AGENCY:

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule reduces undue regulatory burdens by eliminating or replacing various rail transportation requirements that are either obsolete, overly burdensome, or conflict with other requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

DATES:

This final rule is effective September 3, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Wolcott, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, 202-366-8553, alexander.wolcott@dot.gov.

I. PHMSA Action

A. What action is PHMSA taking in this final rule?

PHMSA is making several revisions to 49 CFR parts 171 and 174 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to eliminate or replace various rail requirements that are either obsolete, overly burdensome, or conflict with other requirements.

In Section 171.7, PHMSA is removing references to several outdated publications issued by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Bureau of Explosives (BOE). Many of these publications have not been updated in decades and are no longer relevant to the Nation's modern supply chain. PHMSA is removing these obsolete publications from the table and making other conforming changes to §§  174.55, 174.101, 174.112, 174.115, and 174.290 to remove subsequent references to the same publications.

In Section 174.200, PHMSA is deleting outdated requirements for rail carrier reporting to the AAR BOE. PHMSA finds removing these outdated reporting requirements would not adversely impact safety because rail carriers would still be able to make a determination that local conditions make the acceptance, transportation, or delivery of hazardous materials unusually hazardous.

In Section 174.67, PHMSA is removing certain outdated and unnecessary requirements from §  174.67, including removing the references to dirt and cinders in paragraph (b), amending paragraph (d) to provide flexibility in protecting open tank cars during transloading, and removing paragraph (n) because it is redundant with §  174.57.

B. Does this action apply to me?

Effective 30 days after publication of this final rule, PHMSA is making revisions to 49 CFR 171.7, 174.20, 174.55, 174.67, 174.101, 174.112, 174.115 and 174.290 that will eliminate or replace outdated and obsolete regulations that apply to rail offerors and carriers.

C. Why is PHMSA taking this action?

PHMSA is taking this action in response to commenter feedback and to eliminate or replace outdated rail requirements found in parts 171 and 174 of the HMR. PHMSA has determined that these changes will not have any adverse impact on safety as technological advances in the rail industry over the last 50 years have rendered them obsolete.

II. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), cited as HM-268K, to gather feedback on eliminating or replacing various rail transportation requirements that are either obsolete, overly burdensome, or ( printed page 49321) conflict with other requirements in the HMR.^[1] Please refer to the NPRM for additional background and discussion of the proposed changes.

The following table alphabetically lists commenters to the NPRM:

PHMSA received four sets of comments in response to the NPRM, including positive comments from IME and DGAC. Specifically, IME noted that it supports the proposals, and that it participated in the Railway Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) meeting that found the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Bureau of Explosives (BOE) reporting requirements could be eliminated without any reduction in safety. IME also noted that many of the publications discussed in this rulemaking have not been updated in decades and are no longer relevant to the modern transportation supply chain. DGAC also supported these revisions, stating that continuing to include obsolete references or requirements in the HMR risks causing misinterpretation and confusion for the regulated community, which should of course be avoided when possible.

However, some commenters had questions or concerns about the NPRM as discussed below.

A. Comments on American Association of Railroads (AAR) Bureau of Explosives (BOE) Reporting

PHMSA received comments from SMART-TD and the BLET opposing the removal of the AAR BOE reporting requirement in 49 CFR 174.20. SMART-TD asserts that railroads should not be allowed unchecked discretion, stating that rail carriers operate as “profit-at-all-cost enterprises” rather than safety agencies. SMART-TD further states that, in many instances, rail carriers have a much higher risk tolerance than other groups, such as labor unions, emergency responders, and independent safety experts. This includes decisions regarding moving hazardous materials through extreme weather or in heavier and longer trains. Finally, SMART-TD states that removing the AAR BOE reporting requirement would be a step backward for transparency, leaving workers, regulators, and the public blind to critical safety decisions.

BLET also submitted comments opposing the removal of the AAR BOE reporting requirements, refuting PHMSA's claim that the RSAC consensus recommendations from May 25, 2017 included the removal of 49 CFR 174.20. BLET is also concerned that if the AAR BOE is not receiving these reports and there is no other organization taking that role, then there will be no way to document rail cars containing hazardous materials that should not be accepted or transported by the railroads.

