special permits enable the
hazardous materials industry to quickly,
effectively and safely integrate new
products and technologies into the
production and transportation stream.
Federal hazmat law authorizes the
Secretary to issue variances—termed
special permits—from the HMR only if
a special permit provides for a safety
level ‘‘at least equal to the safety level
required under [Federal hazmat law/
regulations] * * * or consistent with
the public interest and [Federal hazmat
law], if a required safety level does not
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
exist.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5117(a)(1). Thus,
special permits provide a mechanism
for testing new technologies, promoting
increased transportation efficiency and
productivity, and ensuring global
competitiveness. Within the DOT,
PHMSA is primarily responsible for
implementing the Federal hazmat law
and issuing special permits.
PHMSA periodically conducts
reviews of active special permits to
identify variances that should be
adopted into regulations for broader
applicability. Converting these special
permits into regulations reduces
paperwork burdens and facilitates
commerce while maintaining an
acceptable level of safety. Additionally,
adopting special permits as rules of
general applicability provides wider
access to the benefits and regulatory
flexibility of the provisions granted in
the special permits. Factors that
influence whether a specific special
permit is a candidate for regulatory
action include: the safety record for
transporting hazardous materials;
transportation operations conducted
under a special permit; the potential for
broad application of a special permit;
suitability of provisions in the special
permit for incorporation into the HMR;
rulemaking activity in related areas; and
agency priorities.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is
considering incorporating three special
permits relating to the transportation of
compressed gases into the HMR. These
special permits have a strong record of
safety and incorporating them into the
HMR will provide wider access to the
benefits of their provisions, therefore
fostering greater regulatory flexibility
without compromising transportation
safety.
Pressure Relief Devices (PRD)
Section 173.301(f)(2) of the HMR
states that ‘‘a pressure relief device,
when installed, must be in
communication with the vapor space of
a cylinder containing a Division 2.1
(flammable gas material).’’ Special
Permit 13318 (SP–13318) authorizes the
transportation in commerce of DOT
specification 39 cylinders of 75 cubic
inches or less volume, without the PRD
in direct communication with the vapor
space. A copy of this special permit can
be viewed in the docket for this
ANPRM. PHMSA is considering
amending paragraph (f)(2) to state that
this provision does not apply to
cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less in
volume filled with a liquefied
petroleum gas or to cylinders installed
with PRDs at both ends. This special
permit was originally issued in 2003
subsequent to the publication of HM–
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
220D (67 FR 51625; August 8, 2002) and
continues to allow a shipping practice
that previously had been successfully
used for over 40 years with an
acceptable safety record. This
amendment would eliminate the need
for this special permit.
PHMSA is considering whether
incorporating this special permit into
the regulations is appropriate and seeks
comment on the potential impacts of
such incorporation.
Filling Limits for Carbon Dioxide and
Nitrous Oxide
Section 173.304a(a)(2) provides the
maximum permitted filling densities for
various gases for shipment of liquefied
compressed gases, including carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide, in
specification cylinders. Special permit
(SP–13599) authorizes a higher
permitted filling density for carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide. The specifics
of this issue, including the expected
costs and benefits of this revision, are
discussed above in Section III. A.
entitled Petitions for Rulemaking, under
the heading P–1560.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Pressure Relief Device Requirement for
Export Cylinders
As currently stated in § 171.23(a)(4), a
cylinder not manufactured, inspected
and tested in accordance with Part 178
that is filled for export must be
equipped with a pressure relief device.
PHMSA issued SP–12929 to authorize
the transportation of non-DOT and nonUN specification (i.e. foreign
manufactured cylinders) to be filled in
the United States and transported for
export, without the PRD, provided
specific conditions are met. These
conditions include requiring: (1) The
cylinder to meet the maximum filling
density and service pressure
requirements prescribed in the HMR, (2)
the shipping paper include the notation
‘‘DOT–SP 12929’’ and a certification
that the cylinder was retested and
refilled in accordance with the
requirements for export in the HMR and
(3) the emergency response information
indicate that the cylinders are not fitted
with PRDs. A copy of this special permit
can be viewed in the docket for this
ANPRM.
In this ANPRM, we are considering
incorporating the provisions of SP–
12929 into the HMR. We solicit
comments on the impacts, if any that
adopting these provisions would have
on import and export shipments of
cylinders.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
IV. Regulatory Review and Analysis
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
ANPRM
This ANPRM is published under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which
authorizes the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous
material in intrastate, interstate, and
foreign commerce.’’ Section 5117(a)
authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to issue a special permit
exempting compliance with a regulation
prescribed in §§ 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or
5112 ‘‘to a person transporting, or
causing to be transported, hazardous
material in a way that achieves a safety
level at least equal to the safety level
required under [the Federal hazmat
law], or consistent with the public
interest * * * if a required safety level
does not exist.’’ The issues described in
this ANPRM respond to ten outstanding
petitions for rulemaking and would
incorporate into the HMR three special
permits with an established history of
safety.
B. Executive Order 12866, Executive
Order 13563 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This ANPRM is not considered a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The ANPRM is not considered
a significant rule under the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures order issued by
the Department of Transportation [44 FR
11034].
Executive Order 13563 is
‘‘supplemental to and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions
governing regulatory review that were
established in Executive Order 12866 of
September 30, 1993.’’ In addition,
Executive Order 13563 specifically
requires agencies to: (1) Involve the
public in the regulatory process; (2)
promote simplification and
harmonization through interagency
coordination; (3) ‘‘identify and consider
regulatory approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility;’’ (4)
ensure the objectivity of any scientific
or technological information used to
support regulatory action; and (5)
consider how to best promote
retrospective analysis to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal existing
rules that are outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
PHMSA has involved the public in
the regulatory process in a variety of
ways. First, in this ANPRM, PHMSA is
addressing issues identified for possible
future rulemaking in letters of
interpretation and other correspondence
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31559
submitted to PHMSA by the regulated
community and other stakeholders.
Overall, the issues discussed in this
ANPRM promote the continued safe
transportation of hazardous materials
while producing a net benefit. PHMSA
is responding to ten petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the
compressed gas industry in accordance
with 49 CFR 106.95 and is considering
incorporating the provisions of three
special permits.
These petitions clarify the existing
regulatory text in the HMR, incorporate
widely-used industry publications and
address specific safety concerns, thus
enhancing the safe transportation of
compressed gases while limiting the
impact on the regulated community.
Incorporating the provisions of special
permits into regulations with general
applicability will provide shippers and
carriers with additional flexibility to
comply with established safety
requirements, thereby reducing burdens
and costs and increasing productivity.
PHMSA requests public comments
and feedback on these issues to help
inform its determination in how to
address the issues presented in this
ANPRM.
C. Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure
meaningful and timely input by state
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have a
substantial, direct effect on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. We invite state
and local governments with an interest
in the issues presented in this ANPRM
to comment on the effect that adoption
of specific proposals may have on state
or local governments.
D. Executive Order 13175
This ANPRM was analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13175 entitled ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’. Because this ANPRM
does not have tribal implications and
does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required. We invite Indian tribal
governments to provide comments on
the effect that adoption of specific
proposals may have on Indian
communities.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
31560
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive
Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and
Policies
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to
review regulations to assess their impact
on small entities. An agency must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis
unless it determines and certifies that a
rule is not expected to have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’
comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C.
601. Accordingly, DOT policy requires
an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen
any adverse effects on these businesses.
Section 603(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires an analysis of
the possible impact of the proposed rule
on small entities, including reasons for
the proposed action, the objectives of
the proposed rule, an estimate of the
number of small entities affected and
alternative proposals considered. Such
analysis for this ANPRM is as follows:
Need for the ANPRM. Current
requirements for the manufacture, use,
and requalification of cylinders can be
traced to standards first applied in the
early 1900s. Over the years, the
regulations have been revised to reflect
advancements in transportation
efficiency and changes in the national
and international economic
environment. This ANPRM is part of a
retrospective analysis to modify and
streamline existing requirements that
are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient,
or excessively burdensome.
Description of action. This ANPRM
considers incorporating the provisions
of three special permits, responds to ten
petitions for rulemaking, considers
clarifying other requirements in the
HMR, and addresses areas of concern
that are currently not addressed in the
HMR. The amendments discussed in
this ANPRM are designed to facilitate
international transportation, increase
flexibility for the regulated community
and promote technological advancement
while maintaining a comparable level of
safety.
Identification of potentially affected
small entities. The amendments
considered here are likely to affect
cylinder manufacturers (NAICS code
332420; approximately 568 companies),
cylinder requalifiers, independent
inspection agencies, and commercial
establishments that own and use DOT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
specification cylinders and UN pressure
receptacles, as well as individuals who
export non-UN/ISO compressed gas
cylinders (NAICS codes 32512, 336992,
423450, 423850, 423990, 454312,
541380). Nearly all of these companies,
particularly cylinder requalification
facilities (approximately 5000
companies), are small entities based on
the criteria developed by the Small
Business Administration.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. This ANPRM does not
include any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
Related Federal rules and regulations.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) prescribes
requirements for the use, maintenance,
and testing of portable fire extinguishers
in 29 CFR 1910.157 and requirements
for fixed fire suppression systems in
29 CFR 1910.160. The issues discussed
in this ANPRM pertaining to the
transportation of fire extinguishers and
compressed gas cylinders that are a
component of a fixed fire suppression
system do not conflict with the
requirements in 29 CFR. With respect to
the transportation of compressed gases
in cylinders, there are no related rules
or regulations issued by other
departments or agencies of the Federal
government.
Alternate proposals for small
business. Certain regulatory actions may
affect the competitive situation of an
individual company or group of
companies by imposing relatively
greater burdens on small, rather than
large, enterprises. PHMSA requests
comments from small entities on the
impacts of these additional
requirements.