PHMSA appreciates the commenters' insights into this topic; however, they are based on a misunderstanding of the requirements in 49 CFR 174.20. The commenters argued that removing 49 CFR 174.20 would reduce safety by allowing railroads unchecked discretion to operate during unsafe conditions. PHMSA disagrees. The existing text of 49 CFR 174.20 permits—but does not mandate—railroads to implement local or carrier restrictions when transportation is deemed unusually hazardous. Consequently, the implementation of such restrictions, and thus when such restrictions must be reported, is already entirely within the discretion of the railroads. Therefore, removing 49 CFR 174.20 will not alter the railroads' authority or decision-making processes regarding local or carrier restrictions.

Regarding transparency, the requirements in 49 CFR 174.20 have remained virtually unchanged since at least 1949. There will no longer be any official record of railroads utilizing their discretion to implement restrictions, but this reporting requirement has outlived its utility and been made obsolete by modern technology. This regulation was conceived well before the development of modern communication networks. Today, railroads are more than capable of communicating their internal restrictions between offerors and other carriers without the need of a third-party to publish the restrictions. Furthermore, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have not relied on this data in recent memory, nor is the agency aware of any other entity that relies on this data.

Finally, in response to claims that the May 25, 2017 RSAC recommendations did not include the removal of 49 CFR 174.20, PHMSA and FRA reviewed the record and confirmed that the committee clearly recommended the removal of this section. The recommendation is found on page 16 of the document titled Hazardous Materials Working Group Task 15-04 Proposed Regulatory Text.^[2] PHSMA has added a copy of the document to the rulemaking docket. Accordingly, PHMSA is removing 49 CFR 174.20 as proposed.

B. Comments on Removal of Documents Not Incorporated by Reference

PHMSA received comments from SMART-TD opposing the removal of various AAR BOE standards from the Materials Not Incorporated by Reference listed in 49 CFR 171.7. SMART-TD argued that, while these standards are dated, PHMSA should not remove the standards without providing replacements. Specifically, SMART-TD noted that one of the standards proposed for removal, Emergency Handling of Hazardous Materials in Surface Transportation, was the reference used by the crew of the train that derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. SMART-TD further stated that this standard is the reason that the crew properly determined the evacuation zone for the exact chemical their train was spilling, which protected the crew and the surrounding communities.

PHMSA is removing these references because they are either optional or obsolete. Most of these documents are cited only as non-mandatory examples of loading practices. Only two exceptions exist: Pamphlet 6A, which is an optional standard for certain munitions, and the 1989 Emergency Handling guide that has been replaced by the modern Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG). Since these documents no longer provide unique, mandatory regulatory value, their removal will not impact safety standards. Therefore, PHMSA is ( printed page 49322) removing the documents not incorporated by reference as proposed.

C. Comments on Transloading Requirements

SMART-TD opposed the proposed change to 49 CFR 174.67 regarding tank car unloading. SMART-TD argued that PHMSA has downplayed the significance of the section, and that relaxing transloading standards would disproportionately increase the risk of major incidents, particularly in areas where local responders may be ill equipped to handle them.

PHMSA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the proposed language relaxes the transloading standards. PHMSA is not removing safety requirements. PHMSA is modernizing outdated terminology to allow for more effective safety measures. First, in paragraph (b), PHMSA proposed to replace the mention of “cinders” and “dirt” and to instead simply use the word “debris,” because the modern railroad industry has long since stopped relying on coal-fired steam locomotives. This revision keeps in place the requirement to keep the area around the manhole covers clear from any kind of debris, rather than it being limited to just cinders and dirt. Similarly, in paragraph (d), PHMSA proposed to remove the mention of asbestos, metal, or burlap covers to protect against sparks, and to replace the language with a general requirement to protect the manhole opening from sparks when unloading. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, paragraph (n) was removed entirely because it was redundant to the language in 49 CFR 174.57. Therefore, PHMSA is making the revisions to 49 CFR 174.67 as proposed.

III. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Legal Authority

This final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation as set forth in the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97.

B. Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review), as implemented by 49 CFR part 5, subpart B, requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” ^[3] In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” Pursuant to 49 CFR part 5, subpart B, PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need. In addition, 49 CFR part 5, subpart B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.”