Conclusion. This ANPRM requests
information on a series of questions
which will be used to develop a
proposal to amend provisions of the
HMR addressing the manufacture,
maintenance and use of cylinders.
PHMSA anticipates that this ANPRM
will generally reduce burdens for most
persons and any costs resulting from
adoption of new requirements will be
offset by the benefits derived from
elimination of the need to apply for
special permits, increased regulatory
flexibility, and the improved safety
derived from enhanced compliance with
the clarified portions of the HMR. Since
there are no specific proposals in this
ANPRM, there are no costs to be
evaluated. If your business or
organization is a small entity and if
adoption of proposals contained in this
ANPRM could have a significant
economic impact on your operations,
please submit a comment to explain
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
how and to what extent your business
or organization could be affected.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This ANPRM does not impose new
information collection requirements.
Depending on the results of our request
for comments to this ANPRM, a
decrease may result in the annual
burden and costs under OMB proposed
changes to incorporate provisions
contained in certain widely used or
longstanding special permits that have
an established safety record.
PHMSA specifically requests
comments on the information collection
and recordkeeping burdens associated
with developing, implementing, and
maintaining these requirements for
approval under this ANPRM.
Address written comments to the
Dockets Unit as identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM. We
must receive comments regarding
information collection burdens prior to
the close of the comment period
identified in the DATES section of this
ANPRM.
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. The RIN contained in the heading
of this document may be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This ANPRM does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It does not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more to either state,
local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and
is the least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objective of the rule.
Further, in compliance with the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, PHMSA will evaluate any
regulatory action that might be proposed
in subsequent stages of the proceeding
to assess the effects on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector.
I. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), requires Federal
agencies to consider the consequences
of major Federal actions and prepare a
detailed statement on actions that
significantly affect the quality of the
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
human environment. The Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations require federal agencies to
conduct an environmental review
considering: (1) The need for the
proposed action; (2) alternatives to the
proposed action; (3) probable
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives; and (4) the
agencies and persons consulted during
the consideration process.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Description of Action
This ANPRM responds to ten
petitions for rulemaking submitted by
the regulated community and seeks
comment on incorporating the
provisions of three special permits.
These issues discussed in this ANPRM
would, if eventually adopted, update
and expand the use of currently
authorized industry consensus
standards, revise the construction,
marking and testing requirements of
DOT–4 series cylinders, clarify the
filling requirements for cylinders,
discuss the handling of cylinders used
in fire suppression systems, and revise
the requalification and condemnation
requirements for cylinders.
Amendments to the HMR discussed
in this ANPRM:
• Replace the currently incorporated
7th edition of the Compressed Gas
Association’s (CGA) publication C–6
Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel
Compressed Gas Cylinders with the
revised 10th edition and update the
appropriate references throughout the
HMR.
• Revise the manufacturing
requirements for certain DOT–4 series
cylinders.
• Revise the requirements for the
requalification of DOT specification
cylinders by the volumetric expansion
method found in Part 180 Subpart C.
• Allow the use of the labels
described in the 8th edition of CGA’s
publication C–7 Guide to the
Preparation of Precautionary Labeling
and Marking of Compressed Gas
Containers (currently incorporated by
reference in the HMR) Appendix A on
cylinders contained in overpacks.
• Require manufacturers to mark
newly-manufactured cylinders suitable
for the transport of liquefied
compressed gas to be marked with the
mass weight, tare weight and water
capacity.
• Allow non-specification cylinders
used in a fixed fire suppression system
to be transported under the same
exceptions as those provided for fire
extinguishers.
• Increase maximum allowable filling
density for carbon dioxide and nitrous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
oxide consistent with the UN Model
Regulations.
• Permit use of the OVERPACK
marking for cylinders packed in
accordance with § 173.301(a)(9).
• Clarify filling limits for a liquefied
compressed gas in a manifold or a
multiple element gas container (MEGC).
• Harmonize the pressure relief
device tolerances for DOT 39 cylinders
transporting oxidizing gases by aircraft
with the 12th edition of CGA’s
publication S–1.1 Pressure Relief Device
Standards—Part 1—Cylinders for
Compressed Gases.
• Incorporate into the HMR the
requirements of DOT Special Permit
(SP) 13318 that authorizes DOT
specification 39 cylinders of 75 cubic
inches or less volume to be transported
without the pressure relief device being
in direct communication with the vapor
space of the cylinders.
• Clarify the requirements for filling
non-specification cylinders for export or
for use on board a vessel.
Alternatives Considered
Alternative (1): Do nothing
Our goal is to update, clarify and
provide relief from certain existing
regulatory requirements to promote
safer transportation practices, eliminate
unnecessary regulatory requirements,
and facilitate international commerce.
We rejected the do-nothing alternative.
Alternative (2): Publish an ANPRM
seeking public comment on the issues
raised in 10 petitions for rulemaking
and the incorporation of 3 special
permits. Subsequently, review the
comments received on the amendments
described in this ANPRM and their
potential economic and safety
implications. If deemed necessary,
PHMSA will use these comments to
craft more specific proposals which will
be published in a notice of proposed
rulemaking. This is the selected
alternative.
Environmental Consequences
Hazardous materials are substances
that may pose a threat to public safety
or the environment during
transportation because of their physical,
chemical, or nuclear properties. The
hazardous materials regulatory system is
a risk management system that is
prevention oriented and focused on
identifying a safety hazard and reducing
the probability and quantity of a
hazardous material release. Hazardous
materials are categorized by hazard
analysis and experience into hazard
classes and packing groups. The
regulations require each shipper to
classify a material in accordance with
these hazard classes and packing
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31561
groups. The process of classifying a
hazardous material is itself a form of
hazard analysis. Further, the regulations
require the shipper to communicate a
material’s hazards through use of the
hazard class, packing group, and proper
shipping name on the shipping paper
and the use of labels on packages and
placards on transport vehicles. Thus,
the shipping paper, labels, and placards
communicate the most significant
findings of the shipper’s hazard
analysis. A hazardous material is
assigned to one of three packing groups
based upon its degree of hazard, from a
high hazard, Packing Group I to a low
hazard, Packing Group III material. The
quality, damage resistance, and
performance standards of the packaging
in each packing group are appropriate
for the hazards of the material
transported.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials
are transported by aircraft, vessel, rail,
and highway. The potential for
environmental damage or contamination
exists when packages of hazardous
materials are involved in accidents or en
route incidents resulting from cargo
shifts, valve failures, package failures,
loading, unloading, collisions, handling
problems, or deliberate sabotage. The
release of hazardous materials can cause
the loss of ecological resources (e.g.
wildlife habitats) and the contamination
of air, aquatic environments, and soil.
Contamination of soil can lead to the
contamination of ground water.
Compliance with the HMR substantially
reduces the possibility of accidental
release of hazardous materials. It is
anticipated that the petitions and
special permits discussed in this
ANPRM, if adopted in a future
rulemaking, would have minimal, if
any, environmental consequences.
PHMSA will more thoroughly examine
the extent of the environmental impacts
of the petitions and special permits
discussed in this ANPRM should these
issues be proposed in a future
rulemaking.
Agencies Consulted
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration;
National Institute of Standards and
Technology;
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Conclusion
PHMSA has conducted a technical
review of the amendments discussed in
this ANPRM and determined that the
amendments considered would provide
protection against overfilling and where
a proposal would remove restrictions
these revisions are based on sound
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
31562
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules
scientific methods and would not result
in unusual stresses on the cylinder or
adversely impact human health or the
environment. PHMSA welcomes any
data or information related to
environmental impacts, both positive
and negative, that may result from a
future rulemaking addressing the issues
discussed in this ANPRM.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or at https://
www.regulations.gov.
K. International Trade Analysis
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing any standards or
engaging in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and do not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. PHMSA notes the
purpose is to ensure the safety of the
American public, and has assessed the
effects of this ANPRM to ensure that it
does not exclude imports that meet this
objective. As a result, this ANPRM is
not considered as creating an
unnecessary obstacle to foreign
commerce.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–12832 Filed 5–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:35 May 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
RIN 0648–BB29
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Shark Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service is considering the
inclusion of Gulf of Mexico blacktip
sharks in an amendment to the 2006
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan that is
currently under development. This
amendment process began in October
2011 to address the results of recent
stock assessments for scalloped
hammerhead, dusky, sandbar, and
blacknose sharks. A new stock
assessment is ongoing for Gulf of
Mexico blacktip sharks, and is expected
to be complete and available before the
amendment process is completed.
Therefore, we are considering including
Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks in the
amendment to ensure any changes in
the shark fisheries as a result of recent
stock assessments are considered at the
same time for public clarity and for
administrative efficiency.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than 5 p.m., local time, on June 21,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2011–0229, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the eRulemaking Portal,
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter NOAA–NMFS–2011–0229 in
the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right
of that line.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Peter Cooper, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark
the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments
on including Gulf of Mexico blacktip
sharks in Amendment 5 to the
Consolidated HMS FMP.’’
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Fax: (301) 713–1917. Attn: Peter
Cooper.
Comments must be submitted by one
of the above methods to ensure that the
comments are received, documented,
and considered by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Comments sent by
any other method, to any other address
or individual, or received after the end
of the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karyl Brewster-Geisz or Peter Cooper at
(301) 427–8503, or online at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or https://
www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Index.jsp.
The
Atlantic shark fisheries are managed
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. The 2006
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan is
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR
part 635.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
published a notice of intent to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement as
required by the National Environmental
Policy Act to amend the fishery
management plan on October 7, 2011(76
FR 62331). This amendment is designed
to rebuild and/or end overfishing on
several shark stocks that were
determined to be overfished and/or have
overfishing occurring. We anticipate
completing this amendment and any
related documents in April 2013.
In December 2011, the Southeast Data,
Assessment and Review 29 stock
assessment process for Gulf of Mexico
blacktip sharks began. This process has
included, among other things, a data
and assessment workshop along with
two assessment webinars that have been
open to the public to attend. A third
assessment webinar is expected in late
May. According to the schedule of
events for the assessment, the
assessment should be completed in
August 2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31551-31562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12832]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 178, and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0140 (HM-234)]
RIN 2137-AE80
Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments Pertaining to DOT
Specification Cylinders (RRR)
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is considering amendments to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) to revise certain requirements applicable to the
manufacture, use, and requalification of DOT specification cylinders.
PHMSA is taking this action in response to petitions for rulemaking
submitted by the regulated community and a review of the regulations
applicable to compressed gas cylinders. PHMSA is not proposing specific
amendments to the HMR; rather, we are seeking comment on the issues
discussed in the ANPRM. While this ANPRM focuses on specific petitions
for rulemaking and special permits, we will accept comments on the HMR
applicable to compressed gas cylinders. These comments will be combined
with a retrospective review of existing requirements aimed to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2011-0140 (HM-234) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System; US Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this ANPRM at the beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS), including any personal information.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leary or Robert Benedict,
Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, at (202) 366-8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Summary Review of Amendments Considered
IV. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This ANPRM
B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
C. Executive Order 13132
D. Executive Order 13175
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Environmental Assessment
J. Privacy Act
K. International Trade Analysis
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA is considering amendments that would revise and clarify the
HMR (49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to cylinder manufacture,
maintenance, and use. This action responds to ten petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the regulated community and seeks comment on
incorporating the provisions of three special permits. These amendments
would update and expand the use of currently authorized industry
consensus standards, revise the construction, marking and testing
requirements of DOT-4 series cylinders, clarify the filling
requirements for cylinders, discuss the handling of cylinders used in
fire suppression systems, and revise the requalification and
condemnation requirements for cylinders. PHMSA will review comments on
the amendments described in this ANPRM for their potential economic and
safety implications and will use these comments to craft more specific
proposals in any potential future rulemaking. PHMSA requests that
commenters note the applicable petition when submitting comments.
II. Background
PHMSA requests public comment on various petitions for rulemaking
submitted in accordance with Sec. 106.95 and DOT special permits PHMSA
has issued applicable to the manufacture, use, and requalification of
cylinders. PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to obtain the views of those
who are likely to be affected by the changes discussed, including those
who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to
additional regulation if PHMSA were to adopt the petitions. This ANPRM
is intended to provide the
[[Page 31552]]
greatest opportunity for public participation in the development of
regulatory amendments, and promote greater exchange of information and
perspectives among the various stakeholders. This additional step will
lead to more focused and well-developed proposals that reflect the
views of all regulated entities.
Access to Compressed Gas Association publications discussed in this
ANPRM are available for public review at: www.cganet.com. Access to the
petitions and background documents referenced in this ANPRM can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0140
(HM-234) or at DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
III. Summary Review of Amendments Considered
A. Petitions for Rulemaking
Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal hazmat law),
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
regulate the manufacture and continuing qualification of packagings
used to transport hazardous materials in commerce, or packagings
certified under Federal hazmat law for the transportation of hazardous
materials in commerce. The HMR contain requirements for the
manufacture, use, and requalification of cylinders subject to Federal
hazmat law, including defining materials and methods of construction,
the frequency and manner of inspection and testing, standards for
cylinder rejection and condemnation, cylinder marking and
recordkeeping, authorizations for packaging hazardous materials in
cylinders, filling, loading, unloading, and carriage in transportation.
In accordance with 49 CFR 106.95, a person may petition PHMSA to
add, amend or delete a regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking
with all the information required in Sec. 106.100. In this ANPRM,
PHMSA seeks comment on ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by the
compressed gas industry, including cylinder manufacturers, cylinder
requalifiers, hazardous materials trainers, shippers, and carriers of
compressed gases. These petitions are included in the docket for this
proceeding. The following table provides a brief summary of the
petitions addressed in this ANPRM and affected sections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party submitting
Petition petition Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1499........ The Compressed Gas Requests PHMSA incorporate by
Association (CGA). reference CGA C-6 Standards for
Visual Inspection of Steel
Compressed Gas Cylinders 2007,
10th edition, in place of the
7th edition (Sec. Sec.
173.3, 173.198, 180.205,
180.209, 180.211, 180.411, and
180.519).
P-1501........ The Compressed Gas Requests modifications to the
Association. manufacturing and testing
specifications for series 4
cylinders in Sec. Sec.
178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and
178.68.
P-1515........ Certified Training Co. Proposes numerous revisions to
(CTC). the requirements for the
requalification of DOT
specification cylinders in Sec.
Sec. 180.203-180.215.
P-1521........ The Compressed Gas Proposes to revise Sec.
Association. 172.400a to allow the use of
the labels described in CGA C-7-
2004 Appendix A on cylinders
that are overpacked.
P-1540........ The Compressed Gas Proposes to require
Association. manufacturers to mark newly-
constructed DOT 4B, DOT 4BA,
DOT 4BW and DOT 4E
specification cylinders with
the mass weight (MW) or tare
weight (TW), and water capacity
(WC) (Sec. 178.35).
P-1546........ GSI Training Services, Requests a revision to the HMR
Inc. to allow cylinders used in
fixed fire suppression systems
to utilize the exceptions in
Sec. 173.309(a) for fire
extinguishers.
P-1560........ Air Products and Requests increased maximum
Chemicals, Inc. permitted filling densities for
specification cylinders
containing carbon dioxide and
nitrous oxide (Sec.
173.304a).
P-1563........ 3M Inc................ Proposes to allow materials
packaged in accordance with
Sec. 173.301(a)(9) to be
marked with the OVERPACK
marking.
P-1572........ Barlen and Associates, Requests clarification of the
Inc. requirements for the filling
density \a\ for liquefied
compressed gases contained in
multiple element gas containers
(MEGCs) and manifolded
cylinders (Sec. Sec.
173.301(g) and 173.312).
P-1580........ HMT Associates Inc.... Proposes to resolve a
discrepancy between the HMR and
CGA S-1.1 regarding the
pressure relief device
tolerances for DOT 39 cylinders
transported by aircraft (Sec.
Sec. 173.301(f)(2) and
173.304(f)(2)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1499
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of
government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law or
otherwise impractical. Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775 (codified in
15 U.S.C.); 15 U.S.C. 272. The HMR incorporate a variety of standards
by reference in Sec. 171.7, including numerous standards relevant to
cylinder construction, maintenance, and use. With regard to the visual
inspection of steel cylinders, PHMSA incorporates by reference the 7th
edition of the Compressed Gas Association's (CGA) publication C-6
Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders 1993.
This CGA publication serves as a guide to cylinder requalifiers and
users for establishing cylinder inspection procedures and standards.
Inspection procedures include preparation of cylinders for inspection,
exterior inspection, interior inspection if required, nature and extent
of damage to be looked for, and tests that indicate the conditions of
the cylinder. The 7th edition of this standard is currently referenced
in Sec. Sec. 173.3, 173.198, 180.205, 180.209, 180.211, 180.411, and
180.519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Filling density means ``the percent ratio of the weight of
gas in a packaging to the weight of water that the container will
hold at 16 [deg]C (60[emsp14][deg]F). (1 lb of water = 27.737 in\3\
at 60 [deg]F.).'' 49 CFR 173.304a, Note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CGA represents all facets of the compressed gas industry,
including manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and transporters of
gases, cryogenic liquids, and related products. The CGA submitted
petition P-1499 requesting that PHMSA replace the currently-
incorporated 7th edition of publication C-6 Standards for Visual
Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders with the revised 10th
edition and update the appropriate references throughout the HMR. The
10th edition provides enhanced guidance for cylinder requalifiers
including guidance on the inspection of multiple-element gas
[[Page 31553]]
containers (MEGCs), requirements for thread inspection for cylinders
used in corrosive gas service and clarifies maximum allowable depths
and measuring techniques for various types of corrosion. PHMSA
identified approximately 5,000 companies that would be subject to this
standard. The majority of these companies are classified as small
businesses using SBA size standards (<500 employees). This revision
would impose a one-time cost of between $78 and $142 per document
depending on the document format (electronic or hard copy) and if the
purchaser is a member of the CGA.
This publication is available to view on the CGA Web site at:
www.cganet.com. PHMSA requests comments from affected entities,
particularly small entities, on the impacts, both positive and
negative, that would result from incorporation of this revised
standard. PHMSA is interested in technical differences between the 7th
and 10th editions of CGA publication C-6 Standards for Visual
Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders including, but not limited
to, the specific revisions that increase safety and cost implications
associated with the adoption of the new standard.
P-1501
The authorized materials, manufacturing methods and testing
requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders (DOT-4 series
cylinders) are specified in Sec. Sec. 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and
178.68. Specifically, these sections describe material types permitted
to be used in construction, size specifications, cylinder wall
thickness and required tests.
The CGA submitted petition P-1501 requesting that PHMSA revise the
manufacturing requirements for DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E cylinders.
According to the petition, the current DOT-4 series welded cylinder
manufacturing requirements are unclear in some respects and result in
interpretation by the manufacturers and enforcement personnel. A
summary of the changes proposed by P-1501 are outlined below:
Revise Sec. Sec. 178.50(b), 178.51(b), 178.61(b), and
178.68(b) to ensure material compositions and the heat treatment are
within the specified tolerances and of uniform quality as follows:
[cir] Require a record of intentionally-added alloying elements,
and
[cir] Require materials manufactured outside of the United States
to have a ladle analysis confirmed by a check analysis.
Revise the pressure tests in Sec. Sec. 178.50(i),
178.51(i), 178.61(i), and 178.68(h) to permit use of the volumetric
expansion test, a hydrostatic proof pressure test or a pneumatic proof
pressure test.
Revise the physical and flattening tests \b\ and retest
criteria in Sec. Sec. 178.50, 178.51, 178.61, and 178.68 for
consistency. These revisions would clarify the location on the cylinder
from which the test specimens are removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ The physical and flattening tests are destructive tests
conducted on samples of welded cylinders. The samples are subjected
to loading until they fail. The failed pieces are then compared to
known certain pass/fail criteria to determine the quality of the
weld or tube.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise Sec. Sec. 178.50(n), 178.51(n), and 178.61(o) to
permit marking on the footring for cylinders with water capacities up
to thirty pounds, rather than twenty-five pounds.
Add requirements for the location of markings on DOT 4E
cylinders in Sec. 178.68.
The CGA states in its petition that the proposed changes do not
present a significant economic impact to any single manufacturer or
user, but will also enhance regulatory clarity, promote consistent
manufacturing practices, and create greater uniformity between the
specifications for DOT-4 series cylinders and the requirements for
welded cylinders found in International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standard 4706-1, Gas cylinders-Refillable welded
steel cylinders--Part 1: Test pressure 60 bar and below that are
referenced in the United Nations Model Regulations.
PHMSA identified six U.S. based manufacturers of these cylinders.
PHMSA requests comments on the economic and safety implications of all
the proposed changes in P-1501. PHMSA seeks comment on the potential
burden (time and/or cost) for compliance with the information
collection activities associated with the requirement to keep a record
of intentionally-added alloying elements and to perform a ladle
analysis confirmed by a check analysis for materials manufactured
outside of the United States. In addition to the cost of keeping the
records, PHMSA seeks comment on the cost to implement and conduct the
ladle and check analyses, pressure test, and physical/flattening test.
PHMSA seeks comment on CGA's proposed changes to pressure tests in
Sec. Sec. 178.50(i), 178.51(i), 178.61(i), and 178.68(h).
Specifically, we seek comment on safety precautions that should be
taken to protect personnel when a pneumatic pressure test is authorized
\c\ and any additional considerations associated with revised testing
requirements. PHMSA seeks information on whether the expansion of foot
ring marking permissions will tangibly reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ Pneumatic pressure tests present a greater hazard than
hydraulic pressure tests. In the event of test failure, a container
filled with a gas will release a greater amount of stored energy.
Additional precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of the
test operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1515
The requirements for the requalification of DOT specification
cylinders found in Part 180 Subpart C outline the specific procedures
for the requalification and maintenance of cylinders. These
requirements include definitions for terms used in the subpart,
references to CGA publications for the visual inspection of cylinders,
specific requirements for hydrostatically testing cylinders including
methods to ensure the accuracy of test equipment.
PHMSA received petition P-1515 from Certified Training Company
(CTC) proposing numerous revisions to the requirements for the
requalification of DOT specification cylinders found in Part 180
Subpart C. The petitioner states that the requalification requirements
in the HMR create confusion for requalifiers and enforcement officials.
PHMSA requests comments on the need to revise these requirements and
two possible methods of resolving the confusion with regard to the
requalification requirements for specification cylinders. The first, as
suggested by CTC in P-1515, would modify the specific HMR provisions in
Sec. 180.203 through Sec. 180.215 for requalification of cylinders.
The second would incorporate by reference CGA C-1 Methods for Pressure
Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition (2009) into Sec.
180.205. CGA C-1 Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders,
10th edition (2009) contains most of the provisions and additions
specified in P-1515 including revisions to definitions in Sec.
180.203, appropriate procedures for conducting the hydraulic pressure
tests, and marking and record keeping requirements.
CTC, in P-1515, requests that PHMSA revise the HMR as follows:
Add the following terms and definitions to Sec. 180.203:
[cir] ``Accuracy'' means the conformance of a particular reading to
a known standard. Accuracy is expressed as the percentage of error of a
reading from a true value.
[cir] ``Accuracy grade'' means the inherent quality of the device.
It expresses the maximum error allowed
[[Page 31554]]
for the device at any reading. Accuracy grade is expressed as a
percentage of the full scale of the device.
[cir] ``Actual test pressure'' means the pressure applied to a
cylinder during requalification.
[cir] ``Calibrated cylinder'' means a cylinder that has certified
calibration points of pressure with corresponding expansion values. It
is a secondary, derived standard used for the verification and
demonstration of test system accuracy and integrity.
[cir] ``Master gauge'' means a pressure indicating device that is
used as a calibration standard, and has an inherent accuracy grade
equal to or better than the requirement for the pressure indicating
device in the test apparatus.
[cir] ``Over-pressurized'' means a condition in which the internal
pressure applied to a cylinder has reached or exceeded the yield point
of the cylinder.
[cir] ``Percent permanent expansion'' means the ratio of permanent
expansion to total expansion, expressed as a percentage. The
calculation for percent permanent expansion is permanent expansion
divided by total expansion times 100.
[cir] ``Reference gauge'' means the pressure indicating device that
is used in the daily verification of a proof test system, and has an
inherent accuracy equal to or better than the requirement for the
device to be checked.
[cir] ``Service pressure'' means the rated service pressure marked
on the cylinder. The petitioner added this definition to differentiate
the marked service pressure from the actual full pressure.
Modify the definitions for the following terms used in
Sec. 180.203:
[cir] ``Commercially free of corroding components'' to also specify
a moisture content less than 55 ppm.
[cir] ``Defect'' to mean an imperfection requiring a cylinder to be
rejected.
[cir] ``Test pressure'' to state the minimum prescribed test
pressure. This revision was suggested to differentiate test pressure
from actual test pressure.
Modify the requirements in Sec. 180.205(f) (visual
inspection) to permit the shot blasting \d\ of cylinders to remove
surface corrosion, but prohibit grinding, sanding or any other method
that may reduce cylinder wall thickness unless conducted by an
authorized facility in accordance with Sec. 180.212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\d\ Shot blasting aluminum cylinders may result in adverse
effect on the cylinder's sidewall properties (e.g. aging and heat
treatment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify the requirements in Sec. 180.205(g) (pressure
test) to:
[cir] Clarify the pressure test procedure by:
[ssquf] Adding a requirement to isolate the cylinder undergoing the
hydrostatic test from other sources of pressure that may influence the
test results.
[ssquf] Separate requirements in Sec. 180.205(g)(2) for pressure
indicating devices (i.e. gauges) from expansion indicating devices
(i.e. burettes, digital systems) and require periodic verification of
these devices to confirm their accuracy.
[cir] Require a calibrated cylinder's markings to be checked and
confirmed every five years.
[cir] Permit up to three repeat tests in the event of equipment
malfunction and add a requirement to perform a system check at 90% of
test pressure before repeating the pressure test.
[cir] Add a provision that would permit a cylinder that was over-
pressurized (filled to a pressure greater than 10% of the test
pressure) to continue in compressed gas service provided the cylinder's
permanent expansion does not exceed \1/2\ of the normally-allowed
limit.
[cir] Permit cylinders that fail requalification to undergo repair
and then attempt requalification a second time.
Combine the condemnation requirements for DOT (found in
Sec. 180.205(i)) and UN cylinders (found in the applicable ISO
Standard) under one uniform standard.
Modify the requirements in Sec. 180.209(b) (DOT 3A or 3AA
cylinders) to revise the eligibility criteria for the use of the five-
pointed star under Sec. 180.209(b), which permits DOT 3A and DOT 3AA
cylinders to be requalified every ten years instead of every five
years. The current eligibility criteria for the use of the five-pointed
star include that, (1) The cylinder was manufactured after December 31,
1945; (2) The cylinder is used exclusively for air; argon;
cyclopropane; ethylene; helium; hydrogen; krypton; neon; nitrogen;
nitrous oxide; oxygen; sulfur hexafluoride; xenon; chlorinated
hydrocarbons, fluorinated hydrocarbons, liquefied hydrocarbons, and
mixtures thereof that are commercially free from corroding components;
permitted mixtures of these gases; and permitted mixtures of these
gases with up to 30 percent by volume of carbon dioxide, provided the
gas has a dew point at or below minus (52[emsp14][deg]F) at 1
atmosphere; (3) Before each refill, the cylinder is removed from any
cluster, bank, group, rack or vehicle and passes the hammer test
specified in CGA Publication C-6; (4) The cylinder is dried immediately
after hydrostatic testing to remove all traces of water; and (5) Each
cylinder is stamped with a five-pointed star at least one-fourth of an
inch high immediately following the test date. The petitioner's
revisions to the eligibility criteria for the use of the five-pointed
star include:
[cir] Remove the restriction that cylinders must be made after
December 31, 1945 in order to be requalified every ten years;
[cir] Remove the hammer test, as some question the utility of such
a test;
[cir] Add a requirement that the cylinder must have not more than
5% permanent expansion;
[cir] Add a requirement that cylinders must not exceed the elastic
expansion rejection limit (REE); and
[cir] Add self-contained breathing apparatus to the list of
prohibited uses, as underwater breathing is already prohibited.
Require requalification markings to begin immediately to
the right of the manufacturer's markings and subsequent markings to
proceed in columns downward to the bottom of the shoulder area.
Additional markings would proceed in a similar column format.
Allow domestic requalifiers to stamp cylinders that do not
conform to a DOT specification, special permit or authorized UN
standard (i.e. foreign cylinders) with a requalifier identification
number (RIN).
Specify in Sec. 180.209(e) \e\ that cylinders used to
transport reclaimed refrigerant gases must be requalified every five
years using the volumetric expansion method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\e\ This paragraph permits an increase in the interval between
retest for cylinders used exclusively for certain non-corrosive
gases and gas mixtures that are commercially free from corroding
components. Many of these are refrigerant gases. Refrigerant gases
recovered from machines and processes may contain water or other
contaminants that could corrode the cylinder and compromise its
integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify Sec. 180.212 to permit grinding of DOT 3-series
cylinders, provided the remaining wall thickness is measured by
ultrasonic examination.
PHMSA is also considering incorporating into the HMR by reference,
CGA C-1 Methods for Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th
edition (2009), and referring to this standard in the cylinder
requalification requirements specified in Sec. 180.209. This
publication provides extensive detail and instruction necessary to
properly conduct the hydrostatic tests required by the HMR.\f\
[[Page 31555]]
PHMSA requests comment from the regulated community whether the
requirements for the requalification of DOT specification cylinders
found in Part 180 Subpart C need revision and if so, what specific
provisions need further clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\f\ On April 12, 2007 PHMSA published a NPRM under docket number
PHMSA-2006-25910 (HM-218E; 72 FR 18446) entitled ``Cargo Tank Motor
Vehicle and Cylinder Issues; Petitions for Rulemakings.'' As part of
this rulemaking PHMSA proposed the incorporation of the 2004 edition
of CGA publication C-1 Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed
Gas Cylinders, 8th edition (2004) in response to a petition from CGA
(P-1485). In HM-218E, the 2004 edition of CGA C-1 was not adopted
based partially on comments raised by CTC that cited concerns about
the accuracy of certain provisions in the 8th edition of CGA C-1,
including test equipment accuracy, calibrated cylinder design
requirements, and certain omissions. On July 17, 2009, CGA published
the revised CGA Pamphlet C-1, Methods for Pressure Testing
Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition. The 10th edition of CGA C-1
addresses the issues raised by CTC in the HM-218E NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA identified 980 entities that conduct hydrostatic retesting.
Incorporation of CGA C-1 would impose a one-time cost of between $102
and $186 per document depending on the document format (electronic or
hard copy) and if the purchaser is a member of the CGA. PHMSA requests
data on the impact of incorporating CGA C-1 Methods for Pressure
Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition (2009), the various
changes proposed by CTC, and the relative benefits and drawbacks of the
two options as a means of clarifying and enhancing the current
requirements for requalification of DOT specification cylinders. With
regard to CTC's petition, PHMSA requests information about the safety
implications, benefits, and costs of each bulleted item listed. We are
particularly interested in comments regarding the safety implications
of the various practices to remove surface corrosion from cylinders and
whether PHMSA should regulate such practices. PHMSA is also interested
in comments regarding the safety implications of requiring DOT
cylinders used to transport reclaimed refrigerant gases to be
requalified every five years and modifying the conditions for use of
the five-pointed star. Beyond the purchase costs of CGA C-1 Methods for
Pressure Testing Compressed Gas Cylinders, 10th edition (2009), PHMSA
is interested in data on the impacts that would be encountered with
incorporating CGA C-1 by reference. This publication is available to
view on the CGA Web site at: www.cganet.com.
PHMSA requests comments on how these changes would potentially
impact small entities. Finally, PHMSA seeks information on potential
benefits of certain aspects of P-1515 including what benefits, if any,
would be realized from permitting second requalification after failure,
changing the five-year and ten-year requalification requirements,
permitting the continued use of over-pressurized cylinders and allowing
foreign cylinders to be stamped with a RIN.
P-1521
For many years the HMR have permitted the use of a neckring
marking, under certain conditions, in accordance with the CGA
publication C-7, Guide to Preparation of Precautionary Labeling and
Marking of Compressed Gas Containers, Appendix A, 8th Edition (2004)
under Sec. 172.400a. This neckring marking identifies the contents of
a cylinder by displaying the proper shipping name, the UN
identification number and the hazard class/division diamond within a
single marking. Section 172.400a permits the use of this marking in
lieu of the 100 mm x 100 mm square-on-point labels on a Dewar flask
meeting the requirements in Sec. 173.320 and cylinders containing
Division 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 materials that are not overpacked. This
requirement is intended to provide flexibility in hazard communication
for cylinders, especially small cylinders.
The CGA petitioned PHMSA (P-1521) to modify the provision in Sec.
172.400a(a)(1)(i) to remove the limitation that would only allow the
use of the neckring markings if the cylinders are not overpacked. The
petition would still require the overpack to display the 100 mm x 100
mm square-on-point labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart
E.
The marking prescribed in Appendix A to CGA publication C-7, Guide
to Preparation of Precautionary Labeling and Marking of Compressed Gas
Containers, Appendix A, 8th Edition (2004) provides useful information
in a clear and consistent manner and its widespread use on cylinders
for many years has enhanced its recognition. CGA's proposed change
would provide greater flexibility for shipments of overpacked cylinders
while ensuring adequate hazard communication. If cylinders are
contained in an overpack, the overpack must display the appropriate
markings and labels.
According to figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau,
approximately 86 entities are engaged in Industrial Gas Manufacturing
of which 74 are classed as small entities (<500 employees). Other
potentially impacted entities include medical equipment wholesalers,
service establishment equipment and supplies merchant wholesalers and
other miscellaneous durable goods merchant wholesalers. While firms in
these industries total over 20,000, PHMSA expects that only a tiny
fraction of these firms would be affected by CGA's proposed change.
PHMSA seeks comment on the potential implications of this change.
Specifically, PHMSA seeks comment as to whether this change is
necessary and what, if any, safety and economic impacts would result.
PHMSA seeks data concerning how many shipments the proposal would
impact. Finally, PHMSA seeks information on how the increased
flexibility of marking would economically affect shippers.
P-1540
As specified in Sec. 178.35(f), the HMR require DOT specification
cylinders to be permanently marked with specific information including
the DOT specification, the service pressure, a serial number, an
inspector's mark, and the date manufacturing tests were completed.
These marks provide vital information to fillers and uniquely identify
the cylinder.
Liquefied gases are normally filled by weight. The tare weight and
water capacity must be known by the filler to properly fill a cylinder
by weight. However, the HMR do not require tare weight, mass weight, or
water capacity markings on DOT specification cylinders. This
information is essential for cylinders filled by weight, as cylinders
overfilled with a liquefied gas can become liquid full as the ambient
temperature increases. If temperatures continue to rise, pressure in
the overfilled cylinder will rise disproportionately, potentially
leading to leakage or a violent rupture of the cylinder after only a
small rise in temperature.
To address this, the CGA submitted a petition (P-1540) requesting
that PHMSA require tare weight or mass weight, and water capacity to be
marked on newly constructed DOT 4B, 4BA, 4BW, and 4E specification
cylinders. The petition also requests that PHMSA provide guidance on
the accuracy of these markings and define the party responsible for
applying the markings. In its petition, CGA notes that PHMSA
incorporates by reference, the National Fire Protection Association's
58-Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA-58), which requires cylinders
used for liquefied petroleum gases to be marked with the tare weight
and water capacity. However, as stated in the petition, NFPA-58 gives
no guidance as to the accuracy of these markings or who is required to
provide the marking. The petitioner states that this lack of guidance
can lead to overfilling cylinders that can potentially create unsafe
conditions.
The CGA petition states that accurate marking of cylinder tare
weight, mass
[[Page 31556]]
weight, and water capacity at the time of manufacture is necessary for
safe filling and transportation of these cylinders. While DOT 4B, 4BA,
4BW, and 4E cylinders are often used to transport liquefied compressed
gas, we note that these are not the only cylinder types used to
transport compressed gas.
In response to the petition, PHMSA is considering modifying Sec.
178.35 to require all DOT specification cylinders suitable for the
transport of liquefied gases, to be marked with the cylinder's tare
weight and water capacity. This proposal would further align the
marking requirements for DOT specification cylinders with the marking
requirements for UN ISO Cylinders in Sec. 178.71. However, we stress
that while cylinder markings are important to ensure the safe filling
of liquefied compressed gas they do not take the place of adequate
personnel training, procedures to ensure proper filling, and continued
requalification and maintenance of cylinders in preventing incidents.
PHMSA understands that many in the compressed gas industry,
especially the liquefied petroleum gas industry, already request
manufacturers mark cylinders with this additional information as an
added safety measure. Based on this assumption, PHMSA estimates the
impact on the compressed gas industry will be minimal as many in the
industry are already voluntarily applying these markings. We request
comment on this assertion.
PHMSA identified six U.S. based manufacturers of the cylinders
identified in the petition. Five of these companies are classed as
small businesses (<500 employees). PHMSA requests comments and
supporting data regarding the increased safety benefits and the
economic impact of this proposal. With regard to the cost associated
with this modification, PHMSA has the following specific questions:
What is the average total cost per cylinder to complete
these markings (i.e. is an estimated cost of $0.10 per character for
new markings accurate)?
What is the estimated quantity of newly manufactured 4B,
4BA, 4BW and 4E cylinders each year? Furthermore, how many of these
cylinders already display mass weight, tare weight and water capacity
markings in compliance with the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code or other
codes?
How many manufacturers of the above-mentioned cylinders
are considered small businesses by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)?
PHMSA seeks to identify how often the mass weight, tare weight and
water capacity markings are already permissively applied to cylinders
and the costs associated with applying these marks. Finally, PHMSA is
interested in identifying any relevant data about increased safety
benefits associated with the additional markings and alternate methods/
safeguards against overfilling of cylinders currently being
implemented.
P-1546
The Hazardous Materials Table in Sec. 172.101 provides a shipping
description for cylinders used as fire extinguishers (UN1044, fire
extinguishers, 2.2) and references Sec. 173.309 for exceptions and
non-bulk packaging requirements. Fire extinguishers charged with a
limited quantity of compressed gas are excepted from labeling and the
specification packaging requirements if the cylinder is packaged and
offered for transportation in accordance with Sec. 173.309(a)(1)
through Sec. 173.309(a)(3). Additionally, fire extinguishers filled in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 173.309 may use non-
specification cylinders (i.e. cylinders not manufactured to
specifications in Part 178). Part 180 also provides special
requirements for cylinders used as fire extinguishers. Specifically,
Sec. 180.209(j) includes different requalification intervals for DOT
specification cylinders used as fire extinguishers.
PHMSA has written several letters of clarification regarding the
applicability of Sec. 173.309 to fire extinguishers. Notably on March
9, 2005, PHMSA wrote a letter to Safecraft Safety Equipment, Ref. No.
04-0202, regarding non-specification stainless steel cylinders used as
a component in a fire suppression system for installation in vehicles.
In that letter, PHMSA stated that the cylinders used in the fire
suppression system appeared to meet the requirements of Sec.
173.309(a). PHMSA issued another letter on May 30, 2008 to Buckeye Fire
Equipment, Ref. No. 06-0101 stating that the company could not use the
shipping name ``Fire extinguishers'' for their cylinders that served as
a component of a kitchen fire suppression system and must use the
proper shipping name that best describes the material contained in the
cylinder since these cylinders were not equipped to function as fire
extinguishers. This latter clarification effectively required cylinders
that are part of a fixed fire suppression system to meet an appropriate
DOT specification.
In response to this letter, GSI Training Services submitted a
petition for rulemaking (P-1546) requesting PHMSA allow cylinders that
form a component of fire suppression systems to use the proper shipping
name ``Fire extinguishers'' when offered for transportation. This
petitioner states that at least one company manufactured over 39,000
non-specification cylinders for use in fire suppression systems based
on the information provided in the March 9, 2005 letter and that the
May 30, 2008 clarification effectively placed this company out of
compliance. The petitioner further suggests that cylinders comprising a
component of a fixed fire suppression system will provide an equal or
greater level of safety than portable fire extinguishers since
cylinders in fire suppression systems are typically installed in
buildings where they are protected from damage and not handled on a
regular basis.
In response to P-1546, PHMSA is considering modifying Sec. 173.309
to state that the requirements applicable to fire extinguishers also
apply to cylinders used as part of a fire suppression system. The
controls outlined in Sec. 173.309(a), including limits on the internal
volume, the cylinder contents, the initial testing and subsequent
retesting requirements, may provide an acceptable level of safety
regardless of whether the cylinder is equipped for use as a fire
extinguisher or is a component of a fixed fire suppression system.
According to figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau,
approximately 568 companies are engaged in heavy tank manufacturing
that would include pressure vessels for fire suppression systems.
Additionally, equipment wholesalers and retailers may benefit from this
proposal. PHMSA is concerned with the specific safety impacts
associated with providing an exception for the transport of compressed
gases in non-DOT specification cylinders. In other words, are the
requirements in Sec. 173.309 appropriate for cylinders used in a fixed
extinguishing system? PHMSA is interested in whether allowing non-
specification cylinders to utilize the fire extinguisher exception
would result in a cost saving and if so how much? Finally, PHMSA is
interested in other safety standards that apply to fire suppression
systems and how those standards would influence transport safety.
P-1560
Additional requirements for shipments of liquefied compressed gases
in DOT specification cylinders are specified in Sec. 173.304a. In
Sec. 173.304a(a)(2), a table provides the maximum filling densities
and
[[Page 31557]]
permissible cylinder types for certain named gases. Currently, Sec.
173.304a(a)(2) permits a maximum filling density of 68% for carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide in DOT 3, DOT 3HT2000 and DOT 39 cylinders as
well as DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3E, 3T, and 3AL cylinders with a marked
service pressure of 1800 psi.
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Air Products) submitted a petition
for rulemaking (P-1560) requesting PHMSA revise Sec. 173.304a(a)(2) to
modify the maximum permitted filling densities for carbon dioxide and
nitrous oxide to include 70.3%, 73.2%, and 74.5% in DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AX,
3AAX, and 3T cylinders with marked service pressures of 2000, 2265, and
2400 psi respectively. Air Products stated in its petition that the
proposed increase in the maximum permitted filling densities would
yield various benefits including increased harmonization of compressed
gas filling requirements with the UN Model Regulations, benefits to the
carbonated beverage industry, decreased fuel costs associated with the
transportation and delivery of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and
reduced administrative costs through the elimination of DOT SP-13599.
PHMSA has a high degree of confidence that the increased filling
densities for these gases will not adversely impact safety and this
action supports several PHMSA initiatives, including incorporating
special permits into the HMR. Therefore, we are considering modifying
the entries currently in the table in Sec. 173.304a(a)(2) for carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide to include the maximum filling densities
listed in P-1560 and DOT SP-13599.
We note that the current HMR prescribe only one filling density for
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (68%), while the UN Model Regulations
prescribe two filling densities (68% and 76%) and incorporating the
provisions of P-1560 would expand the list of allowable filling
densities and permissible cylinder types beyond what is currently
permitted in the UN Model Regulations. PHMSA requests comments on the
safety and economic implications of permitting expanded maximum filling
densities for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide gases. PHMSA seeks
estimates on the number of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide cylinders
currently in use that would be affected by this authorization. PHMSA
also requests feedback on how these proposed changes would positively
and negatively affect both holders of this special permit and non-
holders. Specifically, PHMSA seeks data on the costs associated with
the process of applying for and maintaining DOT SP-13599 that would be
obviated by incorporating this special permit into the regulations.
P-1563
In accordance with Sec. 173.301(a)(9), specification 2P, 2Q, 3E,
3HT, spherical 4BA, 4D, 4DA, 4DS, and 39 cylinders must be packed in
strong non-bulk outer packagings. This configuration meets the
definition of a combination package as it is defined in Sec. 171.8 of
the HMR. The HMR require the outside of the combination packaging to be
marked with an indication that the inner packagings conform to the
prescribed specifications; however, the inner packagings do not have to
be marked. Since these are combination packages and not overpacks, the
HMR do not permit the use of the ``OVERPACK'' marking to comply with
this requirement. In contrast to a combination package, each package in
an overpack must bear the appropriate markings and labels. The overpack
must also display these markings and labels unless they are visible
through the overpack (Sec. 173.25(a)(2), (a)(4)). The absence of the
``OVERPACK'' marking on outside packages required by Sec.
173.301(a)(9) removes the implication that each inner packaging
(cylinders in this case) must meet the applicable marking and labeling
requirements of Part 172.
PHMSA received a petition for rulemaking (P-1563) from the 3M
Corporation addressing the regulatory confusion between marking
requirements for overpacks in Sec. 173.25 and outside packages for
certain thin-walled cylinders specified in Sec. 173.301(a)(9). The
petitioner notes that the differing marking requirements in Sec. Sec.
173.25 and 173.301(a)(9) create confusion and make training difficult.
This petition requests PHMSA modify the HMR to permit materials
packaged in accordance with Sec. 173.301(a)(9), except aerosols ``2P''
and ``2Q,'' to display the OVERPACK marking described in Sec. 173.25,
in lieu of the current requirement for ``an indication that the inner
packaging conforms to prescribed specifications.''
The marking ``Inner packages comply with prescribed
specifications'' for overpacks in Sec. 173.25 was changed in 2004 to
``OVERPACK'' in an effort to better align with global overpack
requirements. The petitioner states that prior to 2004 both the
overpack requirements in Sec. 173.25 and the requirement in Sec.
173.301(a)(9) used very similar language intended to inform package
handlers that although not visible, the inner packages contained
specification packagings and these packagings conform to appropriate
DOT or UN standards.
PHMSA recognizes that different marking requirements in Sec.
173.301(a)(9) and Sec. 173.25 may have caused confusion without
enhancing safety. PHMSA is considering modifying Sec. 173.301(a)(9) to
specifically require the use of the ``OVERPACK'' marking for the
specified cylinders. However, this change would mean that both the
inner packaging (cylinder) and the overpack would have to display
hazardous materials markings and labels in accordance with Sec.
173.25, thereby creating an additional burden. To avoid this
consequence, PHMSA is considering revising the exceptions for labeling
in Sec. 172.400a, to specify that labels are not required on cylinders
packed in accordance with Sec. 173.301(a)(9) provided the outer
packaging is labeled as required by the subchapter. This modification
would eliminate the confusion cited by the petitioner while excepting
the inner packages from the marking and labeling requirements.
PHMSA requests comments on the potential consequences of these
changes. Specifically, PHMSA seeks comment on whether others have
experienced difficulty with the requirements of Sec. 173.301(a)(9) and
thus see the necessity for such a change. PHMSA also seeks information
on the safety and economic impacts of this proposed modification,
including the quantity of shipments per year this modification would
impact.
P-1572
Requirements for shipping MEGCs are specified in Sec. 173.312.
Specifically, Sec. 173.312(b) details the filling requirements for
MEGCs and states that a ``MEGC may not be filled to a pressure greater
than the lowest marked working pressure of any pressure receptacle [and
a] MEGC may not be filled above its marked maximum permissible gross
mass.'' This requirement that each pressure receptacle contained in the
MEGC may not be filled above the working pressure of the lowest marked
working pressure of any pressure receptacle is clear for permanent
(non-liquefied compressed) gases which are generally filled by
pressure. However, Sec. 173.312(b) does not contain a corresponding
requirement addressing pressure receptacles containing a liquefied
compressed gas which are most often filled by weight. This lack of
specificity for MEGCs containing liquefied compressed gas has led to
some confusion on the proper filling methods for such MEGCs.
[[Page 31558]]
Barlen and Associates, Inc. filed a petition for rulemaking (P-
1572) requesting PHMSA explicitly state in Sec. 173.312 that for
liquefied compressed gases in MEGCs, the filling ratio of each pressure
receptacle must not exceed the values contained in Packing Instruction
P200 of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods--Model Regulations (17th ed. 2011), as specified in
Sec. 173.304b, and liquefied compressed gases in manifolded DOT
cylinders cannot exceed the filling densities specified in Sec.
173.304a(a)(2).
PHMSA does not anticipate this provision will impose any new
burden, as this proposal would only restate an important safety
requirement already stated in Sec. 173.304a for DOT cylinders and
Sec. 173.304b for UN pressure receptacles. However, PHMSA welcomes
comments from affected entities on the safety and economic impacts of
this proposal. PHMSA also seeks comment on whether others find the
requirements of Sec. 173.312(b) confusing and thus, see a need for
more specific requirements as proposed in P-1572.
P-1580
As provided by Sec. 173.301(f), a cylinder filled with a
compressed gas and offered for transportation ``must be equipped with
one or more [pressure relief devices (PRDs)] sized and selected as to
type, location and quantity and tested in accordance with CGA
[publication] S-1.1 [Pressure Relief Device Standards-Part 1--Cylinders
for Compressed Gases, 12th edition (2005)] and CGA [publication] S-7
[Method for Selecting Pressure Relief Devices for Compressed Gas
Mixtures in Cylinders (2005)].'' As specified in Sec. Sec.
172.302(f)(2) and 172.304(f)(2), the rated burst pressure of a rupture
disc for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3E, and 39 cylinders, and UN pressure
receptacles ISO 9809-1, ISO 9809-2, ISO 9809-3, and ISO 7866 cylinders
containing oxygen, compressed; compressed gas, oxidizing, n.o.s.; or
nitrogen trifluoride must be 100% of the cylinder minimum test pressure
with a tolerance of plus zero to minus 10%.
In response to PHMSA's NPRM entitled ``Hazardous Materials;
Miscellaneous Amendments'' published in the Federal Register on
September 29, 2010 [75 FR 60017] under Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0151 (HM-
218F), HMT Associates, Inc. submitted a late-filed comment that
identified a potential discrepancy between the HMR and CGA publication
S-1.1 Pressure Relief Device Standards--Part 1--Cylinders for
Compressed Gases, 12th edition (2005). Specifically, this commenter
stated the HMR have different PRD settings than CGA S-1.1 for DOT 39
cylinders that make it virtually impossible to comply with both the HMR
and CGA S-1.1. Sections 173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) require the
rated burst pressure of a rupture disc for DOT 3A, 3AA, 3AL, 3E, and 39
cylinders to be 100% of the cylinder minimum test pressure with a
tolerance of plus zero to minus 10%, whereas 4.2.2 of CGA S-1.1
requires the rated burst pressure of the rupture disc on DOT 39
cylinders to be not less than 105% of the cylinder test pressure.
In P-1580, the petitioner proposes revising Sec. Sec.
173.302(f)(2) and 173.304(f)(2) to require that the burst pressure of a
rupture disc coincide with CGA S-1.1 for DOT 39 cylinders offered for
transportation after October 1, 2008, other DOT specification cylinders
with the first requalification due after October 1, 2008, and UN
pressure receptacles prior to initial use. Specifically, as prescribed
in 4.2.2 of CGA S-1.1, the required burst pressure of the rupture disc
``shall not exceed 80% of the minimum cylinder burst pressure and shall
not be less than 105% of the cylinder test pressure.''
PHMSA notes that the HMR do not specify that the rated burst
pressure on a rupture disc must be in accordance with CGA S-1.1, thus
we do not see the need for the changes proposed in P-1580. However,
PHMSA requests comments from the compressed gas industry regarding the
potential discrepancy. We ask if others see this as a contradiction in
the regulations in need of modification. Furthermore, if a change is
deemed necessary, PHMSA requests comment concerning the safety and
economic implications of such a revision.
B. Special Permits
The HMR includes many performance-oriented regulations, which
provide the regulated community with flexibility in meeting safety
requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be
anticipated and built into the regulations. Special permits enable the
hazardous materials industry to quickly, effectively and safely
integrate new products and technologies into the production and
transportation stream. Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary to
issue variances--termed special permits--from the HMR only if a special
permit provides for a safety level ``at least equal to the safety level
required under [Federal hazmat law/regulations] * * * or consistent
with the public interest and [Federal hazmat law], if a required safety
level does not exist.'' 49 U.S.C. 5117(a)(1). Thus, special permits
provide a mechanism for testing new technologies, promoting increased
transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global
competitiveness. Within the DOT, PHMSA is primarily responsible for
implementing the Federal hazmat law and issuing special permits.
PHMSA periodically conducts reviews of active special permits to
identify variances that should be adopted into regulations for broader
applicability. Converting these special permits into regulations
reduces paperwork burdens and facilitates commerce while maintaining an
acceptable level of safety. Additionally, adopting special permits as
rules of general applicability provides wider access to the benefits
and regulatory flexibility of the provisions granted in the special
permits. Factors that influence whether a specific special permit is a
candidate for regulatory action include: the safety record for
transporting hazardous materials; transportation operations conducted
under a special permit; the potential for broad application of a
special permit; suitability of provisions in the special permit for
incorporation into the HMR; rulemaking activity in related areas; and
agency priorities.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is considering incorporating three special
permits relating to the transportation of compressed gases into the
HMR. These special permits have a strong record of safety and
incorporating them into the HMR will provide wider access to the
benefits of their provisions, therefore fostering greater regulatory
flexibility without compromising transportation safety.
Pressure Relief Devices (PRD)
Section 173.301(f)(2) of the HMR states that ``a pressure relief
device, when installed, must be in communication with the vapor space
of a cylinder containing a Division 2.1 (flammable gas material).''
Special Permit 13318 (SP-13318) authorizes the transportation in
commerce of DOT specification 39 cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less
volume, without the PRD in direct communication with the vapor space. A
copy of this special permit can be viewed in the docket for this ANPRM.
PHMSA is considering amending paragraph (f)(2) to state that this
provision does not apply to cylinders of 75 cubic inches or less in
volume filled with a liquefied petroleum gas or to cylinders installed
with PRDs at both ends. This special permit was originally issued in
2003 subsequent to the publication of HM-
[[Page 31559]]
220D (67 FR 51625; August 8, 2002) and continues to allow a shipping
practice that previously had been successfully used for over 40 years
with an acceptable safety record. This amendment would eliminate the
need for this special permit.
PHMSA is considering whether incorporating this special permit into
the regulations is appropriate and seeks comment on the potential
impacts of such incorporation.
Filling Limits for Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide
Section 173.304a(a)(2) provides the maximum permitted filling
densities for various gases for shipment of liquefied compressed gases,
including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, in specification cylinders.
Special permit (SP-13599) authorizes a higher permitted filling density
for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. The specifics of this issue,
including the expected costs and benefits of this revision, are
discussed above in Section III. A. entitled Petitions for Rulemaking,
under the heading P-1560.
Pressure Relief Device Requirement for Export Cylinders
As currently stated in Sec. 171.23(a)(4), a cylinder not
manufactured, inspected and tested in accordance with Part 178 that is
filled for export must be equipped with a pressure relief device. PHMSA
issued SP-12929 to authorize the transportation of non-DOT and non-UN
specification (i.e. foreign manufactured cylinders) to be filled in the
United States and transported for export, without the PRD, provided
specific conditions are met. These conditions include requiring: (1)
The cylinder to meet the maximum filling density and service pressure
requirements prescribed in the HMR, (2) the shipping paper include the
notation ``DOT-SP 12929'' and a certification that the cylinder was
retested and refilled in accordance with the requirements for export in
the HMR and (3) the emergency response information indicate that the
cylinders are not fitted with PRDs. A copy of this special permit can
be viewed in the docket for this ANPRM.
In this ANPRM, we are considering incorporating the provisions of
SP-12929 into the HMR. We solicit comments on the impacts, if any that
adopting these provisions would have on import and export shipments of
cylinders.
IV. Regulatory Review and Analysis
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This ANPRM
This ANPRM is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b),
which authorizes the Secretary to ``prescribe regulations for the safe
transportation, including security, of hazardous material in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' Section 5117(a)
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit
exempting compliance with a regulation prescribed in Sec. Sec.
5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 ``to a person transporting, or causing to
be transported, hazardous material in a way that achieves a safety
level at least equal to the safety level required under [the Federal
hazmat law], or consistent with the public interest * * * if a required
safety level does not exist.'' The issues described in this ANPRM
respond to ten outstanding petitions for rulemaking and would
incorporate into the HMR three special permits with an established
history of safety.
B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This ANPRM is not considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The ANPRM is not considered a significant rule under the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the Department of
Transportation [44 FR 11034].
Executive Order 13563 is ``supplemental to and reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.''
In addition, Executive Order 13563 specifically requires agencies to:
(1) Involve the public in the regulatory process; (2) promote
simplification and harmonization through interagency coordination; (3)
``identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility;'' (4) ensure the objectivity of any scientific or
technological information used to support regulatory action; and (5)
consider how to best promote retrospective analysis to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
PHMSA has involved the public in the regulatory process in a
variety of ways. First, in this ANPRM, PHMSA is addressing issues
identified for possible future rulemaking in letters of interpretation
and other correspondence submitted to PHMSA by the regulated community
and other stakeholders. Overall, the issues discussed in this ANPRM
promote the continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while
producing a net benefit. PHMSA is responding to ten petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the compressed gas industry in accordance with
49 CFR 106.95 and is considering incorporating the provisions of three
special permits.
These petitions clarify the existing regulatory text in the HMR,
incorporate widely-used industry publications and address specific
safety concerns, thus enhancing the safe transportation of compressed
gases while limiting the impact on the regulated community.
Incorporating the provisions of special permits into regulations with
general applicability will provide shippers and carriers with
additional flexibility to comply with established safety requirements,
thereby reducing burdens and costs and increasing productivity.
PHMSA requests public comments and feedback on these issues to help
inform its determination in how to address the issues presented in this
ANPRM.
C. Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that may have a substantial, direct effect on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We invite state and local governments with an interest in
the issues presented in this ANPRM to comment on the effect that
adoption of specific proposals may have on state or local governments.
D. Executive Order 13175
This ANPRM was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''. Because this ANPRM does
not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a
tribal summary impact statement is not required. We invite Indian
tribal governments to provide comments on the effect that adoption of
specific proposals may have on Indian communities.
[[Page 31560]]
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Procedures and Policies
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities.
An agency must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it
determines and certifies that a rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601. Accordingly, DOT policy
requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small
entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse
effects on these businesses. Section 603(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires an analysis of the possible impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, including reasons for the proposed
action, the objectives of the proposed rule, an estimate of the number
of small entities affected and alternative proposals considered. Such
analysis for this ANPRM is as follows:
Need for the ANPRM. Current requirements for the manufacture, use,
and requalification of cylinders can be traced to standards first
applied in the early 1900s. Over the years, the regulations have been
revised to reflect advancements in transportation efficiency and
changes in the national and international economic environment. This
ANPRM is part of a retrospective analysis to modify and streamline
existing requirements that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or
excessively burdensome.
Description of action. This ANPRM considers incorporating the
provisions of three special permits, responds to ten petitions for
rulemaking, considers clarifying other requirements in the HMR, and
addresses areas of concern that are currently not addressed in the HMR.
The amendments discussed in this ANPRM are designed to facilitate
international transportation, increase flexibility for the regulated
community and promote technological advancement while maintaining a
comparable level of safety.
Identification of potentially affected small entities. The
amendments considered here are likely to affect cylinder manufacturers
(NAICS code 332420; approximately 568 companies), cylinder
requalifiers, independent inspection agencies, and commercial
establishments that own and use DOT specification cylinders and UN
pressure receptacles, as well as individuals who export non-UN/ISO
compressed gas cylinders (NAICS codes 32512, 336992, 423450, 423850,
423990, 454312, 541380). Nearly all of these companies, particularly
cylinder requalification facilities (approximately 5000 companies), are
small entities based on the criteria developed by the Small Business
Administration.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. This ANPRM does not
include any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Related Federal rules and regulations. The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) prescribes requirements for the use,
maintenance, and testing of portable fire extinguishers in 29 CFR
1910.157 and requirements for fixed fire suppression systems in 29 CFR
1910.160. The issues discussed in this ANPRM pertaining to the
transportation of fire extinguishers and compressed gas cylinders that
are a component of a fixed fire suppression system do not conflict with
the requirements in 29 CFR. With respect to the transportation of
compressed gases in cylinders, there are no related rules or
regulations issued by other departments or agencies of the Federal
government.
Alternate proposals for small business. Certain regulatory actions
may affect the competitive situation of an individual company or group
of companies by imposing relatively greater burdens on small, rather
than large, enterprises. PHMSA requests comments from small entities on
the impacts of these additional requirements.
Conclusion. This ANPRM requests information on a series of
questions which will be used to develop a proposal to amend provisions
of the HMR addressing the manufacture, maintenance and use of
cylinders. PHMSA anticipates that this ANPRM will generally reduce
burdens for most persons and any costs resulting from adoption of new
requirements will be offset by the benefits derived from elimination of
the need to apply for special permits, increased regulatory
flexibility, and the improved safety derived from enhanced compliance
with the clarified portions of the HMR. Since there are no specific
proposals in this ANPRM, there are no costs to be evaluated. If your
business or organization is a small entity and if adoption of proposals
contained in this ANPRM could have a significant economic impact on
your operations, please submit a comment to explain how and to what
extent your business or organization could be affected.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This ANPRM does not impose new information collection requirements.
Depending on the results of our request for comments to this ANPRM, a
decrease may result in the annual burden and costs under OMB proposed
changes to incorporate provisions contained in certain widely used or
longstanding special permits that have an established safety record.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection
and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and
maintaining these requirements for approval under this ANPRM.
Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM. We must receive comments regarding
information collection burdens prior to the close of the comment period
identified in the DATES section of this ANPRM.
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This ANPRM does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3
million or more to either state, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. Further, in
compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, PHMSA will
evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent
stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector.
I. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the
consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement
on actions that significantly affect the quality of the
[[Page 31561]]
human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations require federal agencies to conduct an environmental review
considering: (1) The need for the proposed action; (2) alternatives to
the proposed action; (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives; and (4) the agencies and persons consulted
during the consideration process.
Description of Action
This ANPRM responds to ten petitions for rulemaking submitted by
the regulated community and seeks comment on incorporating the
provisions of three special permits. These issues discussed in this
ANPRM would, if eventually adopted, update and expand the use of
currently authorized industry consensus standards, revise the
construction, marking and testing requirements of DOT-4 series
cylinders, clarify the filling requirements for cylinders, discuss the
handling of cylinders used in fire suppression systems, and revise the
requalification and condemnation requirements for cylinders.
Amendments to the HMR discussed in this ANPRM:
Replace the currently incorporated 7th edition of the
Compressed Gas Association's (CGA) publication C-6 Standards for Visual
Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders with the revised 10th
edition and update the appropriate references throughout the HMR.
Revise the manufacturing requirements for certain DOT-4
series cylinders.
Revise the requirements for the requalification of DOT
specification cylinders by the volumetric expansion method found in
Part 180 Subpart C.
Allow the use of the labels described in the 8th edition
of CGA's publication C-7 Guide to the Preparation of Precautionary
Labeling and Marking of Compressed Gas Containers (currently
incorporated by reference in the HMR) Appendix A on cylinders contained
in overpacks.
Require manufacturers to mark newly-manufactured cylinders
suitable for the transport of liquefied compressed gas to be marked
with the mass weight, tare weight and water capacity.
Allow non-specification cylinders used in a fixed fire
suppression system to be transported under the same exceptions as those
provided for fire extinguishers.
Increase maximum allowable filling density for carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide consistent with the UN Model Regulations.
Permit use of the OVERPACK marking for cylinders packed in
accordance with Sec. 173.301(a)(9).
Clarify filling limits for a liquefied compressed gas in a
manifold or a multiple element gas container (MEGC).
Harmonize the pressure relief device tolerances for DOT 39
cylinders transporting oxidizing gases by aircraft with the 12th
edition of CGA's publication S-1.1 Pressure Relief Device Standards--
Part 1--Cylinders for Compressed Gases.
Incorporate into the HMR the requirements of DOT Special
Permit (SP) 13318 that authorizes DOT specification 39 cylinders of 75
cubic inches or less volume to be transported without the pressure
relief device being in direct communication with the vapor space of the
cylinders.
Clarify the requirements for filling non-specification
cylinders for export or for use on board a vessel.
Alternatives Considered
Alternative (1): Do nothing
Our goal is to update, clarify and provide relief from certain
existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation
practices, eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements, and
facilitate international commerce. We rejected the do-nothing
alternative.
Alternative (2): Publish an ANPRM seeking public comment on the
issues raised in 10 petitions for rulemaking and the incorporation of 3
special permits. Subsequently, review the comments received on the
amendments described in this ANPRM and their potential economic and
safety implications. If deemed necessary, PHMSA will use these comments
to craft more specific proposals which will be published in a notice of
proposed rulemaking. This is the selected alternative.
Environmental Consequences
Hazardous materials are substances that may pose a threat to public
safety or the environment during transportation because of their
physical, chemical, or nuclear properties. The hazardous materials
regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention
oriented and focused on identifying a safety hazard and reducing the
probability and quantity of a hazardous material release. Hazardous
materials are categorized by hazard analysis and experience into hazard
classes and packing groups. The regulations require each shipper to
classify a material in accordance with these hazard classes and packing
groups. The process of classifying a hazardous material is itself a
form of hazard analysis. Further, the regulations require the shipper
to communicate a material's hazards through use of the hazard class,
packing group, and proper shipping name on the shipping paper and the
use of labels on packages and placards on transport vehicles. Thus, the
shipping paper, labels, and placards communicate the most significant
findings of the shipper's hazard analysis. A hazardous material is
assigned to one of three packing groups based upon its degree of
hazard, from a high hazard, Packing Group I to a low hazard, Packing
Group III material. The quality, damage resistance, and performance
standards of the packaging in each packing group are appropriate for
the hazards of the material transported.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are transported by aircraft,
vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or
contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved
in accidents or en route incidents resulting from cargo shifts, valve
failures, package failures, loading, unloading, collisions, handling
problems, or deliberate sabotage. The release of hazardous materials
can cause the loss of ecological resources (e.g. wildlife habitats) and
the contamination of air, aquatic environments, and soil. Contamination
of soil can lead to the contamination of ground water. Compliance with
the HMR substantially reduces the possibility of accidental release of
hazardous materials. It is anticipated that the petitions and special
permits discussed in this ANPRM, if adopted in a future rulemaking,
would have minimal, if any, environmental consequences. PHMSA will more
thoroughly examine the extent of the environmental impacts of the
petitions and special permits discussed in this ANPRM should these
issues be proposed in a future rulemaking.
Agencies Consulted
Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
National Institute of Standards and Technology;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Conclusion
PHMSA has conducted a technical review of the amendments discussed
in this ANPRM and determined that the amendments considered would
provide protection against overfilling and where a proposal would
remove restrictions these revisions are based on sound
[[Page 31562]]
scientific methods and would not result in unusual stresses on the
cylinder or adversely impact human health or the environment. PHMSA
welcomes any data or information related to environmental impacts, both
positive and negative, that may result from a future rulemaking
addressing the issues discussed in this ANPRM.
J. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or at https://www.regulations.gov.
K. International Trade Analysis
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. PHMSA
notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and
has assessed the effects of this ANPRM to ensure that it does not
exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, this ANPRM is
not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-12832 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P