E.O. 12866 and 49 CFR part 5, subpart B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866 and has not been designated as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by 49 CFR part 5, subpart B and determined that this final rule will result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for the railroad industry. PHMSA estimates that cost savings will focus on those related to removing unnecessary reporting requirements. PHMSA finds those cost savings will result in reduced costs for public to whom those entities generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs.

These changes amend requirements in the HMR that are either obsolete or unnecessarily burdensome. These changes, including the removal of outdated recommended industry standards, outdated reporting to the AAR BOE, and removal of the requirement to cover exposed manhole covers with asbestos when loading, will not impose any new direct costs on the rail industry or Federal regulatory agencies. The revision will expand regulatory flexibility by being less prescriptive on how open tank car manhole covers are protected and reduces reporting burden by removing the outdated AAR BOE reporting requirements. As a result, PHMSA finds this final rule will impose no new compliance, implementation, or oversight burdens.

C. Executive Orders 14192 and 14219

PHMSA has determined that this final rule is an E.O. 14192 ( Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation ) deregulatory action.^[4] PHMSA finds the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. This final rule does not implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 ( Ensuring Lawful Governance ) indicative of a regulation that is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” ^[5]

D. Energy-Related Executive Orders 13211, 14154, and 14156

PHMSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 14156 ( Declaring a National Energy Emergency) and E.O. 14154 ( Unleashing American Energy ).^[6] The President has declared a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity and asserted a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuring access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from, inter alia, the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources. PHMSA finds this final rule to be consistent with E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154 because it will not hinder or unduly burden the transportation or production of energy or energy-related products.

In addition, this final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 ( Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” ^[7] Because this final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; accordingly, OIRA has not designated this final rule as a significant energy action.

( printed page 49323)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

PHMSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 ( Federalism) and the Presidential Memorandum ( Preemption) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009.^[8] 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 “substantial direct effects 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.” The Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws contain an express preemption provision at 49 U.S.C. 5125(b) that preempts State, local, and Tribal requirements on certain covered subjects, unless the non-Federal requirements are “substantively the same” as the Federal requirements, including the following:

(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;

(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;

(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and

(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, inspection, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.

This final rule addresses items covered in Paragraph 2 above and will preempt State, local, and Tribal requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Though the final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule that has been subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the final rule in the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 ( Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking ) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.^[9] DOT posts information on a dedicated web page to help small businesses understand and navigate Federal regulatory processes.^[10] This final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because the final rule is expected to reduce burdens, PHMSA certifies it does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, among other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

PHMSA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Under Section 9 of DOT Order 5610.1D, PHMSA may apply a categorical exclusion (CE) established in another Operating Administration's procedures. PHMSA followed the requirements outlined in DOT Order 5610.1D to apply the Federal Highway Administration's CE to this deregulatory action. PHMSA has determined no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b). PHMSA's Categorical Exclusion Determination memo for this action is available on PHMSA's website.^[11]

I. Executive Order 13175

PHMSA analyzed this final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 ( Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) and DOT Order 5301.1A ( Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures ).^[12] E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. PHMSA has analyzed this final rule and will revise the approved information collections under the following OMB Control Numbers: OMB Control No. 2137-0559, ( printed page 49324) Rail Carrier and Tank Car Tanks Requirements, Rail Tank Car Tanks—Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail. This final rule removes 49 CFR 174.20(b), which requires reporting to the AAR BOE regarding any restrictions over any portion of its lines. PHMSA addressed the comments to the removal of this information collection in Section II of this final rule. PHMSA currently accounts for 34 offerors submitting 1.5 reports a year. Each report takes 20 minutes resulting in a reduction of 17 hours of annual burden.

Please direct your requests for a copy of this information collection to Steven Andrews, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

E.O. 13609 ( Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation ) requires agencies to consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally.^[13] In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, 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. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude 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 engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

L. Cybersecurity and Executive Order 14028

E.O. 14028 ( Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity ) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, to deter, and to respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” ^[14] PHMSA has considered the effects of the final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments would not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for affected entities.

M. Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/​privacy. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, or on DOT's website at https://www.dot.gov/​privacy.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR Chapter I as follows: